# Martial Arts History & Influences



## Chris Parker (Oct 29, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> Chris Parker - Thanks for your answer. I wasn't sure on that. Any idea how much the Japanese borrowed from Chinese or Korean MA prior to the dates you have given? Not that it matters much, especially in light of a tendancy of many countries (and not just oriental) to show themselves as inventors of good things centuries before others, but just curious.  Your point is well taken as to the main weapons on the battlefield.  But I always thought unarmed tactics were probably taught at least to battlefiend leaders, as well as foot soldiers, for those times when they might lose a weapon in an opponent or have it struck from their hands.



Hmm. This is probably not the right forum for me to say what I'm about to say, but the question was asked, so I feel obligated to answer it.

I have never seen anything at all that I would class as a native Korean martial art. At all. There aren't any, they are all borrowed from other cultures, with varying degrees of success (Hapkido and Tae Kwon Do being some of the more successful), Each of these borrowed arts gets a degree of "Korean flavour", but that doesn't make them natively Korean arts. 

So when it comes to Japanese borrowing from the Koreans? None at all. Very much the other way around, actually. And, I have to say, that is a very sore point with the Koreans, as the reason the Japanese methods are so big (as well as certain Chinese methods) is that the Japanese had a very nasty habit of, when they were bored, sailing over to Korea and occupying it. As this went on over a century or so, the native Korean martial traditions were basically replaced by the Japanese ones. Essentially, Korea suffers badly from a lack of a sense of individual culture, and the cultural response seems to be to explain the similarities with the Korean culture to those around it as "well, they stole that from us". Sadly, that doesn't pass muster.

Japan borrowing from China? Small examples, once we get past the 8th and 9th Century. Up to that point, China was seen as the cradle and shining example of culture, and the Japanese social and court structure was modelled on the Chinese, to the point that the Japanese basically copied the Chinese written language and applied it to their own spoken one. As a result, to this day written Japanese characters tend to have at least two pronunciations, on'yomi (written sound) and kun'yomi (native sound). The kun'yomi pronunciation is the way the Japanese word for that concept is pronounced, with the on'yomi being the way they thought the Chinese pronounced the term. Some good examples are the terms for swords, actually, with this character &#20992; (blade, usually used to refer to a knife or sword) being pronounced with kun'yomi as "Katana", and on'yomi as "To"... the Chinese pronunciation is "Dao". Alternately, the character &#21091; (sword) is pronounced with a kun'yomi as "Tsurugi", but the more common pronunciation is the on'yomi "Ken". The Chinese is "Jian". Lastly, the character &#36947; (path, or way) is pronounced "Michi" (kun'yomi) or "Do" (on'yomi), with the Chinese being "Tao". The specific pronunciation depends on the context, so &#36947; can be pronounced with the kun'yomi of "michi" to refer to a street, or as "do" in a more "way of..." approach, giving Kendo as &#21091;&#36947;, although just on reading it could just as easily be Tsurugi Michi "Street sword".

Once we got into the Heian period, the Japanese culture started to develop away from the Chinese example, although the higher levels of culture still looked to China, including the requirement to be considered refined and educated including the reading of the 5 Chinese Classics (including Sun Tzu's Art of War, the I Ching, and the Tao de Ching). There were other influences as time went on, such as the Akiyama Yoshin lineage of Jujutsu systems originating when a doctor, Akiyama, went to China, and learnt a form of Kenpo (Chuan Fa) there, bringing three techniques (kata - note, though, this is kata in the traditional Japanese form, a two person combative scenario) back with him. These three kata became the foundation of his new system, and this Chinese influence are an indication as to why the Akiyama Yoshin lines feature a higher emphasis on striking than many other systems. The Japanese side comes through in the equally high emphasis on throwing methods.

Chinese martial arts have been a much higher influence on the martial arts of Okinawa than on those of Japan, with many karate systems tracing themselves back to Chinese systems, such as White Crane. This again explains the higher emphasis on striking in karate systems as compared to "typical" jujutsu systems.

When it comes to who would have learnt it, that's a big discussion. I am personally of the opinion that martial arts, as a whole, were not really learnt by the footsoldiers, for a number of reasons. As to giving them unarmed combat training, that would be a waste of time, really. They were given a spear, taught basic thrusts, and sent out. If they lost their spear, they had to get past the spear of their opponent, and the level of unarmed skill required for that takes so long to attain that there's no reason to give it to them. When it comes to generals and commanders getting unarmed training, that's closer to the truth, I feel. But even then, not entirely. Yes, the higher ranks would have been about the only ones with the time and wealth to dedicate themselves to such things (note: that's not necessarily just the very high ranking, really just anyone over the footsoldier level, but that again is depending on era... but we'll get to that), and many unarmed systems seem to be more about teaching strategy and tactics that can then be applied on a battlefield through the medium of unarmed waza (techniques), but the core of learning strategy in Japan has always been sword. Add to that the fact that most systems (Takenouchi Ryu excepted) that had a Jujutsu syllabus before the Tokugawa period (1608 onwards) tended to only have a fairly simple, rudimentary form, it just wasn't given a high emphasis, so there's no reason to believe that it was higher level than anything else, or considered more important, and therefore given to the higher ranks only. In fact, it was considered less important, and was a kinda "if you need it, here you go" addition to most systems. Schools such as Kashima Shinryu gradually gave more and more emphasis to this side of things, embellishing and growing their Jujutsu sysllabus as the school entered peacetime. And Takenouchi Ryu, the first "jujutsu" school, when the syllabus is looked at, has most of their Jujutsu including a range of weaponry as well, typically short swords and daggers.

You then also have to look at the stance of the school itself. Katori Shinto Ryu has a tradition of not refusing entry to anyone willing to abide by their rules, and not affiliating themselves with any political faction throughout it's history, meaning that high ranking samurai, and local farmers (if they could afford the time), along with merchants were all welcome to train in the system. Other arts were what were called Otomo Ryu, inside schools of specific domains, pledged to the lord of the area. The most famous examples are Yagyu Shinkage Ryu and Ono-ha Itto Ryu, both of which were the Otomo Ryu of the Tokugawa Shoguns, supplying sword instructors to the Shogun and their sons. In these instances, it wasn't as easy for others to get in to learn the system. Another well known Otomo Ryu was the Shinto Muso Ryu, who kept to themselves quite well, revealing very little about what they did to outsiders for most of their existance (until the late 19th Century, really). Then you have systems like Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, the school of Musashi Miyamoto (which includes some Jujutsu in the higher levels of it's teachings), where there was no affiliation to an area, and Musashi was known to just up and move on occasion, meaning his students had to follow him if they wished to continue to learn. That negates the idea of high ranking generals and lords training there as well.

Finally, you need to look at the surrounding environment, referring to the "human" factor. That means the time and place, culturally speaking. Just saying "Japan" isn't enough, is it a big town, a small village, a fishing village, or made up of farmers? Is it more like Edo (Tokyo), or is it remote? Which Island is it on? As far as time, the period is a huge influence on the development and promotion of the systems. Once we hit the Tokugawa period, many samurai suddenly didn't have much to do (no more wars to keep them occupied - leading to things such as the invasion of the Ryukyu Islands, which was influential on the development of karate), so some took to being police officers (a role formerly taken by ordinary citizens in the area, under the leadership and authority of the samurai and daimyo), others started teaching their martial skills to the public. There was a sudden boom in "commoner's yawara/jujutsu", which was a simplified version designed to be given to the general public. This increased awareness of unarmed combat then forced the more "samurai" systems to deal with a change in the violence that could be encountered in a bar room brawl, so their training adapted as well, similar to the way boxing and MMA have helped shape modern street violence, and modern self defence needing to adapt to handle that. The other influence that time period had on the development and spreading of the jujutsu systems is that, during peacetime, it's safer, and easier to get more creative, so syllabus' tend to grow, becoming more complex, and the unarmed curriculums of many schools did just that. Basically, the more there is to a system, and the more unarmed there is, the more likely it's the result of peacetime development. And this development, with more approaches, more counters, more techniques lead to more students learning longer, which added to the spread of the system outside of the samurai class.

So who learnt these systems depends on who they were, where they were, when we are talking about, and what the system is. Leaders, possibly, footsoldiers, not likely.

With what John has written, I'm not going to go through it, but there are a number of things I'd argue with. Mostly about history and usage of Jujutsu, but it's not important enough to go through here, save one thing. John wrote that *"jujutsu is a technique not necessarily a label of a style of techniques, or a system". *This I absolutely have to disagree with, Jujutsu is a classification of certain approaches to combat, it is not "a technique", it absolutely is a system and a style of techniques. What that system is, and what that style of technique is changes from system to system, as does the naming convention (referring to them as Taijutsu, Goho, Hade, Wa, Yawara, Yawaragei, Koshi no Mawari, Kogusoku, Kumi Uchi, Judo (150 years before Jigoro Kano used the term for his Kodokan system), Te, Gi, Yoroi Kumi Uchi, Torite, and many more, although all are, broadly speaking, Jujutsu).


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 29, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Hmm. This is probably not the right forum for me to say what I'm about to say, but the question was asked, so I feel obligated to answer it.
> 
> I have never seen anything at all that I would class as a native Korean martial art. At all. There aren't any, they are all borrowed from other cultures, with varying degrees of success (Hapkido and Tae Kwon Do being some of the more successful), Each of these borrowed arts gets a degree of "Korean flavour", but that doesn't make them natively Korean arts.
> 
> ...



Ill speak especially of the Blue Text.
I believe this to be Correct.

My Understanding, is that Tae Kwon-Do, like Kickboxing, and a couple of other Styles; Is a Derivative of Karate.
And My Understanding, is that the Reasoning is that Karate Works. But its Applications and Specifics are extremely subjective.
Furthermore, the Intention goes a long way.

Some Karate are Grappling Heavy, some have next to None.
Some Tae Kwon-Do is Kick Heavy, others are more Hand Focused.
Some Hapkido put on WTF like Gear and Competition Spar, others do not.
Some Aikido do Competitions, most do not.

Its all different Flavors, and Interpritations.

And as such, I think that Tae Kwon-Do, at least as Im Learning it, is an All-Encompassing Archetype of Karate, altered to suit its Purpose at the Time, which was Militaristic.
Again, as Im Learning it. Not as all Forms are.
Some Forms of Tae Kwon-Do are Sport Themed.
Others are somewere inbetween.
Much in the same way, some Karate is built for Military use.
Others nowadays are mostly Sport.
Judo has the same thing. Martial and Sport.
It wouldnt surprise Me if Hapkido ran a similar Dynamic.

Im not stuck in the belief that Korea founded its own Cultures in this - Maybe it did, maybe it didnt.
But whats Pertinent, is what they did with what they took.
The USA is made of so many Cultures from its founding its really not funny. But they take those Influences and Foundations, and adapt them to suit a Purpose.
Kung Fu is another great Example.
Northern Kung Fu.
Southern Kung Fu.
Wushu.
Its all Interpretations of one or more Foundations to meet a different Result.

And furthermore on Topic; Jujutsu is a Methodology. A Foundation.
A Foundation upon which a Form is Placed.
Much in the same way, Karate is a Foundation.
Kenpo was made on that Foundation.
Kickboxing was made on that Foundation.
Taekwondo is a Foundation.
Every Form of Taekwondo is based on that very Foundation, but what is Built on those Foundations is different.
Jujutsu is a Foundation also.
Upon which various Forms of the same Name, sometimes with different Spelling are Born.
Kung Fu is a Foundation. Now, My Kung Fu Knowledge is rusty here, but if Im not mistaken;
Wing Chun is based on that Foundation.
Northern Mantis is based on that Foundation.
Sanshou is based on that Foundation.
Yet they are all different.


Honestly, Im just interested to here your View on this Idealogy, of most Martial Arts being Built upon a Foundation, which may be the Result of a Previous Foundation.
One might say for example, that BJJ is a Foundation that can be Built upon for MMA. Yet BJJ is based on the JJ Foundation. Yet they are still very different. If that makes any sense.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 29, 2011)

Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean by "foundation" here, honestly. If you mean that they all came from somewhere else, and that can be traced similar to the biblical cliche of "such and such begat so and so, so and so begat whatsaname, whatsaname begat whosit, whosit begat thingamebob etc", then that only applies in some things, and not all of them. For example, your Kung Fu ideas are not like that at all, many of the systems are completely unrelated. Wing Chun, for example, comes from the nun Ng Mui who was at the Shaolin Temple, and fled the destruction of it, took a young disciple named Wing Chun, and developed the system for her. So it has a connection to Shaolin forms, but not to other Kung Fu systems.

Honestly, if you're saying that the foundation is the base, and the various systems (interpretations of that art, say, karate as a base, with Shotokan, Goju, Wado, Naha-te, Shorin, etc coming from this universal "karate" base), then no. In pretty much every case you cite, that's rather inaccurate, most especially when it comes to jujutsu and kung fu.

When it comes to things like BJJ, it's sometimes said that BJJ stands for "basically just judo"... not built on jujutsu, but an interpretation of judo itself (just given a "Brazilian flavour", as it were). It's the same with the Korean arts, TKD, TSD etc are basically forms of karate with a Korean flavour, Kumdo is Kendo, Yudo is Judo, Hapkido is basically Daito Ryu/Aikido with some combination of TKD-style aspects, depending on the line itself, and so on. They are not 'built on a foundation', so much as 'given a Korean flavour'.


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 29, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean by "foundation" here, honestly. If you mean that they all came from somewhere else, and that can be traced similar to the biblical cliche of "such and such begat so and so, so and so begat whatsaname, whatsaname begat whosit, whosit begat thingamebob etc", then that only applies in some things, and not all of them. For example, your Kung Fu ideas are not like that at all, many of the systems are completely unrelated. Wing Chun, for example, comes from the nun Ng Mui who was at the Shaolin Temple, and fled the destruction of it, took a young disciple named Wing Chun, and developed the system for her. So it has a connection to Shaolin forms, but not to other Kung Fu systems.
> 
> *Yeah, My Kung Fu Knowledge is rusty.
> By Foundation, I literally mean Foundation. Like, a House is a Foundation, then the Building upon it.
> ...



Logics, would do well to expand.
Push and Pull with the Hands, whilst keeping the Shoulders Squared, would be My First Example.
Ive seen this in some Chinese Arts as well, but most prolifically in Karate. Could it not be said then, that that is a part of the Foundation of Karate, like the Forward Stance? And thusly that the Majority of these such things make up Karate as a Foundation, which would make TKD the Structure Built upon that Foundation?

EDIT: And thusly, different Forms of Karate being different Interpritations, Alterations, Refinements, (Whatever a Word for Includes some things but not Others would be); And therefore be Forms of Karate build upon the Foundation of Karate?


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 29, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> With what John has written, I'm not going to go through it, but there are a number of things I'd argue with. Mostly about history and usage of Jujutsu, but it's not important enough to go through here, save one thing. John wrote that *"jujutsu is a technique not necessarily a label of a style of techniques, or a system". *This I absolutely have to disagree with, Jujutsu is a classification of certain approaches to combat, it is not "a technique", it absolutely is a system and a style of techniques. What that system is, and what that style of technique is changes from system to system, as does the naming convention (referring to them as Taijutsu, Goho, Hade, Wa, Yawara, Yawaragei, Koshi no Mawari, Kogusoku, Kumi Uchi, Judo (150 years before Jigoro Kano used the term for his Kodokan system), Te, Gi, Yoroi Kumi Uchi, Torite, and many more, although all are, broadly speaking, Jujutsu).



I am not an expert on Japanese martial arts history, like most people who practice martial arts here and in Japan. I don't have a vocation to do so, I don't speak or read the language. My interest lies in the mechanics and application, as well as the preservation of my jujutsu skills. Therefore, I don't lay things out in a designed architecture for the process of argumentation.  I am not trying to historically prove an argument. I think sometimes people mis-read that.  This is one of those sometimes. 

When I said, *"jujutsu is a technique not necessarily a label of a style of techniques, or a system" *that was in a context of making jujutsu*synonymous with joint lock. And not the dictionary defination.  Yes, I wrote it a bit clumsily, because I assuming from the context people would understand I wrote. 

*The term "jujutsu" used as is same manner as the English usage of the word wrestling:  _He used wrestling to win the fight and he goes to a wrestling class.  He used jujutsu to win the fight and his goes to a wrestling class.  _So when we speak or use the word jujutsu it is accepted to be a general term, and not necessarily used as a label or a style of techniques denoting or identify a particular group, collection, system of joint manipulation techniques or grappling. Thus, I making the term jujutsu synonymous with the word "joint lock." 

It also is my understanding from the experts in Japanese martial art history, the term _jujutsu _was akin to the way we use the word grappling as an action then later as an umbrella term that covers allot of different grappling disciplines. Similarly, the word wrestling first was synonymous with grappling then later a term that refers to a disciple of different styles and techniques termed as wrestling. Which the term wrestling is still used to mean grappling. The term jujutsu refers to and is synonymous to  grappling or a style of, or specific identifiable techniques, or a system of various techniques.

As you can see, I mean jujutsu as joint lock in this context of the thread that your concern comes from. That it is true that a joint lock is a joint lock is a joint lock, though there are different approaches and philosophies to joint locks. That is what I was getting at, and not making a historical statement.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 29, 2011)

I'm not big into the history of martial arts, I can't speak eloquently on masters, styles etc etc but I used to train Wado Ryu until the club closed down, I went to Tang Soo Do because that was available. The TSD books go on about how it's an ancient Korean art but the reason I progressed so quickly through the ranks of it is because it was so similiar to Wado (and Shotokan) it's patterns are virtually the same as those in Wado and Shotokan with some of the more difficult bits taken out and the addition of a random kick now and again, even the names of the patterns/hyungs are distinctly simliar to the Japanese. 
Tang Soo Do is a direct copy of Wado Ryu/Shotokan karate, not an ancient Korean style. Now where those karate styles come from I'll leave you guys to argue!


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 29, 2011)

Tez3 you make a good point. If am reading you correctly, it's my Americanism that could be the flaw, and take full responsibility for that.  I don't think you need to be a walking wikipedia to tell you the connections (nothing wrong with being a walking wikipedia or a.k.a. an history nerd). But your experience and observations of similarities are valid and sufficient for most purposes most of us have in martial arts. If someone cares to pursue the historical background that is great. But, I think the problem with great historical pursuit leads to finding out history is subjected to interpretation sprinkled with some fact. Then the arguments pursue over whose interpretation will dominate and be held up as what "really" happened or what "really" was. A King of the Hill game. 

I generalize that all the striking arts of China, Japan, and Korea are related. That they all are related to the fighting systems of India. So that when I go to any of these arts there will be similarities.  For grappling arts I look at it the same connections, but credit China and not India for the point of origin of influence. That way again if I go to a Korean or Chinese grappling art I can expect to find similarities. I think, for me, beyond that, because an area of argumentation over research. An area, argumentation of deep history, is not my expertise.


----------



## Jenna (Oct 29, 2011)

OK listen up!  I would like to settle any confusion some of you seem to be having.  MY art was the VVFMA - the Very Very First Martial Art.  Wikipedia my ****.  I know this for a _proper _fact because it was channelled to me through my spirit guide.  He was the very very first martial artist nomadic of the Indus Valley region some 5000 years ago - contextually, that was before there were even televisions, ok?  Or probably even words.  They probably just had pictures.  And spirit guides in training.  Anyway, without wanting to sound as if I am PONTIFICATING or anything, all of your other so-called martial arts have been borne of mine.  So like just shut up about them ok?

Even if some of yous are NOT interested in the history or lineage of your art, please, have a bit of respect, yes? When you next execute a technique, I want you to reference it against JRJ (JennaRyuJutsu) for that was the very very inception of what you call martial art these days, though 5000 years ago it was probably called something else.  Probably in another language and stuff.  Or maybe it was a painting on a wall.  In a cave.  Basically I do not want any of you all to be practicing your art in isolation.  

That would be like having an egg for breakfast without meditating on the chicken! Pffft.. 

I mean, why would you want to perform your Karate kata without referencing the VVFMA that started it all, 5000 years ago: JRJ?  That would be like just totally odd.  When you are locked down in a rear naked choke, pause awhile before you tap out or pass out and consider where it all began, in the Bronze Age Indus Valley.  To do otherwise would be to NOT appreciate martial arts as a whole.  And that would be disrespectful. OK?


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 29, 2011)

:whip:Yes...Ma'am.


----------



## chinto (Oct 29, 2011)

the history of your art does have a real effect on it.  just look at the ready stances for say Aikido, and Okinawan Karate.  also look at the preferred outcome of an altercation that is traditionally called for.   in aikido you stand in tenkan and offer a target. ( this is a some what aggressive stance compared to the ready stance of karate.) In Okinawan karate you stand in hachigi stance, a very in-aggressive looking stance.  why? because a fight when karate was being developed was normally to the death. you may be facing a pirate or a satsuma samurai. Either was not going to let you live, and provably not your family or even village depending on the circumstances.  Aikido was developed in the 20th century.  does this mean you can not find ways to kill with it?  no, but the desired outcome is usually considered to be non lethal, and just as efficient.  I would submit that while both will do some blending, a lot of taisabaki, and locks and throws as well as blows, karate looks to end it quicker and more permanently then aikido because of history.  ( I study both arts by the way. )   so yes history matters. some have more influence from some sources then others. The influences are important, as is where and when.  look into the linage and history of your art, you may learn some very valuable things that way.


----------



## Mark Lynn (Oct 29, 2011)

I do believe t is important to know the history of the martial arts or at least the art you are studying to a degree.  I don't think it matters how far back in the past you can trace your art, unless you are concerned with keeping it pure for historical purposes.  But I do think it helps to gain a deeper understanding of your art if you know it's recent history, or it's general history in the last 50-100years.  Lets face it most of the main/most common martial arts that we know of today are really between 50-150 years old.  Old Karate in Okinawa dates back about 100+ years, karate in Japan what 90 years or so, karate in England and America 60+ years maybe.  TKD is what 60-70 years old, 60 years in America and so on.  Judo in America is what 100 years and England is about the same.

I know there are older arts and I'm speaking in general terms, but the point is they are relatively young and there are first or second generation students who are still around who can give in site into the principles or the art, intentions of the founders of the systems, in site into training methods, provide historical context behind the techniques of the art and so on.  I believe this is important.

Take Aikido for example: Ueshiba sensei studies aikijutsu and then creates his own system that was his expression of his religious beliefs.  With a goal to help people feel better about themselves and with others.  I believe it is important to know and understand the history because I believe it sheds light on why they do techniques they way they do.  Likewise if a system deviates from those techniques or teachings (still teaching Aikido but not pure Ueshiba Aikido), it is helpful to know why what are the reasons the founder or creator of the sub system teach differently than the "pure" system.

Take Wado ryu, it is important (to a degree) how and why it was founded and why Otsuka split from Shotokan.  Because it impacts why they do what they do and the differences between the styles.

Take Tae Kwon Do:  If you look at it's history you need not go back hundreds/thousands of years but rather 60-70 to the 1940s-50s to see that it does have Japanese karate as it's roots.  Tracing the lineage back I think helps explain why, as Tez3 brought out, his Japanese (Wado) katas were very similar to his Tang Soo Do forms, or why whole sections of the ITF forms appear to be lifted and rearranged out of the Japanese Shotokan katas.  However looking into it's history in the 1970's shows why things yet again changed to the new walking type patterns and the Olympic style TKD.

If you study applications of your kata moves (bunkai) then knowing when and how or what context the katas were made does make a difference.  Take the TKD ITF forms if movements from Shotokan katas where lifted and altered to give it a "Korean" heritage than this would impact the applications of the katas.  But if you look at how long the founder of the ITF or the original Kwans (schools) studied karate in Japan then you have to wonder "Did they ever study the applications to begin with" and for that matter did the instructors/students in the universities of Japan in the 30s-50s study the applications like the Okinawans did and did they pass it on to the Koreans? Who knows?

In closing how your system was founded, how it was taught, your instructors goals and their methodologies in teaching and so on all relate to how you study or how you teach your current art.  In the years to come the way you do things will be history and your students students students will be wondering how you did things and why.


----------



## mook jong man (Oct 29, 2011)

Wing Chun is thought to be about three hundred years old , it was founded by the Abbess Ng Mui.
She was already well versed in several Kung Fu systems , but she felt that they relied too much on brute strength.
So she streamlined much of the existing knowledge and eliminated any wasted motions and formulated  the Wing Chun martial art.

Wing Chun is unique amongst Chinese Kung Fu in it's method of generating power and overcoming force , it is not based on the movement of animals but based on natural scientific laws and anatomical principles applied to the human body.

It is not concerned with lion dancing , religion , rituals or any other cultural aspects the only thing it is concerned with is fighting .

While it is not one of the most beautiful of the Chinese Kung Fu systems , it is one of the most practical.


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 29, 2011)

Jenna said:


> OK listen up!  I would like to settle any confusion some of you seem to be having.  MY art was the VVFMA - the Very Very First Martial Art.  Wikipedia my ****.  I know this for a _proper _fact because it was channelled to me through my spirit guide.  He was the very very first martial artist nomadic of the Indus Valley region some 5000 years ago - contextually, that was before there were even televisions, ok?  Or probably even words.  They probably just had pictures.  And spirit guides in training.  Anyway, without wanting to sound as if I am PONTIFICATING or anything, all of your other so-called martial arts have been borne of mine.  So like just shut up about them ok?
> 
> Even if some of yous are NOT interested in the history or lineage of your art, please, have a bit of respect, yes? When you next execute a technique, I want you to reference it against JRJ (JennaRyuJutsu) for that was the very very inception of what you call martial art these days, though 5000 years ago it was probably called something else.  Probably in another language and stuff.  Or maybe it was a painting on a wall.  In a cave.  Basically I do not want any of you all to be practicing your art in isolation.
> 
> ...



Lay off the LSD.



In all Seriousness, I see what youre saying.
People place too much Importance on these things.
It can be interesting to know the Dynamics however.

Actually, dont lay off the LSD.
I still smile softly whenever I do an Axe Kick.
Bloody Sumerians.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 30, 2011)

The history of your art only has an effect when it is the history of your art and not a lie. It's clear to me that TSD isn't two thousand years old and is not exactly the same now as it was then as stated in the book I have. I would suggest that the TSD hyungs are similiar to the Wado katas rather than the other way around and this is because the Wado katas are similiar to the Shotokan ones. TSD did not come first and I'm afraid it has very little influence on me, Wado Ryu certainly does however.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 30, 2011)

Right. Those of you that know me might realise that I never actually start any threads, and have a tendancy not to be the one asking questions, and this thread was started with my answering a question in another thread. As a result, I'm not really sure what it's meant to be about.... but we'll see what we can come up with here.



Cyriacus said:


> Yeah, My Kung Fu Knowledge is rusty.
> By Foundation, I literally mean Foundation. Like, a House is a Foundation, then the Building upon it.



Hmm. In a real way, then, no. It just doesn't work that way.



Cyriacus said:


> Could a Foundation for TKD then not be Karate? (> Meaning Leading To) Karate > TKD > Various Forms of TKD.



No, that's too general. "Karate" includes a wide range of systems, ranging from very Chinese systems (most from White Crane, which was the source for the Bubishi, from memory) to some very Okinawan approaches (hard, straight lines, very powerful striking methods, and short, to the point approaches), to modern Japanese and sporting approaches. Add to that the detail that TKD wasn't built on a foundation of karate (Shotokan, primarily), it was a copy of it with a few things, mainly more kicks, added in. It wasn't a "leading to" situation, it was a "copying that" situation.

When it comes to arts coming from other arts, it's never so general as "jujutsu gives judo, aikijutsu gives aikido, kenjutsu gives kendo", as so many books and websites like to simplify. It's a matter of "Tenjin Shinyo Ryu and Kito Ryu Jujutsu gave rise to Judo (Kodokan), with influence from Fusen Ryu and some others, Daito Ryu Aikijutsu gave rise to Aikido, with influence from Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, Kukishin Ryu, and others, Ono-ha Itto Ryu Kenjutsu gave rise to Kendo, with influence from Yagyu Shinkage Ryu and others". And in none of those cases was it a matter of copying, it was an actual development of a new system, distinct and separate from the source school(s).



Cyriacus said:


> Logics, would do well to expand.
> Push and Pull with the Hands, whilst keeping the Shoulders Squared, would be My First Example.
> Ive seen this in some Chinese Arts as well, but most prolifically in Karate. Could it not be said then, that that is a part of the Foundation of Karate, like the Forward Stance? And thusly that the Majority of these such things make up Karate as a Foundation, which would make TKD the Structure Built upon that Foundation?
> 
> EDIT: And thusly, different Forms of Karate being different Interpritations, Alterations, Refinements, (Whatever a Word for Includes some things but not Others would be); And therefore be Forms of Karate build upon the Foundation of Karate?


 
No, that's a fundamental physical expression of most forms of karate, not a foundation for it. Remember, a classification of a type of martial art is, in most cases, a rough guide at best. And there is rarely any universality within that. For example, show a modern, sporting Karate system a video of Goju Ryu's Sanchin Kata, and they'll say "what on earth is that? What's with all the weird breathing and stuff?", whereas you show the same thing to a Chinese practitioner, and they'll say "oh, internal martial arts, very nice!" That doesn't stop the modern sporting system being karate, nor does it make the Goju practitioner a Chinese internal martial artist (although the connection is certainly there).






Then again, if you show them both something like this, they'll both recognise it as Karate (maybe the particular form will be different, the stances that Higoanna Sensei shows are much shorter than, say, Shotokans, but the basic acknowledgement will be there).






And, once more, you show them something like this, and they may say it's karate, or they may say it's not, it's jujutsu:






Wado Ryu is rather odd amongst karate systems, in that it draws from Shotokan as well as Otsuka Sensei's licencing in Shindo Yoshin Ryu Jujutsu, and is sometimes considered more a branch of Shindo Yoshin Ryu than a form of karate... but both classifications actually apply.



JohnEdward said:


> I am not an expert on Japanese martial arts history, like most people who practice martial arts here and in Japan. I don't have a vocation to do so, I don't speak or read the language. My interest lies in the mechanics and application, as well as the preservation of my jujutsu skills. Therefore, I don't lay things out in a designed architecture for the process of argumentation.  I am not trying to historically prove an argument. I think sometimes people mis-read that.  This is one of those sometimes.
> 
> When I said, *"jujutsu is a technique not necessarily a label of a style of techniques, or a system" *that was in a context of making jujutsu*synonymous with joint lock. And not the dictionary defination.  Yes, I wrote it a bit clumsily, because I assuming from the context people would understand I wrote.
> 
> ...


 
The problem is, John, that jujutsu is NOT synonymous with joint locking, which is what I was saying. Jujutsu is a classification, and a pretty broad one at that, which can include joint locking, but doesn't necessarily have to, or have any real emphasis on that skill set. In a lot of armour based systems (such as Yagyu Shingan Ryu) it isn't really emphasised at all, with a preference for striking to weak parts of the armour, and throwing techniques. They have some joint locking, but would rather dump someone on their head. Then again, an art such as Asayama Ichiden Ryu has almost no striking, very little throwing, and relies almost exclusively on three joint locks.. but they refer to their art as "Taijutsu", not "Jujutsu", so does that take it out of the equation? The Takagi lines (Takagi Yoshin Ryu, Hontai Yoshin Ryu, Hontai Takagi Yoshin Ryu etc) feature about an even split between throwing and joint locks, with a pretty good emphasis on chokes as well, so what does that make their use of the term Jujutsu (or Jutaijutsu in one line) synonymous with?

As for jujutsu being used akin to the term grappling, kind of, but not quite the way you're meaning here. It was really more used as a term for unarmed combat, whether sporting in nature, or otherwise. The reason the term refers more to grappling actions is that it developed from a usage where striking was of limited effectiveness. If the types of clothing and armour worn in Japan were closer to those worn in China, "Jujutsu" would probably have been translated as "boxing".

The thing with the term Jujutsu is that it is both a specialised, and a generalised term. As a specialised term, it refers to a specific syllabus and range of techniques within a martial arts curriculum, and the term is used as that school sees fit (no two schools actually mean the same thing when they use the term "Jujutsu".... and most don't even use that term!), whereas when used as a general term, it takes on the meaning of unarmed fighting. And that's about it. Interestingly, though, when used as a specialised term in some schools, it refers to the use of small weapons, rather than unarmed... 

So, er, no, to all of that.



Tez3 said:


> I'm not big into the history of martial arts, I can't speak eloquently on masters, styles etc etc but I used to train Wado Ryu until the club closed down, I went to Tang Soo Do because that was available. The TSD books go on about how it's an ancient Korean art but the reason I progressed so quickly through the ranks of it is because it was so similiar to Wado (and Shotokan) it's patterns are virtually the same as those in Wado and Shotokan with some of the more difficult bits taken out and the addition of a random kick now and again, even the names of the patterns/hyungs are distinctly simliar to the Japanese.
> Tang Soo Do is a direct copy of Wado Ryu/Shotokan karate, not an ancient Korean style. Now where those karate styles come from I'll leave you guys to argue!


 
Yep, this is basically the way it goes down, sad to say. I've had people tell me that the reason the Korean swords look pretty much the same as Japanese ones is that the Japanese copied the Koreans (?).... and the evidence for that would be where?

One of the worst out there is Greg Parks, who goes under the name Choson Ninja, who has spent the last few years trying to convince people that Ninjutsu is really Korean, and, somehow, getting people to believe him!



JohnEdward said:


> Tez3 you make a good point. If am reading you correctly, it's my Americanism that could be the flaw, and take full responsibility for that.  I don't think you need to be a walking wikipedia to tell you the connections (nothing wrong with being a walking wikipedia or a.k.a. an history nerd). But your experience and observations of similarities are valid and sufficient for most purposes most of us have in martial arts. If someone cares to pursue the historical background that is great. But, I think the problem with great historical pursuit leads to finding out history is subjected to interpretation sprinkled with some fact. Then the arguments pursue over whose interpretation will dominate and be held up as what "really" happened or what "really" was. A King of the Hill game.
> 
> I generalize that all the striking arts of China, Japan, and Korea are related. That they all are related to the fighting systems of India. So that when I go to any of these arts there will be similarities.  For grappling arts I look at it the same connections, but credit China and not India for the point of origin of influence. That way again if I go to a Korean or Chinese grappling art I can expect to find similarities. I think, for me, beyond that, because an area of argumentation over research. An area, argumentation of deep history, is not my expertise.


 
Thing is, though, it's not connections between Wado and Tang Soo Do, it's a straight copy. Add to that the "history" put forth by the TSD system completely fails to hold any water. It's like doing a cover of the Beatles "Hey Jude", then saying that your great grandfather actually wrote it in 1856....

Oh, and I'd suggest not generalising that all the striking arts of China, Japan, and Korea are related, because they're not. Nor are they all related to the systems of India. Such generalisations don't help discussion or conversation, as they are blatantly wrong.



Tez3 said:


> The history of your art only has an effect when it is the history of your art and not a lie. It's clear to me that TSD isn't two thousand years old and is not exactly the same now as it was then as stated in the book I have. I would suggest that the TSD hyungs are similiar to the Wado katas rather than the other way around and this is because the Wado katas are similiar to the Shotokan ones. TSD did not come first and I'm afraid it has very little influence on me, Wado Ryu certainly does however.



By having some understanding of what effects the history would have on a system (what methods would be preferred, what stances would be expected, what the social conventions would be, what weaponry would be around, what the common attacks would be like), you can usually get past such obvious fallacies. There are some that require a more practiced eye, such as a group out of Brazil referring to themselves as "Ogawa Ryu", and trying to pass themselves off as a Koryu. They actually fooled a number of Koryu practitioners for a while (there were comments about distancing and so forth not being what would be expected from a Koryu... and yes, it is different to other, modern systems), but not enough to really make people doubt it. It was only when some more research into the entire system was done that it came to light that these guys were basically stealing the kata from a range of Koryu (Katori Shinto Ryu, Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, Yagyu Shingan Ryu, Takenouchi Ryu, and others), and passing it off as their system, while getting some basic things wrong in each of them. That actually took a little while to get to, though.


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 30, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Right. Those of you that know me might realise that I never actually start any threads, and have a tendancy not to be the one asking questions, and this thread was started with my answering a question in another thread. As a result, I'm not really sure what it's meant to be about.... but we'll see what we can come up with here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I understand what Youre saying - I Enjoyed this Conversation.


----------



## Jenna (Oct 30, 2011)

chinto said:


> the history of your art does have a real effect on it.  just look at the ready stances for say Aikido, and Okinawan Karate.  also look at the preferred outcome of an altercation that is traditionally called for.   in aikido you stand in tenkan and offer a target. ( this is a some what aggressive stance compared to the ready stance of karate.) In Okinawan karate you stand in hachigi stance, a very in-aggressive looking stance.  why? because a fight when karate was being developed was normally to the death. you may be facing a pirate or a satsuma samurai. Either was not going to let you live, and provably not your family or even village depending on the circumstances.  Aikido was developed in the 20th century.  does this mean you can not find ways to kill with it?  no, but the desired outcome is usually considered to be non lethal, and just as efficient.  I would submit that while both will do some blending, a lot of taisabaki, and locks and throws as well as blows, karate looks to end it quicker and more permanently then aikido because of history.  ( I study both arts by the way. )   so yes history matters. some have more influence from some sources then others. The influences are important, as is where and when.  look into the linage and history of your art, you may learn some very valuable things that way.


I would not argue one bit that the historical influences are important to how the art is formulated NOW.  

I just think that knowing of your art's antecedents is not relevant to how you practice it right now.  If you are interested in the history of your art then that is fine.  Otherwise, you can happily practice your art in a vacuum of no other arts having come before yours (or being sister arts to yours) and it will not impact one bit upon the effectiveness of your art.

I also do not understand which valuable things you can learn (aside from satisfying your interest in history) that will assist your art and how you practice it NOW.  Perhaps I am overlooking something?


----------



## Champ-Pain (Oct 30, 2011)

Jenna said:


> I would not argue one bit that the historical influences are important to how the art is formulated NOW.
> 
> I just think that knowing of your art's antecedents is not relevant to how you practice it right now.  If you are interested in the history of your art then that is fine.  Otherwise, you can happily practice your art in a vacuum of no other arts having come before yours (or being sister arts to yours) and it will not impact one bit upon the effectiveness of your art.
> 
> I also do not understand which valuable things you can learn (aside from satisfying your interest in history) that will assist your art and how you practice it NOW.  Perhaps I am overlooking something?


 I couldn't agree more. I love the way you think, lately.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 30, 2011)

Jenna said:


> I would not argue one bit that the historical influences are important to how the art is formulated NOW.
> 
> I just think that knowing of your art's antecedents is not relevant to how you practice it right now.  If you are interested in the history of your art then that is fine.  Otherwise, you can happily practice your art in a vacuum of no other arts having come before yours (or being sister arts to yours) and it will not impact one bit upon the effectiveness of your art.
> 
> I also do not understand which valuable things you can learn (aside from satisfying your interest in history) that will assist your art and how you practice it NOW.  Perhaps I am overlooking something?



Ah, my dear J, you are. But only when it comes to certain arts. In Koryu, for instance, it's a vital aspect. And when it comes to understanding where something comes from, surely it's better to understand the why, which in many cases comes from the "when" and "who" as much as the "how", otherwise you cannot understand how things may change, or need to adapt when things like the "when" and "who" change around you.


----------



## Jenna (Oct 30, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Ah, my dear J, you are. But only when it comes to certain arts. In Koryu, for instance, it's a vital aspect. And when it comes to understanding where something comes from, surely it's better to understand the why, which in many cases comes from the "when" and "who" as much as the "how", otherwise you cannot understand how things may change, or need to adapt when things like the "when" and "who" change around you.


For what reason do we need to understand the wherefores of the art?  The art is a complete and integral system.  If it is not then it is not a proper art and should be so named.  

I could both utilise and disseminate my art without ANY reference whatsoever to the history which occurred prior to when the art was formed as a single entity.  I am not denying influences.  I just do not believe there is any need to reference them other than for curiosity's sake.  No?


----------



## Champ-Pain (Oct 30, 2011)

IMHO - History and Tradition are way over-rated and over emphasized, when it comes to Martial Arts. Neither one is the reason I took up M/A in the first place.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 30, 2011)

J, the histories, giving the wherefore's of the art, are part of what makes it complete. Without that, it's not a complete entity. These arts didn't just erupt out of a bubble, there is a reason one art is the way it is, and a reason that another art is the way it is, and only by understanding where it came from can you understand that. Otherwise it's too easy to get it all wrong.

Oh, and Angel? If you're not interested in the history of martial arts, this is probably not the thread for you. Otherwise you're coming across as trolling.


----------



## Champ-Pain (Oct 30, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Oh, and Angel? If you're not interested in the history of martial arts, this is probably not the thread for you. Otherwise you're coming across as trolling.


 What? You can post on my threads all kinds of negative replies that contradict everything I say - but I can't do so on your threads? Even when the disagreement is real...

You've questioned everything about me - but you don't enjoy being questioned in the same manner? Hmmm... sounds like a lack of confidense on your part.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 30, 2011)

Then let's clarify for you. On the other thread, you asked if winning was important or irrelevant, and for reasons why. Therefore, anyone with an opinion of such can answer, giving opposing or complimentary views. Here, it is specifically a discussion of history and it's influence on the development of the arts, where if you don't want to discuss the history, there's no reason to post. It's like turning up at a basketball game and complaining it's not football, whereas the other is simply backing the other team. I have both confidence (not sure that that's relevant at this point, though) and comprehension. You?


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 30, 2011)

I'm on the fence at the moment about whether knowing your art's history makes you a better martial artist or not. It seems to me you can practice your art perfectly well without knowing it's history or 'knowing' a made up history. I can't see how knowing it's history will make me punch or kick better, or how to fight better though I may well be too literal in thinking that. I think it can enhance your enjoyment of your art if you know where it comes from. For those who want to do the same art in the same way as it's founders I can see it's important and I can see that following  successful foundrs is going to be important if the art isn't to be watered down and made ineffective. Is that the same as knowing it's history?
You can see I'm grasping at concepts and understanding here! 

It is an interesting discussion, I'm not sure I contribute anything but I have to agree with Chris that you're on the wrong thread if you think martial arts history is totally irrelevant!


----------



## Champ-Pain (Oct 30, 2011)

I said over rated and over emphasized - NOT irrelevant. Either way - I know where I'm not wanted, so I'm outta here, as you have suggested I do.

Thanks Tez


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 30, 2011)

Champ-Pain said:


> I said over rated and over emphasized - NOT irrelevant. Either way - I know where I'm not wanted, so I'm outta here, as you have suggested I do.
> 
> Thanks Tez



Yeah pick on me! Just ignore Chris who actually addressed you personally!

Edit: after reading other threads I assume you are bringing an argument with Chris across from another thread, not a good idea.


----------



## Champ-Pain (Oct 30, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Yeah pick on me! Just ignore Chris who actually addressed you personally!


 Tez: I'm not picking on you. Please don't misread my post. I thanked you for your comment - as I believe you were right on point... how is that picking on you?


----------



## Jenna (Oct 30, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> J, the histories, giving the wherefore's of the art, are part of what makes it complete. Without that, it's not a complete entity. These arts didn't just erupt out of a bubble, there is a reason one art is the way it is, and a reason that another art is the way it is, and only by understanding where it came from can you understand that. Otherwise it's too easy to get it all wrong.


If it is ok, I do not quite agree with that Christopher.  

I think that each new martial art is merely an evolution from another martial art.  

I do not see how knowing the history of arts which are antecedent to my own brings anything to me in how I practise my art today. 

My art is Aikido.  So a technique as codified into Aikido by Ueshiba is kust that technique irrespective of which part of Ueshiba's former study inspired it or under what auspices the aim of that technique came about.  Likewise it will not affect my application of my art knowing why or how the overarching concepts were of Aikido developed in the way they were.  I just do it as it was shown to me.  -Or- I modify it to suit my own phsique and my own applications.  Either way, where it came from or how it came to be is not pertinent to my technical practice.

Yes, of course, I like to have a background on these things for my own interest, yet that has no direct impact on the application of my art as I do it.  I maintain, one does not NEED to know the history of one's art for any other reasons than to satisfy their own curiosity.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 30, 2011)

Champ-Pain said:


> Tez: I'm not picking on you. Please don't misread my post. I thanked you for your comment - as I believe you were right on point... how is that picking on you?



Sarcasm...saying I suggested you leave. I didn't nor did I address you directly.

This is derailing a very good discussion, please don't trail arguments from other threads across to this one.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 30, 2011)

Ah, you can argue with me all you like, young lady... 

I see what you're getting at now, knowing and understanding about Daito Ryu as opposed to understanding about Aikido. Honestly, I'd say that understanding about Aikido and it's history (particularly as it pertains to your particular branch... whether it is the Yoshinkan founded by Gozo Shioda, when Ueshiba was still in the Jigoku Dojo days, or Takemusu, Iwama Ryu, when he had had his spiritual awakening) can be very relevant, understanding about Daito Ryu less so. Interesting, surely, and essential if you want the "full picture" (that does not mean studying Daito Ryu itself, but at least learning about Sokaku Takeda, for instance), but not completely needed for Aikido practice. Knowing and understanding the history of Aikido, though, is.


----------



## Champ-Pain (Oct 30, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> It is an interesting discussion, I'm not sure I contribute anything but I have to agree with Chris that you're on the wrong thread if you think martial arts history is totally irrelevant!


 Not only were you addressing me directly, you miss quoted me, when using the word "irrelevant" and suggested that I'm on the wrong thread, as well.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 30, 2011)

Champ pain, show me where I addressed you. I said I agreed with Chris that if you.... you in general as meaning the general readership of MT and this thread in particular... not you specifically, were on the wrong thread if you thought that history was irrelevant. I said irrelevant because I wasn't quoting you nor aiming this at you but making the general point that while I don't know if knowing martial arts history makes you a better martial artist or not, I'm open to persuasion on that, that knowing the history isn't an irrelevance. You decided it was a personal dig at you, it wasn't. As you can see if I'd wanted to make a comment to you then I would have done as I did subsequently.





Tez3 said:


> I'm on the fence at the moment about whether knowing your art's history makes you a better martial artist or not. It seems to me you can practice your art perfectly well without knowing it's history or 'knowing' a made up history. I can't see how knowing it's history will make me punch or kick better, or how to fight better though I may well be too literal in thinking that. I think it can enhance your enjoyment of your art if you know where it comes from. For those who want to do the same art in the same way as it's founders I can see it's important and I can see that following successful foundrs is going to be important if the art isn't to be watered down and made ineffective. Is that the same as knowing it's history?
> You can see I'm grasping at concepts and understanding here!
> 
> It is an interesting discussion, I'm not sure I contribute anything but I have to agree with Chris that you're on the wrong thread if you think martial arts history is totally irrelevant!


----------



## frank raud (Oct 30, 2011)

Champ-Pain said:


> IMHO - History and Tradition are way over-rated and over emphasized, when it comes to Martial Arts. Neither one is the reason I took up M/A in the first place.


So the appeal of earning your black belt( a historical sign of mastery of your art), the long tradition of competition effectiveness, the appeal of learning a foriegn art and some of the culture had nothing to do with you starting judo? The history of any art is very important. Nobody starts into martial arts with the burning question"Who was Jigoro Kano second Kito-ryu instructor?" but saying history and tradition is not the reason people start in the martial arts  not true. The reason ALL arts put so much emphasis on tradition and history(embellished or not) is because it is so important.

Weren't you at one point complaining about watered down martial arts? How could that be, if you didn't have some knowledge of what martial arts used to be like?


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 30, 2011)

frank raud said:


> So the appeal of earning your black belt( a historical sign of mastery of your art), the long tradition of competition effectiveness, the appeal of learning a foriegn art and some of the culture had nothing to do with you starting judo? The history of any art is very important. Nobody starts into martial arts with the burning question"Who was Jigoro Kano second Kito-ryu instructor?" but saying history and tradition is not the reason people start in the martial arts not true. *The reason ALL arts put so much emphasis on tradition and history(embellished or not) is because it is so important*.
> 
> Weren't you at one point complaining about watered down martial arts? How could that be, if you didn't have some knowledge of what martial arts used to be like?



I'm not sure about the history being important as such, relevant yes but this was the way I thought the discussion was going to go, thank you! Can you eleborate please on why you think it's important that we know the history of our arts? Is it to appreciate those that went before or is it to keep the techniques as the founders did? I can see where you are going with the reference to black belts etc, it's giving me food for thought so more please!


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 30, 2011)

frank raud said:


> So the appeal of earning your black belt( a historical sign of mastery of your art), the long tradition of competition effectiveness, the appeal of learning a foriegn art and some of the culture had nothing to do with you starting judo? The history of any art is very important. Nobody starts into martial arts with the burning question"Who was Jigoro Kano second Kito-ryu instructor?" but saying history and tradition is not the reason people start in the martial arts  not true. The reason ALL arts put so much emphasis on tradition and history(embellished or not) is because it is so important.
> 
> Weren't you at one point complaining about watered down martial arts? How could that be, if you didn't have some knowledge of what martial arts used to be like?



Just about EVERYONE starts MA for Self Defense, Fitness, or a Hobby.

Once thats served, its only Natural for many, if not possibly most, to move in to History and such.


----------



## frank raud (Oct 30, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> Just about EVERYONE starts MA for Self Defense, Fitness, or a Hobby.
> 
> Once thats served, its only Natural for many, if not possibly most, to move in to History and such.



Most people start MA for self defense,fitness, etc. Aside from location, one of the most relevant factors in choosing the particular martial art is its history, or perceived history. Even if it boils down to a soccer mom bringing her kid into the local community center to learn "Kurutty", it is because she is under the impression that her child will earn something of value. Most people won't take their child to a "streetproofing" seminar, where they will be shown a bunch of techniques taken from martial arts, but have no problem signing up their 6 year old for karate, judo or TKD lessons. Why? They will learn respect,tradition and an art with a (supposedly) proven history. Again, the beginner consumer is rarely interested in delving deeply into the history of their chosen art, but the perceived public history is hugely influential in making the intial choice.


----------



## frank raud (Oct 30, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I'm not sure about the history being important as such, relevant yes but this was the way I thought the discussion was going to go, thank you! Can you eleborate please on why you think it's important that we know the history of our arts? Is it to appreciate those that went before or is it to keep the techniques as the founders did? I can see where you are going with the reference to black belts etc, it's giving me food for thought so more please!



The appeal of the martial arts, and the reality are often not the same. To a beginner, the thoughts of obtaining the black belt has tremendous appeal. Why? Because of social conditioning, movies, books ,etc. In other words, past references(history) makes the attainment of a black belt seem to be the attainment of mastery. After being in the arts for a while, we know that Shodan(or equivalent) is not the final level of mastery, but merely a step on the journey. Why do people choose a specific instructor? Often it is because of their competition record, ie former world champion is perceived as a better teacher than someone without that same title. We know that is not necessarily true, but it sure helps for marketing.  So history of martial arts, or a specific martial art or instructor has a tremendous appeal to the average consumer. So what about the ultra traditional arts, like of koryu styles of Japan? Much of what is taught would need to be modified to be applicable in today's society, but that is not the point or appeal of studying a traditional martial art. It is a moment captured in time, a glimpse into a past that no longer exists. Is history important?  The koryu are living histories.

I believe history is very important to the perception and understanding of martial arts. We often refer to martial arts "myths" and how we as martial artists think it funny that people still believe that martial artists need to register their hands as deadly weapons, but the trappings of the martial arts myths, the humble warrior monk, the invincible samurai, the 90lb weakling who through their arcane knowledge of forbidden arts is what drew most of us to the martial arts in the first place.

Even with the advent of MMA, where you have stripped away the quasi-religious or cultural attachments(no bowing, no ritual dances as in muay thai, etc),there is still the expectation that the coach has a proven track record, and a decent personal history in the core arts of MMA. It is a short history, but it is relevant still.


----------



## jks9199 (Oct 30, 2011)

All right, everbody....  Let's get some things straight before I put the big mod hat on and solve problems.

I split the initial posts out of another thread to avoid drift there, and because I felt they warranted discussion and would be of interest to others.  Given the 2+ pages of good discussion running, I'd say I was probably right about that.  I suppose I could have done the set-up a little more gracefully -- but considering I was a bit under the weather, and actually dare to have this silly life off-line with obligations, I did it quick & easy.

Let's keep the discussion on topic:  how an art's history shapes and influences it.  Personally -- the history of a region and the history of it's martial arts are intertwined and influence its expression.  We see this in Western Martial Arts; targets, weapons... all shaped by Western Culture and beliefs.  We see this in Japanese and Chinese arts, too.  Let be build on the comments about Korean arts to show this:  Japan repeatedly invades and conquers Korea, and so the Korean arts end up taking on a Japanese flavor.

If we have problems with people bringing axes from other threads here -- RTM the posts, and the Staff will deal with them.  For those who may miss the warning implicit in that -- MT rules specifically prohibit following a person from thread to thread solely to harass and attack them.  Follow the folks whose posts you like and you enjoy communicating with all you like... but don't bring trash from elsewhere to a new thread, either.

Everybody got it?  Anybody need me to be blunter?


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 30, 2011)

frank raud said:


> Most people start MA for self defense,fitness, etc. Aside from location, one of the most relevant factors in choosing the particular martial art is its history, or perceived history. Even if it boils down to a soccer mom bringing her kid into the local community center to learn "Kurutty", it is because she is under the impression that her child will earn something of value. Most people won't take their child to a "streetproofing" seminar, where they will be shown a bunch of techniques taken from martial arts, but have no problem signing up their 6 year old for karate, judo or TKD lessons. Why? They will learn respect,tradition and an art with a (supposedly) proven history. Again, the beginner consumer is rarely interested in delving deeply into the history of their chosen art, but the perceived public history is hugely influential in making the intial choice.


Thats more Notoriety/Reputation methinks - But the Point stands.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 30, 2011)

Chris Parker - Again thanks for your insight and knowledge.  I enjoyed reading what you wrote.  But it did seem to me just a little Japan-centric.  I don't know if you have any connection with Japan other than MA, but I did believe I could see that.  I try not to be anything-centric, but it is difficult since the two arts I have studied were Korean, my wife is Korean, and I have spent over seven years there.

That aside, I have tried to see beyond nationalistic pride of those who in the last 50 to 60 years have struggled to gain/regain a nationalist identity.  And I don't for a minute deny you the same.  We know that martial arts were part of Chinese, Korean, and Japanese history, going back over two thousand years.  How much came from India, I don't know, but don't personally put a lot of stock in that since I am unaware of a tradition in India that resembles that of the major Far Eastern players.

I just don't think any country has a claim with great antiquity in the MA, with the exception of China.  But who contributed the most is now difficult to say.  We can probably give a great deal of credit to China as first, then Japan since they warred internally for so long, and then some externally for the last 300 or so years, but not always successfully.  I did find interesting the thought that MA transitioned in emphasis due to changing culture and rule.  I hadn't thought of that before, but it makes much sense.  And of course, the Koreans have their own history of internal strife during the 3 Kingdoms era, and subsequent dynasty changes.

At any rate, thanks again.  I consider myself to have learned much from your posts.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 30, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I'm on the fence at the moment about whether knowing your art's history makes you a better martial artist or not. It seems to me you can practice your art perfectly well without knowing it's history or 'knowing' a made up history. I can't see how knowing it's history will make me punch or kick better, or how to fight better though I may well be too literal in thinking that. I think it can enhance your enjoyment of your art if you know where it comes from. For those who want to do the same art in the same way as it's founders I can see it's important and I can see that following  successful foundrs is going to be important if the art isn't to be watered down and made ineffective. Is that the same as knowing it's history?
> You can see I'm grasping at concepts and understanding here!
> 
> 
> It is an interesting discussion, I'm not sure I contribute anything but I have to agree with Chris that you're on the wrong thread if you think martial arts history is totally irrelevant!



First off I think any discipline worth anything should be able to trace  its history.  That includes martial arts as well as brick layers,  police, lawyers, whatever.  What that adds to a particular MA is indeed  open to debate.  I think it has value in demanding dojo discipline and methods of training.  Probably also in direction of emphasis in methods used:  Karate used to be known for emphasis on hands, TKD for emphasis on feet.  That has blurred some in the last 40 or so years.  How about emphasis on joint locks, pressure points ans such as in Jujutsu, Aikido, Hapkido and Kook Sul Kwan?  As a Hapkidoist it would be easy for me to say that Karateists and TaeKnonDoists have limited themselves.  But if mostly all you do is block, punch and kick, you are going to be awfully good at it, and Hapkidoists fail to take that into consideration at their peril.

I don't know how much any individual art is enhanced by its history, but it may help to know if you can figure out such things as why emphasis is placed where it is, and if you really want to buy into that or change arts.  Maybe, maybe not.  That is sort of an aside to the reason for this thread though.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 30, 2011)

Now the discussion has really gotten complicated. TEZ3 puts up a good question (not directly), do you need to know history of an art, i.e. who is who, dates, places, etc. to be a better martial artist.  I am assuming TEZ3 is referring to skill and ability, being a kick-*** fighter that is, when saying that. Knowing history doesn't improve your timing for example. And Pls. TEZ3 if I am wrong pls. correct me.  

oftheherd1 seems to define it differently, saying, and also correct me if I am wrong, history is important to being a martial artist. Like a martial artist should know the pen and the sword, kind of thing. 


I have known many martial artists, who have very little knowledge of their arts or the subject of martial arts history and fight very well. I have known those who are not as good and are walking text books. Here is the matter, does knowing history make a better martial artist than those who do know their history?  
I studied a koryu jujutsu, does not knowing all the history of the art, or all the related subjects in depth make me any less of a koryu practioner. To some yes, when in a discussion, but most no. But, when my butt is on the line in a fight...does knowing the history like the demarcation date determining a koryu or not, no.  That is what makes it complicated.

And I do think though some people place too much emphasis on history and shift from martial artist to martial scholar.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Oct 30, 2011)

Jenna said:


> I would not argue one bit that the historical influences are important to how the art is formulated NOW.
> 
> I just think that knowing of your art's antecedents is not relevant to how you practice it right now.  If you are interested in the history of your art then that is fine.  Otherwise, you can happily practice your art in a vacuum of no other arts having come before yours (or being sister arts to yours) and it will not impact one bit upon the effectiveness of your art.
> 
> I also do not understand which valuable things you can learn (aside from satisfying your interest in history) that will assist your art and how you practice it NOW.  Perhaps I am overlooking something?


I agree. Aside from martial arts my other passion is playing guitar. I have been involved with both playing and teaching guitar for over 20 years and yet would not know the first thing about the history of the guitar, yet it has never affected my playing or teaching (both of which I have done proffessionally). I view martial arts the same way, the history may be an interesting side note occasionally, but I really see no need to become too entrenched in the history of martial arts because it doesnt seem to affect what Im doing 'now'.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 31, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> First off I think any discipline worth anything should be able to trace its history. That includes martial arts as well as brick layers, police, lawyers, whatever. What that adds to a particular MA is indeed open to debate. I think it has value in demanding dojo discipline and methods of training. Probably also in direction of emphasis in methods used: Karate used to be known for emphasis on hands, TKD for emphasis on feet. That has blurred some in the last 40 or so years. How about emphasis on joint locks, pressure points ans such as in Jujutsu, Aikido, Hapkido and Kook Sul Kwan? As a Hapkidoist it would be easy for me to say that Karateists and TaeKnonDoists have limited themselves. But if mostly all you do is block, punch and kick, you are going to be awfully good at it, and Hapkidoists fail to take that into consideration at their peril.
> 
> I don't know how much any individual art is enhanced by its history, but it may help to know if you can figure out such things as why emphasis is placed where it is, and if you really want to buy into that or change arts. Maybe, maybe not. That is sort of an aside to the reason for this thread though.




Perhaps a reason for learning martial arts history is to understand what others do? Karateka are able to do far more than kick and punch, for example there's throws, groundwork, locks, pressure points, submissions and a lot more involved in practising it.  I'm not sure whether the history aspect would deal with this or not, perhaps that's exactly what it does.


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 31, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Perhaps a reason for learning martial arts history is to understand what others do? Karateka are able to do far more than kick and punch, for example there's throws, groundwork, locks, pressure points, submissions and a lot more involved in practising it.  I'm not sure whether the history aspect would deal with this or not, perhaps that's exactly what it does.


This is pretty much why I Research many other Arts.

From Aikido to Kali, from Judo to BJJ.

Though ive No real interest in actually doing any of them, I love learning about them, and a bit of their background.
Nothing too detailed though.
Yet.


----------



## Jenna (Oct 31, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> This is pretty much why I Research many other Arts.
> 
> From Aikido to Kali, from Judo to BJJ.
> 
> ...


Yes, I understand all this and but learning THE HISTORY of either your own art or another art will not alter how you practice your art with hands and fists and feet and weapons.  Is that not so?  You might have an idea of _why _it was deemed right to do it a certain way and but that makes no difference to how you do it right NOW, no?

Though I am open to the idea, I have not read any concrete examples of how knowing of the HISTORY of your art makes any difference at all to how you actually practice your art in reality.  What do you think?


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 31, 2011)

Jenna, I'm with you on this, at the moment I can't see how knowing the history of your art will help you fight (or defend yourself...for the less agressive types lol). I wonder if weapons styles would be different?
One thing we have been doing here is going into the history of Pankration and the first Olympics, there is purely to help convince councils, the media and suchlike that what we do in MMA has been done throughout history, we also go into other arts history to a certain extent to try and convince people that we aren't the barbarians they think we are though this comes unstuck with people who hate boxing and martial arts!


----------



## oftheherd1 (Oct 31, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Perhaps a reason for learning martial arts history is to understand what others do? Karateka are able to do far more than kick and punch, for example there's throws, groundwork, locks, pressure points, submissions and a lot more involved in practising it. I'm not sure whether the history aspect would deal with this or not, perhaps that's exactly what it does.



My recollection of Japanese Karate of 45 years ago or so was that it, like TKD, was mainly block, punch, kick.  But not having studied it I can't be sure.  I can say that the TKD I studied back then was like that.  I think that in both arts, the addition of throws, joint locks, and such was an addition to make the art more "useful," and as understanding of some of the kata became known.  Okinawan Karate may have had more techniques like that, but I don't know.  I foolishly never darkened a dojo door while there.

If I am wrong, please correct me.


----------



## Jenna (Oct 31, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Jenna, I'm with you on this, at the moment I can't see how knowing the history of your art will help you fight (or defend yourself...for the less agressive types lol). I wonder if weapons styles would be different?
> One thing we have been doing here is going into the history of Pankration and the first Olympics, there is purely to help convince councils, the media and suchlike that what we do in MMA has been done throughout history, we also go into other arts history to a certain extent to try and convince people that we aren't the barbarians they think we are though this comes unstuck with people who hate boxing and martial arts!


Yes Tez, see you are looking into the history to satisfy the _interests _of those that want to know about it.  And but that is all it is, interest.  And is for whatever reason EXCEPT to make a difference to your technique as you do it right now.

Me, I learn that a certain technique is performed a certain way because when the art was designed the opponent would have began this attack with hand raised as though to bring down a long bladed weapon on my head and so now I perform the technique, closing distance that his "long blade" is less effective and so now I know _why _I do this the way it is done. Super. 

Alternatively, I could have foregone that and just said that this technique is my defence to an overhead strike *as was shown to me by my teacher*.  I am not taking anything on spec, I have tried this and used it and practiced it and it works for me.  No historical reference was needed on the part of my teacher to have shown me this technique (though it makes interesting background) and none is needed for my understanding of it AS I DO IT NOW.  

If I was being glib I would say that I am *armed with technique*.  I am *not armed with history*.  

I am not glib though so I am still open to the idea if there is a concrete example of how historical context makes an iota of difference to how I practice my art RIGHT NOW.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 31, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> My recollection of Japanese Karate of 45 years ago or so was that it, like TKD, was mainly block, punch, kick. But not having studied it I can't be sure. I can say that the TKD I studied back then was like that. I think that in both arts, the addition of throws, joint locks, and such was an addition to make the art more "useful," and as understanding of some of the kata became known. Okinawan Karate may have had more techniques like that, but I don't know. I foolishly never darkened a dojo door while there.
> 
> If I am wrong, please correct me.



It's all there, always has been, in the kata! As I said I did Wado Ryu and learned about the throws, locks, pressure points etc. They are in the Kihons as well. The best book about karate I've found is Shingo Ohgami's 'Introduction to Karate', it is Wado but he says...

"Even a whole book may not be enough to explain what karate is, but here I would like to define it in a few simple words. _Karate is a martial art system in_ _which all the possible parts of the body and all the possible movements which a human body can perform are to be used _(author's italics)
The training of karate generally starts with various techniques of punching, hitting, kicking and blocking. Other karate techniques include throwing, balance-breaking, grappling, controlling and so on, which make it possible to win combat_"

_Ohgami Sensei started karate in 1960 under Ohtsuka Sensei the founder of Wado Ryu. It's true of Wado that these things have always been there, I imagine they have been in Shotokan, Wado's 'parent', perhaps a Shotokan karateka can eleborate? I think we are delving into history here lol!


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 31, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Yes, I understand all this and but learning THE HISTORY of either your own art or another art will not alter how you practice your art with hands and fists and feet and weapons.  Is that not so?  You might have an idea of _why _it was deemed right to do it a certain way and but that makes no difference to how you do it right NOW, no?
> 
> Though I am open to the idea, I have not read any concrete examples of how knowing of the HISTORY of your art makes any difference at all to how you actually practice your art in reality.  What do you think?



I dunno. I think its kinda Cool that the Form Im Learning was used by the Korean Special Forces at one point.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 31, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> I dunno. I think its kinda Cool that the Form Im Learning was used by the Korean Special Forces at one point.



I agree and I like that what I do was also done by people in the past but it doesn't make the techniques any easier to learn or make them more effective. I like making patchwork quilts, this has a long history, different patterns, different meanings and cultural differences but when I'm sitting sewing it doesn't make any difference that people have done this before me, it's a connection to those people but it doesn't involve the stitching or the making up of those quilts. I still prick my fingers now and again, history can't change that!


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 31, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I agree and I like that what I do was also done by people in the past but it doesn't make the techniques any easier to learn or make them more effective. I like making patchwork quilts, this has a long history, different patterns, different meanings and cultural differences but when I'm sitting sewing it doesn't make any difference that people have done this before me, it's a connection to those people but it doesn't involve the stitching or the making up of those quilts. I still prick my fingers now and again, history can't change that!



Not from THAT Perspective. But its the Mindset. The Mentality.
The Way you Think.

I like thinking that Im Practitioning a Militaristically Inclined Style, as opposed to a Sporting One. That isnt a Criticism of Sporting Ones, just that I prefer it this way.
And that Mentality... Kind of keeps me Focused. That may just be Me.


----------



## Jenna (Oct 31, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> I dunno. I think its kinda Cool that the Form Im Learning was used by the Korean Special Forces at one point.


Oh yes, exactly, I understand that learning of history is as you say cool.  I agree with Tez and I would not dispute that nor am I passing comment on your desire to learn the history.  That is perfectly fine.  

I would ask though, what difference has this knowledge made to how you execute your techniques now?


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 31, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> Not from THAT Perspective. But its the Mindset. The Mentality.
> The Way you Think.
> 
> I like thinking that Im Practitioning a Militaristically Inclined Style, as opposed to a Sporting One. That isnt a Criticism of Sporting Ones, just that I prefer it this way.
> And that Mentality... Kind of keeps me Focused. That may just be Me.




It's just you! :salute:


Seriously, I think we go towards styles that suit us emotionally and physically, not sure that has anything to do with their history though. Like minded people have always gathered together. A 'sports' style can easily be a 'military' syle, it depends on who's training it and it's instructors. We do MMA, we train full on but could just as easily train lightly and just go through the motions. As we've seen before in other discussions TKD can be trained as sport or as a combat art.


----------



## frank raud (Oct 31, 2011)

ralphmcpherson said:


> I agree. Aside from martial arts my other passion is playing guitar. I have been involved with both playing and teaching guitar for over 20 years and yet would not know the first thing about the history of the guitar, yet it has never affected my playing or teaching (both of which I have done proffessionally). I view martial arts the same way, the history may be an interesting side note occasionally, but I really see no need to become too entrenched in the history of martial arts because it doesnt seem to affect what Im doing 'now'.



You may not know the history of the guitar, but do you know some of the history of music? When a young, new student asks as an example to learn how to play the Black-eyed Peas "Pump it", do you point out the guitar work is actually Dick Dale's Miserlou? The guitar has changed very little in its timeline(the invention of the electric guitar in the 40's being the obvious start of two schools of guitar), yet the styles of playing have changed and evolved. Many artists have "gone back" and studied the musicians who influenced the musicians who are their main influences, or older musicians have gotten a career boost when a younger superstar brings them back in the spotlight( SRV jamming with Lonnie Mack, the Rolling Stones having Muddy Waters, Ike and Tina, etc open for them, Eric Clapton performing with BB king, or Freddie King, Clapton doing straight blues albums like From the Cradle.) A punch may just be a punch, but like notes played on a guitar, how it is combined with other techniques or notes, differentiates it from how it is performed elsewhere, either in a timeline, or in a different country.


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 31, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> It's just you! :salute:
> 
> 
> Seriously, I think we go towards styles that suit us emotionally and physically, not sure that has anything to do with their history though. Like minded people have always gathered together. A 'sports' style can easily be a 'military' syle, it depends on who's training it and it's instructors. We do MMA, we train full on but could just as easily train lightly and just go through the motions. As we've seen before in other discussions TKD can be trained as sport or as a combat art.



True;
I Suppose My Point is that I feel that in Knowing that Aspect of its History, it Alters My Mindset, which in Turn Aligns My Approach to things. To a Degree.
That aside, I will concur that Knowledge of History isnt likely to make you Better, beyond perhaps focusing you.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 31, 2011)

In no particular order:

What was the founder's physical makeup? There are kata in Japanese/Okinawan karate where this (the physical attributes of the kata's author) is clearly evident. In my own family, while we have some of the trade axe/tomahawk, boarding pike and knife/cutlass techniques of my ancestors, a great many of those men, right up to my great grandfather and his brother, my namesake, were like 6'10" tall-many of the things that they managed to do and codified worked less for my grandfather at 6'4", and even less for me, at a mere 6'2". Likewise, Chris Parker pointed out the various lines of aikido that are extent, and how understanding their historical basis adds meaning to what's being done: as a Yoshinkan student, it's important that I know why Ueshiba emphasized different things to different students at different times. It's also important that I understand some of the fundamental structural differences between what we do and what the rest of the aikido world is doing.

As a kyokushinkai karate student, it's important that I know at least a little of what influenced Mas Oyama in its devlopment-even developments that I was witness to, like the introduction of Muay Thai leg kicks. As a Miyama ryu jujutsu student, it's extremely important that I recognize the way judo was practiced from the 40's to the 60's, when the founder was learning it, and what influence Sosuishitsu ryu jujutsu had on him, and what his time as a sniper in WWII and learning Army combatives of that period did for him, and what his time in Aikido training meant-all these things influenced the development of Miyama ryu, and are important to _me_, as a practitioner and teacher. To someone who just wants to learn to defend themselves, maybe not as much........


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 31, 2011)

Ah, this'll be a long one, sorry about that... Those involved may just want to scan through for their bits, if you want!



oftheherd1 said:


> Chris Parker - Again thanks for your insight and knowledge.  I enjoyed reading what you wrote.  But it did seem to me just a little Japan-centric.  I don't know if you have any connection with Japan other than MA, but I did believe I could see that.  I try not to be anything-centric, but it is difficult since the two arts I have studied were Korean, my wife is Korean, and I have spent over seven years there.



Yeah, agreed. There's two main reasons for that, though. Firstly, it's the area I'm most familiar with and most comfortable with, so it's an automatic go-to area for reference when it comes to martial arts for me. Secondly, though, and more important for that post itself, was that I was answering your specific question where you asked "how much had the Japanese borrowed from China or Korea". The later post was simply following that original course of conversation, really.

When it comes to things like areas of study, there are good and bad things about specialisation (same as specialist and generalist martial arts, really, with both having benefits and limitations....). The good things are that you get more information and better insight into that area, which cannot be gained by trying to take everything into account. The flip side, of course, is that there are areas that you just don't know about.



oftheherd1 said:


> That aside, I have tried to see beyond nationalistic pride of those who in the last 50 to 60 years have struggled to gain/regain a nationalist identity.  And I don't for a minute deny you the same.  We know that martial arts were part of Chinese, Korean, and Japanese history, going back over two thousand years.  How much came from India, I don't know, but don't personally put a lot of stock in that since I am unaware of a tradition in India that resembles that of the major Far Eastern players.



Yep, agreed. 



oftheherd1 said:


> I just don't think any country has a claim with great antiquity in the MA, with the exception of China.  But who contributed the most is now difficult to say.  We can probably give a great deal of credit to China as first, then Japan since they warred internally for so long, and then some externally for the last 300 or so years, but not always successfully.  I did find interesting the thought that MA transitioned in emphasis due to changing culture and rule.  I hadn't thought of that before, but it makes much sense.  And of course, the Koreans have their own history of internal strife during the 3 Kingdoms era, and subsequent dynasty changes.



Hmm, I'm trying to see what you mean here... by "great antiquity in the martial arts", do you mean as a point of origin for other arts, spreading out to other nations and cultures? If so, then I'd even argue China, really. Each individual culture has had it's own form of systematized combative lessons, and there is not necessarily even a real link or connection between the systems and approaches of two neighbouring cultures, let alone a single source for the concept of "martial arts". Japan has it's own, China has it's own, Korea had it's own, India has it's own, and so on. As time went on, and the arts came into contact with each other, in friendly and less friendly ways, they would adapt and alter, but there was little universality to that. There is more likely to be universality within a culture, rather than between different ones.



oftheherd1 said:


> At any rate, thanks again.  I consider myself to have learned much from your posts.


 
My pleasure.



JohnEdward said:


> Now the discussion has really gotten complicated. TEZ3 puts up a good question (not directly), do you need to know history of an art, i.e. who is who, dates, places, etc. to be a better martial artist.  I am assuming TEZ3 is referring to skill and ability, being a kick-*** fighter that is, when saying that. Knowing history doesn't improve your timing for example. And Pls. TEZ3 if I am wrong pls. correct me.
> 
> oftheherd1 seems to define it differently, saying, and also correct me if I am wrong, history is important to being a martial artist. Like a martial artist should know the pen and the sword, kind of thing.


 
Honestly, I feel the answer is somewhere inbetween, with the emphasis being greater or lesser depending on the art itself. To be an actual martial artist is not the same thing as being a fighter, frankly, and it does involve knowing more than just the punches and kicks of your system. Do you need to know every single detail, every name, date, event, and so on? No, not unless you're interested, or it's a part of the systems direct transmission methods. But knowing where it comes from can be a big part of understanding why it does what it does, which can directly influence performance of the techinques... but I'll answer Jenna about that in more detail in a bit.



JohnEdward said:


> I have known many martial artists, who have very little knowledge of their arts or the subject of martial arts history and fight very well. I have known those who are not as good and are walking text books. Here is the matter, does knowing history make a better martial artist than those who do know their history?
> I studied a koryu jujutsu, does not knowing all the history of the art, or all the related subjects in depth make me any less of a koryu practioner. To some yes, when in a discussion, but most no. But, when my butt is on the line in a fight...does knowing the history like the demarcation date determining a koryu or not, no.  That is what makes it complicated.
> 
> And I do think though some people place too much emphasis on history and shift from martial artist to martial scholar.


 
I'm going to take a few things out of this and deal with them specifically, if you don't mind John.

First: "Does knowing the history make a better martial artist than those who do not know their history?" Actually, yes. Whether it will make them a better fighter, on the other hand, is a different question to my mind. And there, the answer can be yes again... depending on how intelligently it's approached.

Second, and this kind of is non-negotiable here: "I studied a koryu jujutsu, does not knowing all the history of the art, or all the related subjects in depth make me any less of a koryu practitioner?" Yes, it absolutely does. Especially not knowing the history. Koryu is one of those cases where the history is more important than the physical methods, in a very real way, to not know that is to not know the Ryu, and therefore not be a Koryu practitioner. The related subjects, well, it would depend on what you meant by that really. But if they are part of the transmission of the art, the only excuse you could have is that you are a relatively new practitioner and haven't gone into it much yet. Anything other than that, and you're not studying Koryu, you're learning techniques. That is a very different situation.



ralphmcpherson said:


> I agree. Aside from martial arts my other passion is playing guitar. I have been involved with both playing and teaching guitar for over 20 years and yet would not know the first thing about the history of the guitar, yet it has never affected my playing or teaching (both of which I have done proffessionally). I view martial arts the same way, the history may be an interesting side note occasionally, but I really see no need to become too entrenched in the history of martial arts because it doesnt seem to affect what Im doing 'now'.


 
Not really the same thing, though, Ralph. This is more about knowing the history of the music you're playing, why some chords are used, why common progressions are found, what songwriting structure is, and so forth. It's knowing what the influences are for the music you create, and gaining an understanding of the various genres, rather than knowing about the instrument itself. 

To take it back to martial arts, you're not learning about the cotton that makes your gi, you're learning about why this form of karate has a three-quarter punch, rather than a full horizontal fist. If you don't know why it does that, and you use a different type of punch (due to not knowing why it's not used), is it still the same form of karate, or is it just fighting with whatever you're doing at the time? Then again, if you do know why it's used, you might find that a different punch works fine, or better, for the reasons the system gives, keeping it all correct. But you can't know without knowing the history, which gives the reasons. Otherwise it's like putting Death Metal chords through your jazz song, and not knowing why it sounds the way it does.



Jenna said:


> Yes, I understand all this and but learning THE HISTORY of either your own art or another art will not alter how you practice your art with hands and fists and feet and weapons.  Is that not so?  You might have an idea of _why _it was deemed right to do it a certain way and but that makes no difference to how you do it right NOW, no?
> 
> Though I am open to the idea, I have not read any concrete examples of how knowing of the HISTORY of your art makes any difference at all to how you actually practice your art in reality.  What do you think?


 
Before I get to the concrete examples (yeah, I got some), I'm going to address the first part of this, namely whether or not knowing the history, and why things were done one way in the past, whether or not that affects the way you do it now.

First thing to do is to look at something I've inferred up to this point, and it's something that I've brought up before as well, and that's the concept of what a martial artist is, and what training in a martial art is in the first place. As Frank said earlier, the particular mythology, or public image and perception of a martial art is a big drawcard for potential students (probably right up at the top, along with location, time [availability], and price). What that means is that they are coming to learn a particular approach, whether or not that approach is what they expected when they first walked in the door is largely irrelevant, they will be paying and training to learn a particular approach and methodology; in a karate school, they are paying to learn karate, in a judo school they are paying to learn judo, in a hung gar school, they are paying to learn hung gar, and so on. So to understand what that means means you have to understand the history, where, when, why, and who developed the system, as well as any pertinent events in it's history. If you are just doing things because they seem to work for you, but might or might not actually fit in the system itself, you're going further and further from being that particular martial artist, and just being a fighter. All a fighter needs is the ability to fight, and preferably, to win. A martial artist is a different breed, and what a martial artist is, and what that martial art is, comes from the history. To not know it is to not know the martial art, including not actually know it's physical methods.

Okay, concrete examples. I did promise, after all, didn't I? 

Without giving too much away, I'm a member of an informal study group for an old Japanese sword system, with a very famous history and founder. And, due to a range of circumstances, I am in a position where I am currently leading the group. One thing I am constantly doing is referring to the history of the system to explain the way things are done, the specific movements and approach to certain aspects, as well as the mentality and mindset of the system. For example, in this system, the "blocking" action, which in many other systems is done with more of an evasive, deflecting feel, here is far more aggressive. And without knowing the history, why it was done the way it was, and so forth, the technique can very easily come out "wrong", although it can still "work" in a real way.

With Aikido, as I said earlier, it comes down to knowing your particular lineage, where it branched out from Ueshiba Sensei (if it did), and why. That will lead you to understand why the techniques are done differently in the various forms, which does inform the way it is done today, rather than just taking some Yoshinkan, some Tomiki, some Ki Society, and some Takemusu, and thinking it's all the same. It isn't. But unless you get the history, and why the differences were formed, you might try to put it all together.

There's a lot more to this, but this is going to be a long post as it is, and essentially every art is enhanced in it's current practice by knowing it's history, as that informs the current practice. Whether it's consciously known or not, it's still there.



Tez3 said:


> Jenna, I'm with you on this, at the moment I can't see how knowing the history of your art will help you fight (or defend yourself...for the less agressive types lol). I wonder if weapons styles would be different?
> One thing we have been doing here is going into the history of Pankration and the first Olympics, there is purely to help convince councils, the media and suchlike that what we do in MMA has been done throughout history, we also go into other arts history to a certain extent to try and convince people that we aren't the barbarians they think we are though this comes unstuck with people who hate boxing and martial arts!


 
It won't help you fight, necessarily, but it will help you keep your practice on the same line, consistent and reliable, which will make the training that much more effective and powerful, as there's no internal conflict or contradiction, which will lead you to be a better fighter in that method. But again, if all you're looking at is 'fighting', then that's not the same as training and studying a martial art. A martial art is so much more.



oftheherd1 said:


> My recollection of Japanese Karate of 45 years ago or so was that it, like TKD, was mainly block, punch, kick.  But not having studied it I can't be sure.  I can say that the TKD I studied back then was like that.  I think that in both arts, the addition of throws, joint locks, and such was an addition to make the art more "useful," and as understanding of some of the kata became known.  Okinawan Karate may have had more techniques like that, but I don't know.  I foolishly never darkened a dojo door while there.
> 
> If I am wrong, please correct me.


 
Yeah, TKD was based (initially) on an incomplete understanding and knowledge of Shotokan, with other forms added in later. I remember seeing an article a number of years ago about the "Secret Bone Breaking Techniques of TKD!", and all it was was basic hyper extensions of joints, such as a basic arm bar. Nothing really secret about it, it's the type of stuff that most entry level jujutsu systems cover in the first few classes. I kinda got sad when I read that, actually, it just showed me the level of misunderstanding some people had about their own art.

Okinawan systems, depending on lineage, tended to have more grappling approaches than a number of more mainstream Japanese takes on the karate systems.



Jenna said:


> Yes Tez, see you are looking into the history to satisfy the _interests _of those that want to know about it.  And but that is all it is, interest.  And is for whatever reason EXCEPT to make a difference to your technique as you do it right now.
> 
> Me, I learn that a certain technique is performed a certain way because when the art was designed the opponent would have began this attack with hand raised as though to bring down a long bladed weapon on my head and so now I perform the technique, closing distance that his "long blade" is less effective and so now I know _why _I do this the way it is done. Super.
> 
> ...


 
Ah, but without that history, there wouldn't be that technique.....

I suppose it comes down to understanding what the technique is designed to deal with, which informs it's movement, and can indicate benefits and limitations. For example, knowing the history of that technique would give you the understanding as to why the forward movement is so important, and in fact, crucial to get the technique to work properly. Then, when teaching it and passing it on yourself, when you notice a student not moving in far enough, and you point it out, they may respond "oh, but I'm safe enough here", in which case you can demonstrate that they're really not. If you never got the understanding of the origin of the technique, though, you may be at a loss to explain the actual movement and the reason it works the way it does, which could lead to the next generation getting it wrong, and it getting weaker and weaker as it goes along.



Tez3 said:


> It's all there, always has been, in the kata! As I said I did Wado Ryu and learned about the throws, locks, pressure points etc. They are in the Kihons as well. The best book about karate I've found is Shingo Ohgami's 'Introduction to Karate', it is Wado but he says...
> 
> "Even a whole book may not be enough to explain what karate is, but here I would like to define it in a few simple words. _Karate is a martial art system in_ _which all the possible parts of the body and all the possible movements which a human body can perform are to be used _(author's italics)
> The training of karate generally starts with various techniques of punching, hitting, kicking and blocking. Other karate techniques include throwing, balance-breaking, grappling, controlling and so on, which make it possible to win combat_"
> ...



Ah, but the thing to remember about Wado Ryu is that it is almost equal parts Shindo Yoshin Ryu Jujutsu as well, which gives is a rather different feel and approach, as well as movement to other karate systems, tending to more circular movement, less linear response, and more grappling applications. Hmm, history teaching why it does what it does to inform current practitioners in their practice....


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 31, 2011)

Thanks Chris, always interesting!

Perhaps we should mould the definition of history differently as regards martial arts?

History as taught in schools is basically about dates, who was in charge of the country, what wars, who won etc. When people talk about the history of martial arts I think perhaps we are thinking of, and perhaps reading too many TKD posts has done this, who split from who to make up what group, who's son/daughter was who and what ranks people had ie who is the grand master. Perhaps what we should be thinking about is more the history of techniques, the why's as much as the whos. perhaps there's been too much politics for us to think of the history of martial arts as something useful.

We cannot see why learning a history of martial arts that involves so much politics, so many different groups, so many arguments is going to help us train better. We aren't going to get the focus in our training from knowing that one styles people fell out with anothers and thats why we have no kicks in certain katas because the we had to be different from the people we fell out with! As with Cyriacus, thats the history of his club/school not the history of his art.

Now if we talk about the history of specific techniques, the whys, wherefores and how it used to be done or why it's done that way now, I can see how that will improve your training, so is there something we can do to seperate the history of the politics, break ups and makeups from the actual history of the styles? I realise of course that instructors splitting from their founders, going to other countries etc is integral to a style's history but much of it's not. I'm not sure if I can make my point clear enough here lol, am struggling a bit. 

I get the point about Wado Ryu and why it's the way it is but while not really applicable to Wado I also can see why endless lists of arguments about who's grandmaster was first to write his name on a certificate and suchlike isn't going to help us train any better! there is much clogging up in the history of martial arts and it's that which stops us seeing much use for it. There's history and there's history lol!


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 31, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> I dunno. I think its kinda Cool that the Form Im Learning was used by the Korean Special Forces at one point.



I kinda hate to do this to you, Cyriacus, but, uh, no. I was a member of the same TKD organisation, remember, and that's not really part of it's history (then again, they give a 1300 year history for the art, when a lot of it was remarkably similar to the Shito Ryu [Shukokai] Karate that I'd trained previously, and the Shotokan that I'd experienced as well.... hmm). When it comes to TKD's involvement in the Korean Special Forces, that's a bit of a stretch of the reality, and is more PR than anything else. Part of TKD's origins are General Choi heading a group to introduce it to the military to aid their morale and fitness, rather than anything combatively beneficial. Some aspects were altered and put into some Special Forces training, but that is rather removed from TKD itself in many ways.



Tez3 said:


> I agree and I like that what I do was also done by people in the past but it doesn't make the techniques any easier to learn or make them more effective. I like making patchwork quilts, this has a long history, different patterns, different meanings and cultural differences but when I'm sitting sewing it doesn't make any difference that people have done this before me, it's a connection to those people but it doesn't involve the stitching or the making up of those quilts. I still prick my fingers now and again, history can't change that!


 
No, but theoretically the usage by generations past should speak to the effectiveness of the technical side of things, at least as far as the context and environment within which they were used. In terms of making it easier, though, it comes down to context. By understanding the context of the history, you can "see" what the system is doing, and why a lot easier, which can certainly make it easier to learn. When I'm taking my guys through any of the specific systems we study, the first thing I do is give them a handout which includes a brief rundown on the history of the system in question, it's usage, and traits, so that as we explore the art itself, I can refer back to that history and say "remember, this art is more to do with running across a battlefield, so that's where this stepping action comes from. You might remember it from these other kata...", or, at the moment "remember, the main usage of this system is non-combative, if you got to the point where there was an enemy who spotted you, you'd messed up. So the aim is not to beat them, it's to get away from them, and here's how we do it".



Cyriacus said:


> Not from THAT Perspective. But its the Mindset. The Mentality.
> The Way you Think.
> 
> I like thinking that Im Practitioning a Militaristically Inclined Style, as opposed to a Sporting One. That isnt a Criticism of Sporting Ones, just that I prefer it this way.
> And that Mentality... Kind of keeps me Focused. That may just be Me.



Militaristic and sporting aren't the only two options, though, and the system you're training in I wouldn't describe as actually militaristic. It's fairly formal, and there's a lot of respect there, making a pretty traditional feel, but militaristic it isn't. Your instructor, on the other hand, might be, but that's their personal approach. Again, none of these are better than any others, just better suited to different people, really. The main thing is that you enjoy it, and it sounds like you do.



elder999 said:


> In no particular order:
> 
> What was the founder's physical makeup? There are kata in Japanese/Okinawan karate where this (the physical attributes of the kata's author) is clearly evident. In my own family, while we have some of the trade axe/tomahawk, boarding pike and knife/cutlass techniques of my ancestors, a great many of those men, right up to my great grandfather and his brother, my namesake, were like 6'10" tall-many of the things that they managed to do and codified worked less for my grandfather at 6'4", and even less for me, at a mere 6'2". Likewise, Chris Parker pointed out the various lines of aikido that are extent, and how understanding their historical basis adds meaning to what's being done: as a Yoshinkan student, it's important that I know why Ueshiba emphasized different things to different students at different times. It's also important that I understand some of the fundamental structural differences between what we do and what the rest of the aikido world is doing.
> 
> As a kyokushinkai karate student, it's important that I know at least a little of what influenced Mas Oyama in its devlopment-even developments that I was witness to, like the introduction of Muay Thai leg kicks. As a Miyama ryu jujutsu student, it's extremely important that I recognize the way judo was practiced from the 40's to the 60's, when the founder was learning it, and what influence Sosuishitsu ryu jujutsu had on him, and what his time as a sniper in WWII and learning Army combatives of that period did for him, and what his time in Aikido training meant-all these things influenced the development of Miyama ryu, and are important to _me_, as a practitioner and teacher. To someone who just wants to learn to defend themselves, maybe not as much........



Absolutely agreed on this. For instance, in the sword system I was talking about earlier, the founder was renowned for being a giant amongst Japanese, at over 6 feet tall. As a result, there are certain cutting angles that are relatively common in other systems (cutting up from beneath) that just don't make much of an appearance here. The main emphasis is to drop straight down through your opponent, using your size and reach advantage, as well as pretty damn pure aggression. But when I was first being introduced to the system, I was coming from other systems where cutting up was common, and wondered why they aren't there in this one. The answer came from understanding the origin and the history of the founder of that art.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 31, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Thanks Chris, always interesting!
> 
> Perhaps we should mould the definition of history differently as regards martial arts?
> 
> ...



Ech, that's not history, that's just dead information... 

History should be alive, it's purpose is to guide and inform the present, and lead towards the future. It's not so much the names and dates, it's the why's and how's, the what happened as a result, that's what history is. Hell, I can list off dates and names without any problem, but that's not history, that's just a list. History is events, effects, changes, and reasons.

I'm not fond of the school version there, to me that's just lazy.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 31, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> I kinda hate to do this to you, Cyriacus, but, uh, no. I was a member of the same TKD organisation, remember, and that's not really part of it's history (then again, they give a 1300 year history for the art, when a lot of it was remarkably similar to the Shito Ryu [Shukokai] Karate that I'd trained previously, and the Shotokan that I'd experienced as well.... hmm). When it comes to TKD's involvement in the Korean Special Forces, that's a bit of a stretch of the reality, and is more PR than anything else. Part of TKD's origins are General Choi heading a group to introduce it to the military to aid their morale and fitness, rather than anything combatively beneficial. Some aspects were altered and put into some Special Forces training, but that is rather removed from TKD itself in many ways.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think this is what we think of when we think of martial arts history, that is useful. What we get is the politics and the importance of organisations. That's why we are seeing things from different perspectives.


----------



## Jenna (Oct 31, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Before I get to the concrete examples (yeah, I got some), I'm going to address the first part of this, namely whether or not knowing the history, and why things were done one way in the past, whether or not that affects the way you do it now.
> 
> First thing to do is to look at something I've inferred up to this point, and it's something that I've brought up before as well, and that's the concept of what a martial artist is, and what training in a martial art is in the first place. As Frank said earlier, the particular mythology, or public image and perception of a martial art is a big drawcard for potential students (probably right up at the top, along with location, time [availability], and price). What that means is that they are coming to learn a particular approach, whether or not that approach is what they expected when they first walked in the door is largely irrelevant, they will be paying and training to learn a particular approach and methodology; in a karate school, they are paying to learn karate, in a judo school they are paying to learn judo, in a hung gar school, they are paying to learn hung gar, and so on. So to understand what that means means you have to understand the history, where, when, why, and who developed the system, as well as any pertinent events in it's history. If you are just doing things because they seem to work for you, but might or might not actually fit in the system itself, you're going further and further from being that particular martial artist, and just being a fighter. All a fighter needs is the ability to fight, and preferably, to win. A martial artist is a different breed, and what a martial artist is, and what that martial art is, comes from the history. To not know it is to not know the martial art, including not actually know it's physical methods.
> 
> ...


Christopher! we are not seeing the question from the same perspective.  I do not even think we are seeing the same question.  You are giving your reply to a question that you yourself are asking and not what I hoped you would answer for me.

You have given further examples of how history influences each and every art that there is.  I do not disupute this.  Nor do I dispute that knowing how these historical influences have inspired techniques is interesting.  It is very interesting to know these things and to have a background.  

However, beyond what you have said, and what elder999 has said too, that it is IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHY the art was created the way it was, I do not understand WHY is it important to know why outside of having my curiosity satisfied??  

Certainly it is nice to know of all the different contextual settings and of how the founder was off of work one day since the paddy fields had been drained by a mysterious sinkhole and had gone for a walk in the woods and had stopped to eat an unusual fungi and had seen a primate hunt haplessly for food and from that monkey hunting, and being addled by mushrooms he envisaged in psychedelia the Monkey Catching Cricket strike etc. etc. this is all interesting I do not deny that.  I am just failing to see how any of this affects how I practice MY OWN Monkey Catching Cricket stance right now.  I execute that technique it as the founder taught his apprenticed after the fungi wore off, and how they handed it down to their seniors and how they in turn passed it onto military personnel stationed there at the time and how they brought it out of the country and so on.  I can practice Monkey Catching Cricket (you like that btw?) without knowing any of the history.  How does knowledge of that history temper how I practice my MCC strike now?  

I practice it in the dojo.  I adjust it so that it fits me since I am not burly (perhaps unlike the fictional founder).  I test it and prove that it works against committed uke.  I do all this knowing nothing at all of that day when the founder was in the mushroom woods.  And further, knowing about the mushroom woods and the hungry monkey does not improve my MCC strike either?  Please explain why I am wrong to think this  Thank you. Janna.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 31, 2011)

Jenna, I can just hear the way you are saying 'Christopher' at the start of that post!

I'm not sure that what Chris is talking about is the history bit, I think it comes under the influences part of the OP title. The size of a person does often matter in techniques and passing on observations from being taller or smaller I don't think is history as such, more just good teaching. It's a build up of experiences and knowledge that is passed on actively rather than a more passive recitation of history. I can't see that, as Jenna says knowing where the technique came from is useful to her practising it, I can see however that an observation (such as if you are tall use a wider stance) from someone in the past being taught as an aid to helping you do that technique is useful.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 31, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I don't think this is what we think of when we think of martial arts history, that is useful. What we get is the politics and the importance of organisations. That's why we are seeing things from different perspectives.



Hmm, let's see if I can explain the way I see history here, then. Let's take a person, just for simplicity.

A person has a range of behaviours. These include a particular way of walking, a particular speech pattern, certain habits, and preferences. But none of these behaviours just emerge out of nothing. What they are are the result of the history of that person. The person, at some point, as one, or a number, or experiences. Those experiences give that person one or many beliefs, and those beliefs are given certain values (good things valued highly, bad things valued lowly, avoiding bad things valued highly again, and so on). It is this set of beliefs and values that gives the behaviours that the person expresses in their everyday life.

Let's make that a little more specific.

Let's say that, when a child, say about 3 or 4, you were stung on the ear by a bee. It hurt, there were tears, and whenever someone came near your ear to remove the stinger, it hurt more. This lead to a belief that insects, or really anything, moving around near your ear can lead to a lot of pain and tears. Pain and tears are not valued highly, but avoiding pain and tears is valued highly. As a result, you develop the behaviour (habit) of flinching, and swatting with your hand at anything near your ear.

Now, do you need to know that history in order to have that behaviour? No, not really. However, if you want to understand that behaviour, or more importantly, change it, then you do. For instance, it may be a lot of fun for my friends to keep teasing me by putting pencils, bits of paper, and so on near my ear, because I always react the same way, but when I met my latest girlfriend, Scarlett Johansson, she has a habit of leaning in and whispering in my ear. After the third time I swatted her in the face, it became important to figure out, and understand the history, so that I could change it (and no, I'm not getting into changing behaviours here, although there are a few clues in that little story).

This is what history is, it's events from the past that have shaped and influenced the present, it's not just names and dates, it's an understanding of what has happened before in order to gain insight into what is happening now.



Jenna said:


> Christopher! we are not seeing the question from the same perspective.  I do not even think we are seeing the same question.  You are giving your reply to a question that you yourself are asking and not what I hoped you would answer for me.
> 
> You have given further examples of how history influences each and every art that there is.  I do not disupute this.  Nor do I dispute that knowing how these historical influences have inspired techniques is interesting.  It is very interesting to know these things and to have a background.
> 
> ...



Ah, my dearest and truest J, I would never dare to tell you you are wrong, particularly when it comes to opinion...

The point that I am making is more that you may think that you are doing your Monkey Catching Cricket strike (nice move, very fast, coming in from an unseen angle... very sneaky, I approve), but without understanding where it comes from, and why it is done the way it is, you may very easily not be doing it at all, but doing something different. This is what I was getting at with the description of what a martial art and martial artist is in the first place, are you truly a Monkey Catching Cricket practitioner if you aren't doing it correctly, as you don't know the actual context? Or are you just doing something similar, and thinking that if it works, it's good enough?

In terms of the knowledge, and how it affects your current practice, that is a matter of constant personal reflection. By constantly reflecting on the way you are doing it, and checking it against the actual contextual usage in it's initial development. By knowing the history, you can take it back to the origin at any time, and ensure that you are still doing it correctly, without that, you can head off in odd directions. This is why I say that it's not really part of being a fighter, but it is a part of being a martial artist.

Did that help?



Tez3 said:


> Jenna, I can just hear the way you are saying 'Christopher' at the start of that post!
> 
> I'm not sure that what Chris is talking about is the history bit, I think it comes under the influences part of the OP title. The size of a person does often matter in techniques and passing on observations from being taller or smaller I don't think is history as such, more just good teaching. It's a build up of experiences and knowledge that is passed on actively rather than a more passive recitation of history. I can't see that, as Jenna says knowing where the technique came from is useful to her practising it, I can see however that an observation (such as if you are tall use a wider stance) from someone in the past being taught as an aid to helping you do that technique is useful.



Ha, just to clarify, there are a grand total of three people that I allow to use that full name for myself there, and young J here is one of the very few... so she can say it any way she wants, and always get a smile from me.

This history is the influence, the two are the same thing. The history is only relevant because of the influence it gives. The details that you talk about there, such as altering stances to suit different body shapes, can be done only if you understand the art itself, and that comes from understanding it's history as much as it's techniques, in a real way they are the same thing. Realistically, the techniques can be seen as vessels for the history of the system, as they are expressions (behaviours) which come from the beliefs and values of the art, which are directly taken from the art's history.

Or am I getting a little too heady here?


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 31, 2011)

Not in the least heady, enjoying intelligent discussion. When Jenna used your middle name as well are you in trouble lol?

History, as you understand and use it, while I believe correctly, is not what we have come to see when it deals with martial arts.

http://visiontkd.co.uk/tkdhistory.htm
http://www.risingphoenix.org.uk/page10.html

http://www.karate-made-easy.com/history-of-karate.html


This is martial arts history as we are taught it and like Jenna I cannot see anything that will enable me to train better. It's this 'history' that people see as important and why their lineage is important, nothing to do with techniques at all.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 31, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> *I'm going to take a few things out of this and deal with them specifically, if you don't mind John.
> *
> First: "Does knowing the history make a better martial artist than those who do not know their history?" Actually, yes. Whether it will make them a better fighter, on the other hand, is a different question to my mind. And there, the answer can be yes again... depending on how intelligently it's approached.
> 
> Second, and this kind of is non-negotiable here: "I studied a koryu jujutsu, does not knowing all the history of the art, or all the related subjects in depth make me any less of a koryu practitioner?" Yes, it absolutely does. Especially not knowing the history. Koryu is one of those cases where the history is more important than the physical methods, in a very real way, to not know that is to not know the Ryu, and therefore not be a Koryu practitioner. The related subjects, well, it would depend on what you meant by that really. But if they are part of the transmission of the art, the only excuse you could have is that you are a relatively new practitioner and haven't gone into it much yet. Anything other than that, and you're not studying Koryu, you're learning techniques. That is a very different situation.



No I don't mind. Though I would like throw out some thoughts. First, question that comes to mind, is what you know historically, accurate, authentic, reliable?  You know what they say about history, few facts lots of subjectivity. For example, look how the Japanese handle history, especially martial history and martial arts history. It is very hard to deal historically with an art that claims it originated from a Tengu, or more broadly a nation on mythology. Or some arts history that make claims that can't be proven either way.  Then there is individual perspective and preferences on historical events, accuracy issues, cultural influences, and interpretations of historians, and trends.  Look at the argument on over the last several years on the net that discredits Inazo Nitobe's  and Yamamoto Tsunetomo's views of the Samurai. What was thought of to be historically accurate views as now being refuted. 

  And how much history must you know to qualify you as a martial "artist." ? Thanks to the internet we are all genius. That information is readily at everyone's finger tips. My late instructor, being Japanese, coming from a samurai lineage knew very little historical information. His focus was on the art. He would admonish us for focusing on historical pursues. Mainly, because he knew it really didn't matter, and what mattered was skill. He was more concerned about tradition than stories, and trivia. His sensei was illiterate, and a well known samurai.  Which in a way, and here is the problem with history, disproves that samurai were educated. That argument points up back to arguments against Tsunetomo romanticizing and inflating things. 

Then there is all the historical political information that ties in to an art that really is silly, and causes more misinformation and all kinds of other things, like politics. 

So at what point studying history is enough to qualify as being a martial artist?  What information and what amount qualifies and what doesn't?  Should you also know cultural information?  To what point, to what extent should you know this information to qualify you as a good martial arts? 

What point do you become a marital arts historian vs. an artist?  At what point do you become a history nerd arguing passionately and frivolously over irrelevant minutia? We all start out as martial artists first with very little martial arts knowledge, should we morph into historians arguing points, and fighting ego battles instead of training? Where is the line? Is there one? Should there be one? 

Now, MMA produces a lot of good fighters. Do they know the historical background in depth of each art. Does that help them develop a good punch. I am a firm believer in knowing your history as not to repeat it. I believe you need to know a certain type of historical information, i.e. what others before you did. I think what is required for most koryu historically is lineage, most what you need to know is tradition.  There is the crux. It's knowing the pertinent historical traditions of your art, vs. historical minutia that is often an exercise of intellectual masturbation and futility resulting in the only value of debate and ego. 

 Now, knowing a great deal of a martial art history may be needed if you need to justify your arts existence, to prove it is not made up. Or correct errors of perception etc. So of course your going to weight history over skill. Especially if your art was recently made up within the last 50 years. Then there is the risk that historical information gets twisted, omitted etc. for being proof.  Thus compromises the value of having a historical component qualifying you as a good or even a martial artist. You are only as good as the information. 

Lastly, this issue of the qualified historians vs. amatures. Anyone can pull info from the web, that doesn't make you good. It doesn't make you an expert [historian or martial artist]. For me to run along your premise, extensive historical information is needed to be a good martial artist. That means you need to be qualified by a University, you need an advanced degree [in area of history].  Pulling historical info about marital arts and your own off the internet blindly accepting what your told doesn't qualify you [as a good martial artist], it makes you an amateur parroting other's information of which we are at the mercy their for accuracy and authenticity. 


Am not against knowing who started the art (arguable or not), what it is classified by the Japanese as, where it came from, or the important figures, I just don't think if you or doesn't my you a "good" martial artist, or have any bearing on if you are or not a martial artist. That is determined by skill and ability. At the end of the day or when your back is up against the wall, it is skill not history that will say your butt.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 31, 2011)

My simple mind is saying , yes I can see why in Wado the founder put in throws but I still can't see why knowing that helps me hoick someone over my shoulder so that they splat on the floor.  They don't splat they sort of wriggle off, so to learn and perfect that technique I need someone to show me, correct me and put me right, that person could be a Judoka or a BJJ person knowing nothing about Wado. Knowing that Ohtsuka Sensei was a JJ master doesn't help me at all.
I know after the lofty posts mine is a bit more basic!


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 31, 2011)

Chris let me add too, that I train, learn, develop in a martial art that someone demarcated as traditional by their criteria, that does make me koryu practitioner  until they move that line, and or change the definition.  Until then my all rights and measures am a koryu practitioner; a martial artist. What ever the history of that art is, or isn't, doesn't take away the fact  I have studied it for many years, nor effects my skill, ability, expertise or qualification at it.  It doesn't remove those facts am a koryu practitioner.  What makes me a good marital artist is my skill and ability. Not my knowledge of Samurai bathing habits for example.   The criteria that is the most heavily weighted in being an expert in martial arts, which is a concrete and not an abstract field, is skill and knowledge of that skill. To the extent of its use and application.  Knowing a book load of information does make me another kind of expert, but that refers to being a scholar and not a fighter.

Now am I a scholarly martial artist. No.  Do I know some pertinent history of my art, yes.  Am I knowledgeable in the art I choose to practice? Yes by, right of experience, skill and abilities, and not by historical research.  I respect those who are scholars, but it isn't a required qualification to be a good martial artist.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 31, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Now am I a scholarly martial artist. No.  Do I know some pertinent history of my art, yes.  Am I knowledgeable in the art I choose to practice? Yes by, right of experience, skill and abilities, and not by historical research.  I respect those who are scholars, but it isn't a required qualification to be a good martial artist.



Let me clean this up a bit.  Now am I a scholarly martial artist? No. Do I know some pertinent history of my art and its traditions, yes. Am I knowledgeable in the art I choose to practice? Yes by, right of experience, skill and abilities, by tradition, and that of my teacher and peers in the art, and not by historical research. I respect those who are scholars, but it isn't a required qualification to be a good martial artist. I am not saying those with martial arts historical knowledge beyond the norm doesn't enhance your passion. I think it does, but it doesn't necessarily make you a "good" martial artist.


----------



## Chris Parker (Oct 31, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> No I don't mind. Though I would like throw out some thoughts. First, question that comes to mind, is what you know historically, accurate, authentic, reliable?  You know what they say about history, few facts lots of subjectivity. For example, look how the Japanese handle history, especially martial history and martial arts history. It is very hard to deal historically with an art that claims it originated from a Tengu, or more broadly a nation on mythology. Or some arts history that make claims that can't be proven either way.  Then there is individual perspective and preferences on historical events, accuracy issues, cultural influences, and interpretations of historians, and trends.  Look at the argument on over the last several years on the net that discredits Inazo Nitobe's  and Yamamoto Tsunetomo's views of the Samurai. What was thought of to be historically accurate views as now being refuted.



Ah, Tsunetomo in particular I tend to advise against being taken as gospel, for a range of reasons.... but the thing is, absolute historical veracity isn't the most important part of this. Something like Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, for instance, it's history claims that the art was given to the founder Iizasa Ienao Choisai by the deity of Katori Shrine in a dream, and when he awoke, he was holding the scroll with the techniques and teachings of the Ryu in his hand. Now, that isn't going to pass muster as historically accurate, but it is part of the history of that Ryu, and gives you a great insight into a range of aspects of that system, such as why they don't change their teachings, nor add to them, or even try to reconstruct their lost aspects. Knowing the history that the Ryu puts forth there absolutely informs you about it's approach, mindset, and methodology.

That should then be, ideally, combined with understanding of the more historically demonstrable things known about the time period the Ryu comes from. For instance, if it made a claim such as this, but had a lot of roundhouse kicks and spinning back kicks, or nunchaku and sai, for instance, that would be a huge indication of some issues. So when it comes down to it, some general knowledge of the surrounding environment (political, geographical, cultural etc) help fill in the gaps when the history passed down leaves some questions.

But back to Tsunetomo (and Nitobe, in a very similar way), he was very much removed from the ideals he was talking about, and was just wishing for an ideal. Neither should be taken as historical sources, more as commentaries on the ideals that some people held. Some discernment is required in any field of study, you can't just take every single account with the same weight. 



JohnEdward said:


> And how much history must you know to qualify you as a martial "artist." ? Thanks to the internet we are all genius. That information is readily at everyone's finger tips. My late instructor, being Japanese, coming from a samurai lineage knew very little historical information. His focus was on the art. He would admonish us for focusing on historical pursues. Mainly, because he knew it really didn't matter, and what mattered was skill. He was more concerned about tradition than stories, and trivia. His sensei was illiterate, and a well known samurai.  Which in a way, and here is the problem with history, disproves that samurai were educated. That argument points up back to arguments against Tsunetomo romanticizing and inflating things.
> 
> Then there is all the historical political information that ties in to an art that really is silly, and causes more misinformation and all kinds of other things, like politics.



I'm going to try to be gentle here, John, but if your instructor was concerned about tradition, that would refer (in Koryu terms) to things such as the histories and stories that are associated with the particular Ryu he was teaching. To not be concerned with such things is kinda the opposite, really. His teacher being illiterate really wouldn't come into it, to be honest, although such things tend to be indications of not entirely accurate dealings. In terms of samurai being educated, that depends on a huge number of things, such as the time period you're discussing, and the relative rank, as well as the location and station of the samurai in question. Bear in mind that Tsunetomo wasn't being that generalist, he was discussing the samurai of the Nabashima fief specifically, and went out of his way to differentiate them from samurai from other areas.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the politics side of things, that typically, in Japan, meant that things were recorded even more meticulously than they were in many other areas. Many regions would have Otomo Ryu, schools specific to that area, and under the sponsorship and protection, as well as endorsement, of the local lord. Some of the best known are the two Ryu that were the schools for the Tokugawa Shoguns, the Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, and the Ono-ha Itto Ryu. Others are ones such as Kage Ryu, and Shinto Muso Ryu in other areas. 



JohnEdward said:


> So at what point studying history is enough to qualify as being a martial artist?  What information and what amount qualifies and what doesn't?  Should you also know cultural information?  To what point, to what extent should you know this information to qualify you as a good martial arts?
> 
> What point do you become a marital arts historian vs. an artist?  At what point do you become a history nerd arguing passionately and frivolously over irrelevant minutia? We all start out as martial artists first with very little martial arts knowledge, should we morph into historians arguing points, and fighting ego battles instead of training? Where is the line? Is there one? Should there be one?



These questions are all on a case-by-case basis. If it's a Koryu, then you should know the relevant history of the system, the founder, the dates, ideally all the heads, major events in the history of the system, where in Japan it was based, who prominent students were and what systems grew out of it (if any), related stories, as well as all the teachings of the system itself. If it's a more modern system, not so much is needed, I'd say just where it comes from, who the founder was, and your connection to them. Ideally, I'd also include some understanding of why the founder created the system in the first place (for example, I studied Tani-ha Shito Ryu Shukokai Karate-do when I was younger, with my instructor teaching us that it was a great self defence art... only problem was that Tani Sensei developed Shukokai specifically with it's training drills and shorter stances to win tournaments, not self defence, as that was what he was famous for. That would be a case of not knowing the history leading to misinterpretation of the art and it's methods), and how that affects the movements of the system. Too many people just think of a martial art as a collection of techniques that X-instructor decided to put together because they liked them, or they worked for that person. Arts such as that fail, as it is dependent on the skill of that founding instructor, rather than having any real base to work from. Arts which have a purpose, such as Shukokai in winning tournaments, are grounded in a congruent philosophy, and as such "work". 

The aim isn't to become historians first, or even second. The aim is to understand your own art, and if all you do is the techniques, you are far from understanding the art. You may be able to do the techniques, but that's not the same thing.



JohnEdward said:


> Now, MMA produces a lot of good fighters. Do they know the historical background in depth of each art. Does that help them develop a good punch. I am a firm believer in knowing your history as not to repeat it. I believe you need to know a certain type of historical information, i.e. what others before you did. I think what is required for most koryu historically is lineage, most what you need to know is tradition.  There is the crux. It's knowing the pertinent historical traditions of your art, vs. historical minutia that is often an exercise of intellectual masturbation and futility resulting in the only value of debate and ego.



MMA athletes don't need to know the historical background of disparate arts, but you'll find that they're pretty well versed in their own. They'll know what techniques tend to bring the greatest amount of success, who was known for what types of tactics and approaches, who beat who, who changed other people's training due to their success in unexpected ways, and so on. In terms of them developing a good punch, let's look at that. They either had a TMA-style background, in which they were taught a punching method that generated power in a certain way (due to it's particular history), or they learnt a "boxing" style punching method, either in boxing/kickboxing gyms, or from an MMA coach. In each of these cases there is a history of development of training methodologies aiming at developing better, more explosive, more precise, and faster punches. The way that history comes into this, as it's a very recent art, is based on the training and coaching history of the people involved. A well known and well respected coach, who gets good results and trains high class athletes, is then working with that history to promote themselves and get new students. And they got that history by learning from someone else, and establishing their own reputation. Ask an MMA guy who they'd like to work with to improve their grappling, and they'll give you a short list of names with established reputations. That's the history of those individuals coming into play. It doesn't need to go back that far, really.

With Koryu, lineage is a big part of it, yeah, but frankly I don't really know what the rest of that sentence means... 



JohnEdward said:


> Now, knowing a great deal of a martial art history may be needed if you need to justify your arts existence, to prove it is not made up. Or correct errors of perception etc. So of course your going to weight history over skill. Especially if your art was recently made up within the last 50 years. Then there is the risk that historical information gets twisted, omitted etc. for being proof.  Thus compromises the value of having a historical component qualifying you as a good or even a martial artist. You are only as good as the information.



Again, I'm not sure what you're saying here. History doesn't get valued over skill at any point, but skill is relative to the art itself. Historical understanding can clear up issues of illegitimacy, sure, but that's not the same thing. There is no qualifying anyone as a good martial artist based on historical knowledge the way you are painting it here, really. What I am saying is that a martial artist is someone who truly understands their art, why it does what it does and so on, and the answers to that are found in the arts history, therefore an understanding of the history (relative to the art you're doing) is a part of it. I'm really not saying that everyone needs to have a full understanding of the to's and fro's of the battle of Sekiguchi to be considered a martial artist, unless that is a major event in that art's history. And I really don't know what you mean by "You are only as good as the information". 



JohnEdward said:


> Lastly, this issue of the qualified historians vs. amatures. Anyone can pull info from the web, that doesn't make you good. It doesn't make you an expert [historian or martial artist]. For me to run along your premise, extensive historical information is needed to be a good martial artist. That means you need to be qualified by a University, you need an advanced degree [in area of history].  Pulling historical info about marital arts and your own off the internet blindly accepting what your told doesn't qualify you [as a good martial artist], it makes you an amateur parroting other's information of which we are at the mercy their for accuracy and authenticity.


 
 No, you've really grabbed the wrong end of things here, John. That's not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying that the history, relative to the art you're studying, needs to be understood (not parroted) to really say you understand the art. There is no need for anyone to be a qualified historian, or anything similar. And this is not about being able to reel off facts, names, dates, or anything else, it is about understanding where the art came from, and why it is the way it is. I really don't know where you got this idea from...



JohnEdward said:


> Am not against knowing who started the art (arguable or not), what it is classified by the Japanese as, where it came from, or the important figures, I just don't think if you or doesn't my you a "good" martial artist, or have any bearing on if you are or not a martial artist. That is determined by skill and ability. At the end of the day or when your back is up against the wall, it is skill not history that will say your butt.


 
That depends entirely on the art itself, though. As in all things in this field. I wouldn't apply the same requirements to BJJ as I would Krav Maga, as I would Koryu Kenjutsu, as I would Wing Chun, as I would MMA, and so on. And when it comes to skill being the determining factor, that again is very relative to the art. Being able to "handle yourself", for instance, is pretty irrelevant when it comes to Koryu, same with generating success in competition, but BJJ would put a big emphasis on that, and Krav Maga or RBSD are going to be very big on "handling yourself", and not care about competition. "Saving your butt" only applies to those arts that it applies to, not to every art. It has little place in Koryu, Iaido, Kyudo, and a range of others. And besides, all that shows is that you're a decent fighter, not a martial artist.



JohnEdward said:


> Chris let me add too, that I train, learn, develop in a martial art that someone demarcated as traditional by their criteria, that does make me koryu practitioner  until they move that line, and or change the definition.  Until then my all rights and measures am a koryu practitioner; a martial artist. What ever the history of that art is, or isn't, doesn't take away the fact  I have studied it for many years, nor effects my skill, ability, expertise or qualification at it.  It doesn't remove those facts am a koryu practitioner.  What makes me a good marital artist is my skill and ability. Not my knowledge of Samurai bathing habits for example.   The criteria that is the most heavily weighted in being an expert in martial arts, which is a concrete and not an abstract field, is skill and knowledge of that skill. To the extent of its use and application.  Knowing a book load of information does make me another kind of expert, but that refers to being a scholar and not a fighter.



Okay, quick check list for Koryu, then. Can you tell me the founder of the system? The date of the founding? Where it was situated in Japan? Any important or famous members? Who it was associated with? The name of the system?

I want you to realise that I am not saying anything about your skill, experience, your teacher, or anything else, but I will say that your posting history has gone pretty much directly against the experience of every other Koryu practitioner that I have met, talked to, conversed with, or really had any contact with whatsoever. As to your comments there, martial arts are one of the most abstract fields I have ever come across, it is completely vague, with as much variation as there are people practicing, I really don't know how you can say it's "concrete". And, one more time, I'm not saying everyone needs to know a "bookload of information", but the history and it's effects relative to the art they practice is one of my criteria for what I would call a martial artist, rather than just a technician or fighter. Hell, being a fighter almost doesn't enter into it, that's a completely separate idea as far as I'm concerned.



JohnEdward said:


> Let me clean this up a bit. Now am I a scholarly martial artist? No. Do I know some pertinent history of my art and its traditions, yes. Am I knowledgeable in the art I choose to practice? Yes by, right of experience, skill and abilities, by tradition, and that of my teacher and peers in the art, and not by historical research. I respect those who are scholars, but it isn't a required qualification to be a good martial artist. I am not saying those with martial arts historical knowledge beyond the norm doesn't enhance your passion. I think it does, but it doesn't necessarily make you a "good" martial artist.



And one last time, being a scholar is only important if you are going to be a scholar (say, joining the Hoplology Society, fun guys). The historical knowledge should be part of the art itself, part of the training, part of the induction. If you ask a BJJ practitioner if they know who Helio Gracie was, they should be able to tell you. Maybe not his birthdate, or his middle name, but they will know who he was, and his place in the art. That's really all that's required there, as that starts to inform the technique and the knowledge of the art (by knowing about Helio, you understand the placement of Brazil, you know that it's based on Judo methods, you understand the adaptation that occured, how the Gracies, under Helio, developed their expression, and so on). That's what I'm talking about, not sending karate students off to the library at all hours.... although that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.



Tez3 said:


> Not in the least heady, enjoying intelligent discussion. When Jenna used your middle name as well are you in trouble lol?
> 
> History, as you understand and use it, while I believe correctly, is not what we have come to see when it deals with martial arts.
> 
> ...



Ha, I don't think I've told her my middle name... that's particularly sacred knowledge...

With these histories, they're fairly basic, but they're also a start. By knowing the origins of TKD, as put down in the first link, you can start to see why it does what it does, why there's a preference towards kicking, and so on. It really comes down to being able to interpret the names and dates, each of them tells a story, if you can see it. Knowing General Choi's place in the development of TKD might not enable you to train better in the moment, but it can help inform your understanding of the entirety of the system, which can make your training sessions more productive, moving towards a unified and congruent whole. Additionally, when things come in from outside, you will have a better understanding of how to integrate it into your training, or if you should ignore it, because you will have a better idea of the big picture of the art, and how it all fits into it's ideal design.

Knowing a name doesn't change your punch, knowing that the system relies on a particular punch due to the outfits worn by it's common enemies can help you figure out which parts of the training are most relevant to your situation and needs (rather than just doing it cause that's what it says, you understand why it says that in the first place).

For myself, each of the main systems I teach have different blocking and punching methods, with the punch coming in from different angles, with a different use of the body behind it, and so on. And, by understanding what the names and dates are telling me in the histories of those schools, I understand why it is done that way, which makes my training and teaching of them that much more powerful.



Tez3 said:


> My simple mind is saying , yes I can see why in Wado the founder put in throws but I still can't see why knowing that helps me hoick someone over my shoulder so that they splat on the floor.  They don't splat they sort of wriggle off, so to learn and perfect that technique I need someone to show me, correct me and put me right, that person could be a Judoka or a BJJ person knowing nothing about Wado. Knowing that Ohtsuka Sensei was a JJ master doesn't help me at all.
> I know after the lofty posts mine is a bit more basic!



Okay, let's take this back to what you learn from understanding the history here, because I'd recommend against getting the BJJ or Judo guy in if you want to improve your Wado approach and ability. They'll just muck it up.

While the best thing to do is to get some understanding of the basic ideas and principles of Shindo Yoshin Ryu, I'm going to forgo that here, and just deal with the information you've put down (Otsuka Sensei being a licenced senior instructor in Shindo Yoshin Ryu), and see what that gives us, as it's a fair amount more than you may think.

First off, there's nothing there about "why" Otsuka put throws into Wado, but there is an indication of why there are more throws and grappling applications in Wado (why he put them in is most likely just because it was something he knew well, and felt they were a powerful aspect of combative methodologies). The reason there are grappling methods in Wado Ryu is because part of it's source was Shindo Yoshin Ryu Jujutsu. I know that sounds rather redundant and obvious, but it's kinda important. What it tells you is that Wado Ryu contains influence from Shindo Yoshin Ryu, but that the application of it's grappling methods needs to fit with the more "Karate" method of the rest of the art (based primarily on Shotokan, with some other Okinawan influence). This means that the use of the hips, for instance, will be pretty much the same, whether you are throwing or striking. It also means that your spine will be kept straighter than in, say, Judo, with less bend. Your legs will typically be further apart as well, and many of the throwing actions will be more based on a fulcrum, turning and snapping the hips, rather than placing them below and lifting (you still need your hips lower, though...). The kuzushi elements will be more based on placing, or snapping, the hips "through" the opponent, rather than Judo's more common "pulling" kuzushi (there is still pulling, but it's emphasis isn't so big). Legs will tend towards being straighter, and actions will be sharp and sudden, as well as direct.

To "hoick" someone over your shoulder, well, that depends on the throw, really, but look to the karate mechanics to achieve it. The Judo and BJJ ones are different. (A suggestion? Move past them as you go into it, it's all about the hip placement moving your entire body at once).

From there, the next step would be to get some understanding of the Akiyama Yoshin Ryu lines, if you were so inclined, but that's not really necessary. The most important thing about knowing that Otsuka Sensei was also a practitioner of a Jujutsu line is to understand that the mechanics of the Wado Ryu system need to be able to provide power for both striking and grappling/throwing. If you're finding problems with one or the other, then you've probably missed some part of what Wado Ryu is teaching.


----------



## Jenna (Oct 31, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Ah, my dearest and truest J, I would never dare to tell you you are wrong, particularly when it comes to opinion...
> 
> The point that I am making is more that you may think that you are doing your Monkey Catching Cricket strike (nice move, very fast, coming in from an unseen angle... very sneaky, I approve), but without understanding where it comes from, and why it is done the way it is, you may very easily not be doing it at all, but doing something different. This is what I was getting at with the description of what a martial art and martial artist is in the first place, are you truly a Monkey Catching Cricket practitioner if you aren't doing it correctly, as you don't know the actual context? Or are you just doing something similar, and thinking that if it works, it's good enough?
> 
> ...


Yes.

I am not (necessarily) doing Monkey Catching Cricket correctly if I do not understand exactly the environmental and/or spiritual context in which the founder envisaged the monkey catching the cricket.  Yes, that is the epiphany candle lit!  Good!  Thank you Christopher 

But... and this is not a question as you have already answered my question and I am very satisfied with that.  This is just rhetoric and opinion.  So, where was I..  But...

With what you have explained, I will place one condition on researching the historical context of techniques from a specific art.  And that is, that the history, for it to be as close to first-hand as possible MUST have been written or recorded or annotated by the founder(s) of the art.  In my case, if since I was not there in the mushroom wood when the founder observed these animal antics himself, I can NEVER know _first hand_ of this environmental and/or spiritual mindset context.  Very best I can do is a version which is removed only once from the founder to me by reading something he or she has recorded.  

If I read something many times removed, or chinese-whispers-style handed down from one practicing generation to the next until they reach my C21st generation then it is diluted and it is subject to interpretations and opinions.  Is this not correct?   Therefore, to make ANY good use of history for Monkey Catching Cricket, I must learn DIRECTLY from the founder who was there.  Nobody else was there.  Except the monkey.  Who was illiterate.  If I am to learn the history from a second-hand interpretation then I might as well not delve into the history at all.  I am wasting my time as Shihan can already give me a perfectly good diluted version subject to many generations of interpretation and I do not need to consult history for an equally incorrect version.  Would you agree with this proposition?


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 31, 2011)

With all politeness. For one thing, Chris, my instructor was legitimate, and so is the art. No one debates or questions it. Be it Koryu or not, isn't a concern either. If my art was in question than it would be a concern. But it isn't. My instructor didn't call himself Soke or what have you, there is no obscurity in my art.  Just because I say somethings about my art and it's tradition, which you may or may not agree with doesn't effect me as a koryu practitioner. My license is valid, and not questionable.  You may question my practices of tradition, but are you a koryu expert, do you belong to my art, did you study under my sensei. Just because am not a Japanophile or have customs or traditions your not an expert in, or fit your personal "historical" criteria doesn't make me any more or less of a Koryu practicitioner. Knowing or not knowing history has nothing to do with that.  Don't confuse culture and traditions, with history. Especially if your not privy to that culture or traditions.  Just because I choose not to play samurai and ninjas, or a walking museum, or a walking encyclopedia doesn't make me or my art any less  valid or  traditional -that annoys the hell many traditional instructors of my instructors generation. You would have know that if you had a traditional instructor.  It already has been established by the proper authorities and history the validity of my art and what I have said. I know I stand on solid ground and there is no need to question, unless you are unaware, and lack the required knowledge. There is a difference btw, between the amateur historian and the qualified scholar. Yes, being a qualified scholar can enhance your as a martial artist, it has no weight on being legit or Koryu.  Being an amateur is another thing. I can't recognize amateur historians opinion, i.e. history nerds or geeks qualifiable. Unless the have  Ph.D. behind them. And even than that would only be in their area of expertise, history.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 31, 2011)

Chris, if we subscribe to your view under your criteria, that, having a detail knowledge of history makes your a good martial artist, than 99.9% of the world's martial artists past and present would not be good.


----------



## Steve (Oct 31, 2011)

Well, hasn't this been a fun run around the block? 

My personal opinion is that the history and origin of a martial art is only important if it is important to you.  In other words, if it is interesting or helpful for you knowing the origin of a technique, then there is value.  However, the only thing that is essential to being a martial artist is in the execution of technique.  Everything else has value only if it has value to you.

One thing that I disagree with is the use of the term "martial art" to mean Asian martial art.  While Karate, Kung Fu et al are Asian, there were people all over the world swinging swords, axes, spears, and firing bows for thousands of years all over the rest of the world, as well.  Langenschwert posts some pretty damned neat documents regarding German sword play, as an example.  

Now, I will say that if the history or historical accuracy isn't important to you, you should be receptive to some amount of historical correction.  What I mean is, for example, I don't know squat about what Koryu is or what it means.  I get the sense that it's a term that carries some very specific meaning to some, and more general meaning to others.  It's a good example, though, of how an historical term can come to mean something different in modern common usage.  Karate as a term itself refers both to a specific set of martial arts styles, and also as a generic term for martial arts among many laymen.   The term has been co-opted.

Ultimately, the main thing is that history is interesting.  It's fun.  It's cool to know.  But it's not essential.  If my back monkey fist technique is actually what a monk 300 years ago would call a Petal Fist backhand, does it really matter?  Only if preserving the integrity of the history of the art is important.  If the technique is properly executed, than the name doesn't matter.

As an aside, the contrast between Judo and BJJ is interesting to me.  Judo students are required to learn a specific canon of techniques, and to learn the proper Japanese label for these techniques. I understand the rationale is so that if you travel to Japan, while you might not speak Japanese, you can still train because you speak "judo."  I get that and it makes sense.

In BJJ, it's common for people to teach techniques not knowing what they're called.  Or for a technique to have several names.  For example, there is a fundamental sweep in BJJ called a pendulum sweep.  I have heard this same technique referred to as a flower sweep, but I distinguish between the two techniques.  To me, they are different (but similar).   Ultimately, though, what matters is that you are doing them correctly so that they work.  And a Brazilian coach would call them something different because unlike in Judo, the Japanese label has not been retained... nor has the Portuguese.  Mata Leao is a Rear Naked Choke, is a Hadaka-jime in Judo.  Same technique.  The question is, are you executing the technique correctly?  You don't need historical context to answer that question.


----------



## JohnEdward (Oct 31, 2011)

Yea what Steve said.


----------



## Tez3 (Oct 31, 2011)

I think it's unlikely knowing the ins and outs of martial arts minutiae will make me a better martial artist, I really think it's Royler Gracie I want to teach me to chuck people around...eventually. Sigh.

I have to admit I let a lot of the high flying stuff go over my head, for me I don't really need to know the academic stuff behind what I do, I need to know it works and the best way to do that is train. I have plenty of other academic interests that keep my brain ticking over, I don't need it in martial arts I'm afraid. Going back to Wado Ryu, knowing where the techniques come from really doesn't help me execute them, I'm not too young, have never been that supple so I need an instructor to show me how to get the best out of my training, he'll do that with experience not of history but of how bodies can move, how he/she can put over what the techniques is doing and how to make me do it properly. Martial arts is purely a physical thing with me, I can't invest anything more into it than hard work and training, it's not a spiritual thing as far as I'm concerned and while I like the fact that people in the past have trained it all that means to me is that what they do works.


----------



## Jenna (Oct 31, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Chris, if we subscribe to your view under your criteria, that, having a detail knowledge of history makes your a good martial artist, than 99.9% of the world's martial artists past and present would not be good.


Oh, I like that proposition.  It is simple and clever.


----------



## Cyriacus (Oct 31, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> I kinda hate to do this to you, Cyriacus, but, uh, no. I was a member of the same TKD organisation, remember, and that's not really part of it's history (then again, they give a 1300 year history for the art, when a lot of it was remarkably similar to the Shito Ryu [Shukokai] Karate that I'd trained previously, and the Shotokan that I'd experienced as well.... hmm). When it comes to TKD's involvement in the Korean Special Forces, that's a bit of a stretch of the reality, and is more PR than anything else. Part of TKD's origins are General Choi heading a group to introduce it to the military to aid their morale and fitness, rather than anything combatively beneficial. Some aspects were altered and put into some Special Forces training, but that is rather removed from TKD itself in many ways.


 
The Founder of this Organisation was, however, a Part of it - Its a question, to Me, of the Idealogy of its founding.

Suffice to say, I cant say I exactly follow General Choi by heel. I dont think he was as remarkable as hes made out to be, at all.
In fact, given when I wrote My Former Comment, Im surprised I didnt elaborate on that aspect.
For anyone elses reference, when I say Founder of this Organisation, I am not referring to Choi.
I know Chris Parker probably knows this - But just to prevent anyone else from being deviated from the Discussion;

As regards to Militaristic and Sporting; Im aware there are other Options - I was mainly trying to keep things Topical rather than listing every possible variation.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Nov 1, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> The Founder of this Organisation was, however, a Part of it - Its a question, to Me, of the Idealogy of its founding.
> 
> Suffice to say, I cant say I exactly follow General Choi by heel. I dont think he was as remarkable as hes made out to be, at all.
> In fact, given when I wrote My Former Comment, Im surprised I didnt elaborate on that aspect.
> ...


I always wondered how much truth there was to the whole tkd in the military thing. Our GM was employed by the americans in the korean war to teach them hand to hand combat. He left the country at the end of the war. I asked him what exactly he taught the soldiers and he looked at me as if I was stupid and said "taekwondo". He wasnt running through the various forms or doing timber breaking drills obviously, largely because of time constraints, but the kicks, punches, throws, locks, joint manipulation etc etc he taught them was the same tkd he teaches us, so I have no doubt that tkd was taught to soldiers. Problem is people think tkd is all 540 kicks and back flips and think that there is no way that was relevent to 'war'. I've been doing tkd for 6 years and have never been shown a 540 kick or back flip kick or any of those 'flashy' techs. Tkd is a very broad term. The secret service agents in korea also learn tkd and one of their most common techs is a double jump front kick, they touched on this in a good documentary I saw about the korean secret service.


----------



## Cyriacus (Nov 1, 2011)

ralphmcpherson said:


> I always wondered how much truth there was to the whole tkd in the military thing. Our GM was employed by the americans in the korean war to teach them hand to hand combat. He left the country at the end of the war. I asked him what exactly he taught the soldiers and he looked at me as if I was stupid and said "taekwondo". He wasnt running through the various forms or doing timber breaking drills obviously, largely because of time constraints, but the kicks, punches, throws, locks, joint manipulation etc etc he taught them was the same tkd he teaches us, so I have no doubt that tkd was taught to soldiers. Problem is people think tkd is all 540 kicks and back flips and think that there is no way that was relevent to 'war'. I've been doing tkd for 6 years and have never been shown a 540 kick or back flip kick or any of those 'flashy' techs. Tkd is a very broad term. The secret service agents in korea also learn tkd and one of their most common techs is a double jump front kick, they touched on this in a good documentary I saw about the korean secret service.



Well, the aspect is, that I dont really put much thought into General Choi. Who bloody knows EXACTLY what he did.
All I know, is that the Founder of this Organisation WAS a part of the Korean Special Forces, and claims to have used TKD as a part of that, as well as the Group He Headed. Which is hardly Promotional, since we dont exactly Advertise ourselves. And he said it to one Instructor during a Conversation, who then talked about that Comment with another Instructor which I was able to Listen to from a few meters away.

Well, at least most of Us dont.
Ive seen a few of our Halls around that take things a bit out of Context, and go all "Family Friendly Easy Going Etc" on everyone. Which is a shame.

But the main thing is, the Application. If you look at definitive Militarised Forms, such as Systema, or apparently Krav Maga (So Im Told. Ive not really Researched it yet); They have quite alot in Common with what Im Learning, besides the Nature of the Approach. From what ive Read about LINE, its a bit closer to that. Again, only with different Natures of Approach. Since theyre not the same thing. Its Basics, and a "Be As Effective As Possible In The Shortest Time Possible" Mindset. And it covers just about everything.

The Fanciest thing ive ever seen taught is a Jumping Spinning Heel Kick, and I think that was for a Pattern.


----------



## ralphmcpherson (Nov 1, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> Well, the aspect is, that I dont really put much thought into General Choi. Who bloody knows EXACTLY what he did.
> All I know, is that the Founder of this Organisation WAS a part of the Korean Special Forces, and claims to have used TKD as a part of that, as well as the Group He Headed. Which is hardly Promotional, since we dont exactly Advertise ourselves. And he said it to one Instructor during a Conversation, who then talked about that Comment with another Instructor which I was able to Listen to from a few meters away.
> 
> Well, at least most of Us dont.
> ...


We go by a very similar philosophy. Maximum damage, minimum time, get the hell out of there. Even our sparring is knockdown sparring , not points sparring. The concept is knock the opponent down as quickly as possible, with very little emphasis on combinations etc. Fast and effective. We have quite a few military and police officers train with us and they use it 'on the job'. Similarly, the most flashy tech we learn is a jump spin hook kick, but we use it more as a training drill to enhance balance, co ordination etc and not so much for the actual kick itself, although Ive seen a few guys knocked out badly in sparring from that kick so I wont rule it out completely.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 1, 2011)

Jenna said:


> Yes.
> 
> I am not (necessarily) doing Monkey Catching Cricket correctly if I do not understand exactly the environmental and/or spiritual context in which the founder envisaged the monkey catching the cricket.  Yes, that is the epiphany candle lit!  Good!  Thank you Christopher



Er, not to confuse matters, but, uh, not quite. You don't need to understand exactly, but you do have to have understanding within the context. I think people are taking this idea of knowing the history to a bit of an extreme, and that's not needed, so I'll see if I can help clear up a few things here.



Jenna said:


> But... and this is not a question as you have already answered my question and I am very satisfied with that.  This is just rhetoric and opinion.  So, where was I..  But...
> 
> With what you have explained, I will place one condition on researching the historical context of techniques from a specific art.  And that is, that the history, for it to be as close to first-hand as possible MUST have been written or recorded or annotated by the founder(s) of the art.  In my case, if since I was not there in the mushroom wood when the founder observed these animal antics himself, I can NEVER know _first hand_ of this environmental and/or spiritual mindset context.  Very best I can do is a version which is removed only once from the founder to me by reading something he or she has recorded.
> 
> If I read something many times removed, or chinese-whispers-style handed down from one practicing generation to the next until they reach my C21st generation then it is diluted and it is subject to interpretations and opinions.  Is this not correct?   Therefore, to make ANY good use of history for Monkey Catching Cricket, I must learn DIRECTLY from the founder who was there.  Nobody else was there.  Except the monkey.  Who was illiterate.  If I am to learn the history from a second-hand interpretation then I might as well not delve into the history at all.  I am wasting my time as Shihan can already give me a perfectly good diluted version subject to many generations of interpretation and I do not need to consult history for an equally incorrect version.  Would you agree with this proposition?


 
That's the thing, it's not about researching, that's only something that is done if the interest is there. What I am talking about should be a part of the way you learn the art in the first place. You don't need to know the exact swamp, what type of monkey, and so on, but you should know the story involving a monkey and a cricket as part of understanding the strike. For example, within Koto Ryu we have a technique called Gohi, and part of the instruction of that technique involves a story about a cat catching a mouse. That story is used to explain the method of striking used within that technique. Now, do you need to know what type of cat it was, of where the mouse was at the time? No, it's an illustratory story coming from an observation of an action in nature which has formed part of the history and teaching of that technique within that system. Without knowing that story, though, it's very difficult to get that strike correct, as the "feel" behind the technique is a transmitted through the story. It doesn't even matter if there never was a cat, and they never caught a mouse. But that story is part of the history of that system. There are a range of other examples I can think of, but that's probably the closest to what you're discussing.

If the history (the story) is lost, or forgotten, then the art is lost, as anything that doesn't have such a vital aspect to it is then only part of the entire system. It becomes a smaller, diminished form. Now, that exists in a range of systems and arts, but if they were to lose everything from their history, the art would vanish. All you would be left with would be techniques that might or might not be accurate to the art itself.



JohnEdward said:


> With all politeness. For one thing, Chris, my instructor was legitimate, and so is the art. No one debates or questions it. Be it Koryu or not, isn't a concern either. If my art was in question than it would be a concern. But it isn't. My instructor didn't call himself Soke or what have you, there is no obscurity in my art.  Just because I say somethings about my art and it's tradition, which you may or may not agree with doesn't effect me as a koryu practitioner. My license is valid, and not questionable.  You may question my practices of tradition, but are you a koryu expert, do you belong to my art, did you study under my sensei. Just because am not a Japanophile or have customs or traditions your not an expert in, or fit your personal "historical" criteria doesn't make me any more or less of a Koryu practicitioner. Knowing or not knowing history has nothing to do with that.  Don't confuse culture and traditions, with history. Especially if your not privy to that culture or traditions.  Just because I choose not to play samurai and ninjas, or a walking museum, or a walking encyclopedia doesn't make me or my art any less  valid or  traditional -that annoys the hell many traditional instructors of my instructors generation. You would have know that if you had a traditional instructor.  It already has been established by the proper authorities and history the validity of my art and what I have said. I know I stand on solid ground and there is no need to question, unless you are unaware, and lack the required knowledge. There is a difference btw, between the amateur historian and the qualified scholar. Yes, being a qualified scholar can enhance your as a martial artist, it has no weight on being legit or Koryu.  Being an amateur is another thing. I can't recognize amateur historians opinion, i.e. history nerds or geeks qualifiable. Unless the have  Ph.D. behind them. And even than that would only be in their area of expertise, history.


 
John, I don't really want to bring all of this over to this thread, but so far your entire posting history has shown such a gap in understanding of a huge range of aspects of Japanese martial arts in general, and Koryu (and Jujutsu) in particular that there is the increasing likelihood that your teacher was just teaching you something generic. Now, one more time, if it's Koryu or not doesn't make it a good or bad thing, they are neither better nor worse than any other form of martial art, just a distinct and separate approach. So before I bring into it the statements you have previously made that show this, can you answer the very simple question of which Ryu you study and where it comes from (founder, time period, location in Japan if you can)? If you can't, then it isn't Koryu, end of story. And again, that doesn't make it bad, or lessen it's value in any way, it's just a more accurate classification which can help lessen confusion in conversation here and elsewhere.

But seriously, don't get me started on "you would know that if you had a traditional instructor", John. Or any of a dozen other things you say here, as it shows again a huge lack of understanding in this area.



JohnEdward said:


> Chris, if we subscribe to your view under your criteria, that, having a detail knowledge of history makes your a good martial artist, than 99.9% of the world's martial artists past and present would not be good.


 
Again, you're all getting the idea that "history" in this case means knowing all the dates and names, reading lots of books, and so on. It doesn't. It means knowing the relevant and relative aspects of the history of your art as it pertains to it's practice. It means understanding the developments in Ueshiba's life so you understand why a spinning back kick/roundhouse combo isn't part of Aikido. It means knowing what kata come in what order and why they lead from one to another. It means knowing that a jab/hook combination isn't the type of attack that Epee Fencing was designed for. Honestly, most of you are probably far more aware of your martial history and it's influence on the techniques and training practices of your art than you realise, which is what makes you martial artists. 

Essentially, a martial artist is one who can look at a particular technique/methodology/approach, and say whether or not it is part of their art. And that knowledge comes from understanding the history of the art, which is what forms the methods that you know. It's more training than book learning, really.



Steve said:


> Well, hasn't this been a fun run around the block?
> 
> My personal opinion is that the history and origin of a martial art is only important if it is important to you.  In other words, if it is interesting or helpful for you knowing the origin of a technique, then there is value.  However, the only thing that is essential to being a martial artist is in the execution of technique.  Everything else has value only if it has value to you.



Hmm, to a degree, sure. But the thing to understand is that the technique only exists because of the history, and it's the history that determines it's inclusion and application. Besides that, you'll find it's rather rare to have any instance of 'this technique was invented when so-and-so was fighting such-and-such, and found he couldn't do something-or-other, so he invented this'. More commonly, it's that the history of an art, whether that is a history of famous practitioners, or a history of success in competition, that determines a lot of the value of an art. The techniques themselves? Their value is determined based on context.



Steve said:


> One thing that I disagree with is the use of the term "martial art" to mean Asian martial art.  While Karate, Kung Fu et al are Asian, there were people all over the world swinging swords, axes, spears, and firing bows for thousands of years all over the rest of the world, as well.  Langenschwert posts some pretty damned neat documents regarding German sword play, as an example.


 
Yep, agreed. Although the argument can be made that it's dominantly in Asia that these arts survived, the documents that Langenschwert and others work with are attempts at reconstructing things that are lost, and a fair amount of that history, such as the "cat catching a mouse" story may be missing as well. For instance, here is a thread on another forum about just such an aspect of these old documents, a posture known in Fiore as Bicornio, and the attempt was made to relate it to a Kenjutsu kamae, known as Hongaku no Kamae. The issue is that the use of the different postures, although incredibly similar in appearance, can be wildly different in application, and that application is discovered, or transmitted through understanding and appreciation of it's history... in fact, the application is an expression of that history. Anyway, here's the thread: http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101693

As you can see by my comments on the second page, knowing the usage within the system (something informed by it's history) can change the way things are done... and if that history isn't completely known and understood, there is a great chance of getting it wrong. Otake Sensei of the Katori Shinto Ryu has helped members of other systems reconstruct lost parts of their Ryu-ha, but is completely against the idea of doing so for his. The reason is that, without the transmission (the history) being passed down from one generation to the next, it's too easy to miss something, or get something misinterpreted, and therefore be incorrect when you do it. It might work, but it wouldn't be that art. And when dealing with something like Katori Shinto Ryu, who believe that their art is directly descended from Heaven (part of their history), to transmit something incorrect as part of the Ryu is basically sacrelige. 



Steve said:


> Now, I will say that if the history or historical accuracy isn't important to you, you should be receptive to some amount of historical correction.  What I mean is, for example, I don't know squat about what Koryu is or what it means.  I get the sense that it's a term that carries some very specific meaning to some, and more general meaning to others.  It's a good example, though, of how an historical term can come to mean something different in modern common usage.  Karate as a term itself refers both to a specific set of martial arts styles, and also as a generic term for martial arts among many laymen.   The term has been co-opted.



Ah, the term Koryu... basically, it has two meanings, and both are always applied. One is a direct reference to the age and origin of the system (Japanese, predating the Meiji Restoration), the other is in the way it is transmitted. For example, you can get people looking at old-based systems, such as the Bujinkan and related arts, where there are certainly Japanese arts predating the Meiji Restoration, and say "that's not Koryu". And you'd be correct, as both aspects are required. But enough about that.

When it comes to historical accuracy, that isn't what I've been getting at here. What I've been talking about in terms of history is more knowing why your art does certain things, and not others, by understanding where it comes from and how it was developed and used. You don't have to know all the details, but you do have to have the sense of where it came from, and why it is the way it is. Otherwise you'd have spinning kicks and three sectional staves and be able to say that it's all BJJ. What makes it BJJ is the history, and the history is the history of it's use and development, which has lead to what it is now. If that makes sense.



Steve said:


> Ultimately, the main thing is that history is interesting.  It's fun.  It's cool to know.  But it's not essential.  If my back monkey fist technique is actually what a monk 300 years ago would call a Petal Fist backhand, does it really matter?  Only if preserving the integrity of the history of the art is important.  If the technique is properly executed, than the name doesn't matter.



Again, not really the point (as an aside, I was once told "Knowing history is all well and good, and I'm glad you enjoy it... but it won't get you laid!"... so I'm pretty aware of the shortcomings of such approaches to the arts, and only give that side the amount of attention I feel it deserves, which is far from all encompassing. I've been known to tell my guys that it's more important to be able to do the techniques than know all the names and dates, but knowing the history, which gives the "feel" for the techniques in many ways, is part of being able to do them). More realistically, it is a question of whether or not what you are doing now is actually what was done, or if it fits with the concepts from previous generations of the art. You doing a back monkey fist might look like the 300 year old Petal Fist backhand, but the application could be vastly different, and knowing the context, and the usage, which is the history of the movement, would show that.

For example, I'd see that the "back monkey fist" would be snapping, while moving away, while a "Petal Fist backhand" might be more moving to the side, circling around, and have less "snap" to it. From the outside, they may look almost identical, but they are actually very different from a functional and tactical standpoint... but how would you know that if you didn't know the history of the technique?



Steve said:


> As an aside, the contrast between Judo and BJJ is interesting to me.  Judo students are required to learn a specific canon of techniques, and to learn the proper Japanese label for these techniques. I understand the rationale is so that if you travel to Japan, while you might not speak Japanese, you can still train because you speak "judo."  I get that and it makes sense.



Yeah, not really the history side of things, though. The history side of things would tell you why throws are typcially learnt on the right side first, or where the standard "judo grab" comes from. In BJJ, knowing the history would tell you why the emphasis is on position, rather than Judo's "grip war" approach.



Steve said:


> In BJJ, it's common for people to teach techniques not knowing what they're called.  Or for a technique to have several names.  For example, there is a fundamental sweep in BJJ called a pendulum sweep.  I have heard this same technique referred to as a flower sweep, but I distinguish between the two techniques.  To me, they are different (but similar).   Ultimately, though, what matters is that you are doing them correctly so that they work.  And a Brazilian coach would call them something different because unlike in Judo, the Japanese label has not been retained... nor has the Portuguese.  Mata Leao is a Rear Naked Choke, is a Hadaka-jime in Judo.  Same technique.  The question is, are you executing the technique correctly?  You don't need historical context to answer that question.


 
Different cultural names may or may not indicate different tactical and applicational uses, so the first thing would be to look at the history to determine if it's a similar answer developed to the same or similar problems, or if there really is a difference between them (again, look to the thread on MAP on Hongaku no Kamae/Bicornio a Fiore). But the names, although they can be part of it, and be indications towards the history, aren't really what I'm talking about. That said, ask a BJJ guy why a reverse figure four armlock is called a Kimura if you want to see an application of understanding and knowing your history....



Cyriacus said:


> The Founder of this Organisation was, however, a Part of it - Its a question, to Me, of the Idealogy of its founding.
> 
> Suffice to say, I cant say I exactly follow General Choi by heel. I dont think he was as remarkable as hes made out to be, at all.
> In fact, given when I wrote My Former Comment, Im surprised I didnt elaborate on that aspect.
> ...


 
The founder of the organisation came to Australia in 1960, not too long after TKD was first developed. Part of what he did here was to present courses and demonstrations to various military bases and so forth, and I believe he was in the Korean Military before coming to Australia, but there is no indication that the system you are learning had anything to do with the Korean Special Forces. The system you learn has been out of Korea for 50 years.



ralphmcpherson said:


> I always wondered how much truth there was to the whole tkd in the military thing. Our GM was employed by the americans in the korean war to teach them hand to hand combat. He left the country at the end of the war. I asked him what exactly he taught the soldiers and he looked at me as if I was stupid and said "taekwondo". He wasnt running through the various forms or doing timber breaking drills obviously, largely because of time constraints, but the kicks, punches, throws, locks, joint manipulation etc etc he taught them was the same tkd he teaches us, so I have no doubt that tkd was taught to soldiers. Problem is people think tkd is all 540 kicks and back flips and think that there is no way that was relevent to 'war'. I've been doing tkd for 6 years and have never been shown a 540 kick or back flip kick or any of those 'flashy' techs. Tkd is a very broad term. The secret service agents in korea also learn tkd and one of their most common techs is a double jump front kick, they touched on this in a good documentary I saw about the korean secret service.



TKD in the Korean Military? Sure was! The question becomes why it was there, and what purpose it was serving. And often combative applicability is not the primary reason for any unarmed method to be adopted by a military group. Frankly, they have guns and knives to fight with.


----------



## Cyriacus (Nov 1, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Er, not to confuse matters, but, uh, not quite. You don't need to understand exactly, but you do have to have understanding within the context. I think people are taking this idea of knowing the history to a bit of an extreme, and that's not needed, so I'll see if I can help clear up a few things here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Im referring to Word of Mouth, more than Written Accounts here.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 1, 2011)

1952, General Choi was asked to introduce martial arts to the Korean Army, 1955 the nine Kwan start to formulate what would be called Tae Kwon Do, the Korean Tae Kwon Do Association formed in 1959/60,with the founder of your system coming to Australia in 1960. There just isn't enough time there.


----------



## Cyriacus (Nov 1, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> 1952, General Choi was asked to introduce martial arts to the Korean Army, 1955 the nine Kwan start to formulate what would be called Tae Kwon Do, the Korean Tae Kwon Do Association formed in 1959/60,with the founder of your system coming to Australia in 1960. There just isn't enough time there.



Interesting to know - Semantically, it still counts that He Formed the System with His Knowledge from the Special Forces in Mind; And He may well have been seperate from Choi, and any other Groups in his usage of the Art... But thats Irrelevant, since like many other things, it could be argued as a possibility both for and against. For now, Ill Passively Concur, and sit with the Underlined Text. Note that there is no other Reason it is Underlined.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 1, 2011)

Yeah, as I said, I'm pretty sure he was in the Korean Military, whether it was Special Forces or not may be more playground exaggeration than anything else, but I wouldn't rule it out completely. However, that is a fair cry from saying that the system you are learning was used by the Korean Special Forces, or even the Korean Military. It's like saying that Nirvana were playing Foo Fighters songs, because that's where Dave Grohl came from. The influence is certainly there, but that doesn't make them the same thing.


----------



## Cyriacus (Nov 1, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah, as I said, I'm pretty sure he was in the Korean Military, whether it was Special Forces or not may be more playground exaggeration than anything else, but I wouldn't rule it out completely. However, that is a fair cry from saying that the system you are learning was used by the Korean Special Forces, or even the Korean Military. It's like saying that Nirvana were playing Foo Fighters songs, because that's where Dave Grohl came from. The influence is certainly there, but that doesn't make them the same thing.


Im Inclined to Agree, Overall. I could throw some more Suffixes in here, but I cant really see Myself Learning much more from this particular Topic; Thankyou for your Input Good Sir.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 1, 2011)

Chris, at the end of the day, either you kick butt or your butt is kicked. Does knowing your art's customs and tradition, and history provide more broader experience and enjoyment, sure. But it is not essential.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 1, 2011)

Okay, I'm going to suggest you take a deep breath, and actually read what I post, because you are way off in a lot of this, John. 



JohnEdward said:


> Chris, I must ask, to get a better understanding of your argument. What academic training do you have in the field of history, and or area of historical expertise?  I will tell you I don't and I don't pretend to be. As I said, I am familiar with the customs and traditions of my art. Am I an expert at them, do I know all the customs and traditions, no. And, I personally don't think you have to, or to practice the art or qualify as a good martial artist.



First, you asked a question, so I'll answer it (I might request that you do the same, but that ship seems to have sailed a while back). Academic training in history, nothing formal. But that's not what I'm claiming, either. What I have is an avid interest in it, which is rather different.

Next, to the first of the errors in what you claim I'm saying, I have not once mentioned anything about being a "good", "bad", or "indifferent" martial artist. What I have said is that in order to understand your art, you need to know about where it comes from, to understand why it does what it does. But can you clarify something here? Are you seriously saying that you don't think you need to know the traditions (which are a big part of Koryu, probably more important than the technical side, in many ways) that are part of the art in order to practice the art? That's kinda like saying you don't need to know the notes to play the song, you can just make noise and say it's "Hey Jude".



JohnEdward said:


> Many activities have a culture and traditions, including martial arts. Some martial arts stress knowing their traditions and culture, and for some arts there is allot to learn, others there isn't.  Some arts place more stress upon it than others. And individually some people are more into it than others. It is hard for me to agree with you when you say, that knowing their history makes a good martial artist especially in the depth you require. Some martial arts have short histories, limited cultures, and traditions. Other arts histories are questionable, and will never be solved due politics and lack of accurate information, such as Hapkido.



Seriously, go back and read the thread again. I make the point a number of times that the degree is relative to the art itself, for some it's just a matter of knowing why BJJ has the reputation it has (what it has done, what the UFC did for it, and so on), not knowing what age Helio was when he was looking over the fence at his brothers and cousins being trained. You seem to be wanting me to make an argument that I haven't been making. 



JohnEdward said:


> Now does that make Hapkido practitioners less of martial artists, no. Not in my book. I could careless if Choi was lying or not. I could careless about the cultural politics involved. What I care about is they can't kick butt or not. I respect those who are walking text books, but at the end of the day it is the guy who can deliver the goods.  Now, if I was a BJJ guy, all I would care about historically and not much is the relationship it has with Judo newaza, to a point. I would be aware of how the branches of the art, and their differences, but not deeply. I would be aware of the historic people and events (history). What I would mostly care about is if my butt is being use to clean the mat every time I rolled on the mat. I would care if am getting better at it or not.



If they don't get the history of the art, which leads to it's technical curriculum to the point where they start just making up stuff, and calling it Hapkido, then yes, it would. There's plenty of examples in the Ninjutsu community where exactly this thing happens, people with no sense of the history of martial arts, no sense of the way they are constructed, try to come up with something themselves, and yes, they are universally much lesser examples of martial artists. Again, you're missing the point, trying to insist that the history of the art needs to be absolutely legitimate and verified, that's not the case. It's fine if Choi Yong Sool lied, provided the art remains consistent and follows the claims and their implications.

In terms of BJJ, even that isn't needed to get the idea I'm talking about here. The history of BJJ that comes into it is it's success in competitive fields, which has been BJJ's proving grounds. That's all the history that's needed in a lot of cases, you really do seem to want me to need it to be more.



JohnEdward said:


> If I took an art, that is controversial in it's legitimacy. It has a questionable past in terms of trying to fool me into thinking it is something it isn't, or a fraudulent art than I would be concerned about its history. I would research it well and then make a determination. Then I would look at the traditions and customs. What they do and how they handle them. Again, this has noting to do with me being a good martial artist.



John, I train in Ninjutsu, you want to talk about controversial legitimacy? But again, you're really not getting what I'm meaning. I'm hoping that by the end of this, you will. Again, this has nothing to do with "good" martial artists, just martial artists as opposed to simple fighters. 



JohnEdward said:


> To be a good martial artist is determined by talent, and knowing events of the past. Nor is it being an expert on involved and complicated (archaic and non-archaic) traditions and customs.  I am not a docent of my art, nor do I have to be, to be good at my art. If I want to sit around arguing, debating, and write papers on my art, about what is and isn't, to be recognized for that instead of my skill, sorry I will pass. I will let you think what you want of me. If I am koryu or not or if my instructor wasn't either simply based on a discussion board. I am fine with that, I have proof and documentation of that. But, I don't see how that makes me any more or less of a martial artist. What it does is makes me less of a Koryu snob.



You really are having a hard time with this, aren't you? If you are training in a Koryu, great. If not (and I really think the answer is "not", from everything so far, including this post), also great. There is no "snobbery" going on here in that regard at all. And at no time throughout this entire thread have I said, suggested, implied, desired, wished, instructed, ordered, maintained, or stated that such a deep level of research or immersing of yourself, or anyone, in the annuls of history is what is needed. Okay? What I have said basically amounts to knowing what makes your art what it is, and that comes from it's history. Not every single detail of it, but just having a sense of it's background and reasons for being. 



JohnEdward said:


> History is important to a degree, honoring customs and traditions are important to a degree, but not vital, it doesn't define a person as a martial artist. It doesn't define if they are a bad or good martial artist. What I see, from many (not all) who stress your view as you do, is a compensation for knowledge over skill. The martial art nerd effect where knowledge of minutia is paramount to define a person as a martial artist. It is really prevalent on discussion boards and in lieu of dedicated training.


 
Who has said anything about "good" or "bad" martial artists, John? Seriously, I'm wanting an answer there. In terms of the traditions and customs, the degree to which they feature has nothing at all to do with the martial artist, and is no reflection on skill, or lack thereof. It is reflective of the requirements of the system itself, with older systems tending to have more in the way of traditions and customs, and newer ones less. That's all really neither here nor there, though, as you are again arguing something that isn't being stated in the first place.

Oh, but careful about comments like "compensation for lack of skill", John. You're a little out there. My training is pretty damn thorough and pretty damn consistent, currently 5 nights a week in two Koryu sword systems, a Koryu Iai system, and teaching. The skill side of things is pretty well taken care of.



JohnEdward said:


> Fact about my sensei for your collection of historic information, I have been doing martial arts not stop for over 30 years. My Japanese instructor did the art longer, 60 years. He was an immigrate from Japan. Whose family where a well known samurai family from a historic samurai clan in their region of Japan. His family is still very influential in that region, they have historic monuments decided to them in that region. His wife also came from a well known samurai family that had influence in another part of Japan. Her father was a famous koryu martial artist, based on the art and his skill. My instructor also learned from his father-in-law.  My instructor was very serious, a stone head Japanese. Never broke from his daily routine. He was very strict and sever in the dojo, and about the art. Does that make me special or above other because I learned from him, because I can go around judging other people's authenticity. Does it make me above others, No.Maybe in the nerd circles.  It just means, if I can't kick the other guys butt with what I learned my experience a waste of time. If I can't pull of a technique properly having a desired effect, I wasted my time. If all I have to show for my experience under my sensei is the ability to recite history, customs, and traditions. I have failed my instructor, as that is what he wasn't teaching me, nor why he was teaching. He would say, martial art not a cartoon, not entertainment, if you think so, than maybe try another martial art. For him as well, proof was in the pudding.  Meaning not everyone subscribes to what you feel makes a good martial artist.



Couple of things. First, this is pretty useless information without any names. And the most important name is that of the system. Since you arrived here in April you have been asked a number of times, initially saying that "it was just called Jujutsu", as in no Ryu name, which pretty much means not Koryu (it can hardly be an "old school" if it isn't a "school", can it?). Why can't you say what the Ryu is? If there isn't a name, you have your answer: It isn't Koryu. Neither good nor bad, but knowing something about Koryu and their history may help you with that research you said you'd do if you thought the art you were learning wasn't what it was claimed to be...

Next, and importantly, if it is Koryu, the idea of "kicking the other guys butt" is frankly completely irrelevant. Sorry, but it is. Has no place whatsoever as any kind of argument as to validity at all. None. So stop relying on that as any form of validation for you being a part of a Koryu (that's actually how they work, by the way, you don't "learn" Koryu, you join a Koryu).

Finally, if it is Koryu, then if you can't follow the traditions, customs, remember the history, know the lineage etc, your teacher did a very bad job. It IS important when it comes to Koryu, less so in other forms of martial arts, but in Koryu, lineage, history, well, it's everything. If you dismiss it so easily in lieu of "kicking someone's butt", then you haven't gotten a Koryu education.

This is what I mean when I say that pretty much everything you've posted is in direct opposition to actual Koryu methodology, teaching, transmission etc. I don't doubt that you were taught by who you claim you were taught by, or that he expressed himself the way you say. What I do know, though, is that if your posts are anything to go by, you have never experienced anything like Koryu in your life. That, to be clear, doesn't invalidate your system, it doesn't take any value away from it, it doesn't make it any less effective or powerful for you, but it does mean that it isn't Koryu.

So, finally, one more time, the big relevant question, if you can finally answer it.....

What Koryu is it? 



JohnEdward said:


> Again, I will say, there some importance to knowing if your being BSed or not, and what helps is knowing history, and researching proper traditions and customs. Knowing If you are being lied too, or if the customs and traditions are said to be authentic and they are not. Fraudulent, and cartoon martial arts, are a waste of time, but do appeal to some. I guess it is to fulfill a fantasy, instead of learning how to fight.



Get back to me with an answer for the above, and we can finally say which it is for you, then.


----------



## jasonbrinn (Nov 1, 2011)

Good day,

I tried to read through the entire thread, however, if I missed something and I am reposting or posting out of turn - please forgive me (I'm old).  

For me, when looking at a question like this I try to start with the archaeological data and culture.  Korea, and Koreans for that matter, most likely find their origin coming from China.  Japan definitely finds its verifiable history (leaving out myth and religion) coming from Korea - just look at some of the emperor's lineages for the links.  With that said, almost every culture in the world has some native tradition of fighting (matching) and I believe Korea's is Ssireum.  Granted it is folk wrestling, but that is most often the basis for first arts anywhere.  Man in his most basic form and presence will fight and learn from his mistakes.  

The question I believe comes down to what makes a particular cultures fighting arts unique to that specific culture.  Like Bruce said "a punch is a punch" it mostly comes down to dressing it and the philosophy on how to use it.  Knives - I'm going Filipino if for nothing more than their culture of specifically and brutally I might add in using them (they got experience).  Korean arts have always stood out for the powerful and high kicks generating from the waist.  Other than that specific trait I really have never found any additional take aways.  Some people like chocolate some like vanilla - both are just ice cream and should be enjoyed IMO.

Note:  Most popularized forms of Korean arts do find their basis of formations LARGELY on predating Japanese counterparts.  Hapkido was actually created by someone who had a "strong" look at Daito ryu - Tang Soo is Korean shotokan and so on.


----------



## Steve (Nov 1, 2011)

I have just a few minutes, but I want to reiterate that historical context IS important, if it's important to the individual.   It's interesting that Chris used music as a metaphor.  I would say that context isn't the notes.  That's too blatant.  Context and history in music are as important as they are in martial arts.  In other words, you can learn to play the piano without knowing the history of the piano.  You learn technique.  You learn music theory.  You learn specific musical arrangements.  And, with just those three things, you can become an accomplished, adept musician.  

You may, however, want more.  As your interests in playing the piano grow and your skills deepen, you might want to learn more about the instrument and its history.  Or you may want to learn more about the music you play.  And certainly, if it's important to you, it will add a depth of understanding and is important.  

It's not, however, important to everyone.  And knowing the history may enhance your performance.  The act of striking a key correctly while playing a musical piece with emotion and feeling is a function of artistic sensitivity coupled with technical prowess.  Can historical context inform or enhance one's artistic expression?  Absolutely, it can.  But not necessarily.


----------



## Steve (Nov 1, 2011)

Just want to add one more thing, now that I have a few more minutes.  Chris, I want to be clear that I don't completely disagree with you.  Knowing the historical context of a move CAN improve the technique. But not necessarily.  We talked about BJJ, which is really what I know.  While understanding the context of Helio Gracie's development of many of the finer points of BJJ can be interesting, and how his lack of size and necessary focus on leverage and positional dominance influenced modern BJJ, all it really takes is a simple cliche, "Position before submission."  

A student might ask why, but the answer is functionally irrelevant.  Secure your position, seek to improve your position, work for a submission.  That's how we do it.  And learning how to do these three things is a lot to learn. 

As I said before, there are many, many BJJ students who have no idea that Judoka learn many of the same techniques.  They haven't a clue.  And it doesn't affect their ability on the mats at all.  More important are the mechanics of the technique in question. If I teach a D'arce, but call it Monkey Claw Backfist, it is actually a carotid choke.  If you want it to work, you have to put pressure on either side of the windpipe to keep blood from carrying O2 to the brain. One side with your bicep and the other with the opponent's shoulder.  If you do it right, your opponent will take a short nap.  If you do it wrong, you will burn your arms out.  Call that a Brabo, a D'arce, a simple head/arm triangle or by some foreign label that is older, and it will still work the same.

In fact, I've heard all three of these terms used interchangeably, but to many D'arce and Brabo are two different techniques among several other variations of head/arm chokes.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 1, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Chris, at the end of the day, either you kick butt or your butt is kicked. Does knowing your art's customs and tradition, and history provide more broader experience and enjoyment, sure. But it is not essential.


 


Chris Parker said:


> Okay, I'm going to suggest you take a deep breath, and actually read what I post, because you are way off in a lot of this, John.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The post that Chris is relying to I delete after posting, but it seems I did it too late as Chris used it in his post. 

When i posted it I was concerned Chris would handle it as he did, I feel it detracts and distracts from the thread. I take responsibility for that, as  I didn't communicate well my idea. To rectify that I replaced the post Chris commented on. A post I felt better about.  I want to apologize for the post Chris posted. It is irrelevant. And should carry no weight in this discussion. 

Further more, Chris, I am not sure what your perspective or need to question my statements that I study a koryu art. And, in your opinion am not to be a koryu practitioner because of on a few thumbnail comments I made. I am perplexed. I feel no matter what I say or prove it will never be good enough evidence. Spending the time proving it to you, isn't an interest of me, or do I see the importance.  And for the sake of the betterment of this board if you that concern we can go PM. I don't think the majority or even 98.0% care about my koryu art being questioned. 

Thank you for your understanding.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 1, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Chris, at the end of the day, either you kick butt or your butt is kicked. Does knowing your art's customs and tradition, and history provide more broader experience and enjoyment, sure. But it is not essential.



This what I wanted to say. Instead of what Chris had quoted before I could change it. 

In Koryu arts, linage is important as it relates to authenticity. Why? In terms of Koryu arts, they are arts that are practiced for historical preservation of the Japanese  feudal culture. Because of that they have to be authentic, there has to be a lineage that shows proof of techniques created and used during feudal times that where handed down from generation to generation; an unbroken line of transmission.  Proof you didn't make it up, and are lying because in Japan that carries weight. And in some circles outside of Japan due to migrating Japanese Senseis and others. Here in the US is Koryu was pretty much championed by author and martial artist Donn Dreager, later by influential authors/scholars and martial arts of koryu arts, such as David Lowry, Meik and Diane Skoss. For Koryu definition and other information the Skoss' have been very influential in being the accepted US standard. It is amazing how many internet pages use their koryu information. 

Koryu arts as I was told, was never told to me by my sensei. The word Koryu or it's definition never came from my sensei's lips to any students ears. He didn't feel it was important to be aware of this. And he was correct.  I put it this way, a bird doesn't know it is a bird, or that it flies. An elephant doesn't know it is a vegetarian. Nor the lion a predator.  Why isn't it important, well for us it had no mechanical bearing on what we did. Sure at a certain rank we were allowed to survey other other arts, from Ikebana to iaijuitsu, even zen meditation at a Japanese temple.  It was to give us an idea what the old arts or koryu arts were about. He directed us to these different dojos and places, basically the ones he knew where authentic. We got a sense and understood certain mannerism and customs that help us tell apart the an authentic art from the non-authentic art. Of course what we learned. It was implied that we where to emulate that "mood" (as he called it) in our dojo as students. The way he taught was traditionally and that was an example of his approach to teaching. You experience instead of reading about it.  

That is what has shaped my views on this thread. It is nice to be able to collect historic information. But, it is even better how good you are at it. You really don't need to know what running is  to run.


----------



## jasonbrinn (Nov 2, 2011)

I studied a Koryu art for 14 + years and I can definitely tell you that understanding its culture and the influences, its history and its lineage not only added to the physical functionality of the techniques - it actually was essential to know for me to honestly progress.

The tradition and history gave insight into the design which allowed me to understand what was done based on principles and what was done just for etiquette and other reasons.  I have had personal experience where others _are_ doing things for functionality which were never designed to be for such uses but there lack of knowledge into such things results in basic repeating of what they saw and misunderstood.

Knowing the lineage of my particular art has taught me so much and kept me on track with the progression in study of functionality that I don't think I could do half the techniques without this knowledge properly.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 2, 2011)

Right, the happy part first, with some explanation, then the less happy part with some clarification, and finally another happy part. This'll be fun!



Steve said:


> I have just a few minutes, but I want to reiterate that historical context IS important, if it's important to the individual.   It's interesting that Chris used music as a metaphor.  I would say that context isn't the notes.  That's too blatant.  Context and history in music are as important as they are in martial arts.  In other words, you can learn to play the piano without knowing the history of the piano.  You learn technique.  You learn music theory.  You learn specific musical arrangements.  And, with just those three things, you can become an accomplished, adept musician.
> 
> You may, however, want more.  As your interests in playing the piano grow and your skills deepen, you might want to learn more about the instrument and its history.  Or you may want to learn more about the music you play.  And certainly, if it's important to you, it will add a depth of understanding and is important.
> 
> It's not, however, important to everyone.  And knowing the history may enhance your performance.  The act of striking a key correctly while playing a musical piece with emotion and feeling is a function of artistic sensitivity coupled with technical prowess.  Can historical context inform or enhance one's artistic expression?  Absolutely, it can.  But not necessarily.



That's not quite it, though. It's to do with the curriculum, the technical approach, but not necessarily the techniques. It's knowing why certain notes, chords, chord progressions, key signatures, tempos are used in certain types of music, but not as much in others. And that comes from understanding what makes that type of music what it is. When it comes to martial arts, it's the same thing. I have a student in the Ninjutsu section at the moment asking why we don't have a bigger range of kicking techniques, similar to TKD or Karate. The simple answer is that we aren't TKD or Karate, but why we aren't comes down to history, which is the path of development that the art has travelled.

To use your music ideas here, without knowing about the different types of music, you can learn mechanically and technically how to play the instrument, say a piano, read sheet music, and play whatever is put in front of you. But that is very different to someone who gets the feel for what exists in a certain type of music, and doesn't need the sheet music, yet everything they do is jazz, or rock, or country, or whatever genre. Does that help explain it?



Steve said:


> Just want to add one more thing, now that I have a few more minutes.  Chris, I want to be clear that I don't completely disagree with you.  Knowing the historical context of a move CAN improve the technique. But not necessarily.  We talked about BJJ, which is really what I know.  While understanding the context of Helio Gracie's development of many of the finer points of BJJ can be interesting, and how his lack of size and necessary focus on leverage and positional dominance influenced modern BJJ, all it really takes is a simple cliche, "Position before submission."
> 
> A student might ask why, but the answer is functionally irrelevant.  Secure your position, seek to improve your position, work for a submission.  That's how we do it.  And learning how to do these three things is a lot to learn.
> 
> ...



Yeah, you've jumped past the issue, though... you're talking about how BJJ applies it's basic philosophy, which involves the idea of submissions and grappling, without dealing with why BJJ goes for grappling and submission (which is exactly what the history informs us of). I mean, why doesn't it teach you roundhouse kicks and Suzy-Q's? Why not the use of weapons? Don't they work? Can't you say that I know my sword cuts, I don't need history to tell me that it does, and it doesn't matter if I do "Swallow Tail Cut", or "Hold Down A  Pillow", it's all the same, and the name doesn't matter... but the question is, why are you using a sword in the first place? In BJJ, why are you focused on grappling? And the answer isn't "well, because that's what we do there".

"Position before submission" is a strategic application of the base philosophy of BJJ, not it's history, other than people found that that strategy works. The question that understanding the history answers is "why are you going for a submission in the first place?"... and the answer to that lies in the Japanese Judo origins and the competitive arena and environment that BJJ developed in. The history tells you why you do things, and why you don't do others. But, I have to say, the history that I'm talking about I feel that most people don't even see or recognise, as it's just common knowledge of that art. As it should be.

Right, on to the less fun bit. Sorry, John, but you're really not listening, so I'll go through it again...



JohnEdward said:


> The post that Chris is relying to I delete after posting, but it seems I did it too late as Chris used it in his post.
> 
> When i posted it I was concerned Chris would handle it as he did, I feel it detracts and distracts from the thread. I take responsibility for that, as  I didn't communicate well my idea. To rectify that I replaced the post Chris commented on. A post I felt better about.  I want to apologize for the post Chris posted. It is irrelevant. And should carry no weight in this discussion.
> 
> ...



First off, don't apologize for anything I post. Ever. I actually take rather a fair degree of offence at that statement, John, as I personally feel that my answer dealt with quite a few issues in your understanding of this discussion, but it seems like you haven't read it properly. You may want to go back and do that. There are also a few questions hidden for you in there, so answering those might be appreciated as well.

Next, in terms of questioning your studying of a Koryu system, well, that's quite simple. You have claimed that you do, and made a number of posts that have relied on that to give weight to your statements and discussions, however each post you have made, including this one, and the ones I'm about to deal with (such as your "edit" you refer to here) show that you are very far removed from any Koryu concepts, training, or understanding. You have made several generalisations and observations about Japanese martial arts, and Jujutsu in particular that are very odd, to say the least, and lead to the question of where such bizarre concepts and ideas came from. If you don't study a Koryu art, that's fine and great, most people don't, and I'm hardly about to beat you over the head for it. But if you don't study one and keep claiming that you do, and posting misinformation and incorrect takes on such things with the validation that you did train in one, that's going to be a different issue. Honestly, I feel that you think you did study a Koryu, and feel that your instructor was genuine, for whatever reasons, and relatively typical of Japanese, or "traditional" instructors. None of these things are seemingly true, based on your posts and your attitude to the questions raised by them, but that's the reality that presents itself.

Basically, if you are going to post based on being a Koryu student, or even more importantly, an instructor, then the major issues that your posts give rise to need to be addressed for you to have any credibility at all. It might hurt to find out that you're not actually in any way related to Koryu systems or martial arts, but it's also not necessarily a bad thing in the slightest. It just means you had a different martial arts experience... but it also means that you don't know anything about Koryu.

So, one more time, which Ryu did you/do you study? That's all, John, at least to begin with. I'm not going to say there won't be further questions, but if that one can't be answered (and please, do say if you can't answer it), then we can categorically say that you are not, and have not trained in a Koryu. It really is that simple.

Oh, but finally, in regard to "we can go to PM", John, I suggested that to you when you first got here in April. At this point, some form of public credibility to back up your comments may help you more. 



JohnEdward said:


> Chris, at the end of the day, either you kick butt or your butt is kicked. Does knowing your art's customs and tradition, and history provide more broader experience and enjoyment, sure. But it is not essential.



This is your edit? You think, honestly, that these two lines are expressing what you want to say better? Because what it says to me is "I have no idea what Koryu are". Very clearly.

Okay, I'm going to break the next one up.



JohnEdward said:


> This what I wanted to say. Instead of what Chris had quoted before I could change it.



Okay, I'm curious. What do you think that actually added to the conversation, as it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand? It is still in your "good martial artist versus bad martial artist" false argument that you seem determined to have with me. 



JohnEdward said:


> In Koryu arts, linage is important as it relates to authenticity. Why? In terms of Koryu arts, they are arts that are practiced for historical preservation of the Japanese  feudal culture.



No, they're not. So that's strike one on knowing about Koryu. Koryu are about preserving the particular Koryu, which are an aspect, or facet of older Japanese culture... they are not about historic preservation of the fuedal culture itself. And lineage is important, not as it relates to authenticity, but more as it relates to the status and transmission of the Ryu itself. There's plenty of very authentic, very respected systems whose lineage contains persons that are highly unlikely to have been anywhere near the systems place of operation and activity at all, and are there as "status symbols", showing an aspect of the Ryu that is an ideal it holds.



JohnEdward said:


> Because of that they have to be authentic, there has to be a lineage that shows proof of techniques created and used during feudal times that where handed down from generation to generation; an unbroken line of transmission.  Proof you didn't make it up, and are lying because in Japan that carries weight. And in some circles outside of Japan due to migrating Japanese Senseis and others.



Wow, uh, nope. The Japanese will stretch the truth beyond breaking point to be seen as being polite first and foremost, the idea of "lying... carrying weight in Japan" is far from correct. Hell, Hagakure teaches that if you walk 100 metres with a real man he'll tell you seven lies.



JohnEdward said:


> Here in the US is Koryu was pretty much championed by author and martial artist Donn Dreager, later by influential authors/scholars and martial arts of koryu arts, such as David Lowry, Meik and Diane Skoss. For Koryu definition and other information the Skoss' have been very influential in being the accepted US standard. It is amazing how many internet pages use their koryu information.



And this is education to me because...? Donn Draeger was responsible for championing martial arts in general, the whole "jutsu/do" issue stems from some of his work, and more, but this doesn't really add anything to the conversation, does it? Having other people mentioned who do know what they're talking about doesn't change whether or not you do, does it?



JohnEdward said:


> Koryu arts as I was told, was never told to me by my sensei. The word Koryu or it's definition never came from my sensei's lips to any students ears. He didn't feel it was important to be aware of this. And he was correct.


 
Okay, this I really don't get. At all. Firstly, the first sentence ("Koryu arts as I was told, was never told to me by my sensei") doesn't make any sense... are you just saying he never used the term? Or he said what you were doing wasn't Koryu? Or he never classified what you were doing as Koryu, but you have decided it is later? Some grammar will help greatly....

Next, if he didn't feel that Koryu was something that was important, the very concept that that entails, that is a gigantic, mountainous clue that you weren't learning Koryu. And Koryu (and a Koryu approach) not being important is correct as far as training things that aren't Koryu are concerned. Otherwise you're way out.



JohnEdward said:


> I put it this way, a bird doesn't know it is a bird, or that it flies. An elephant doesn't know it is a vegetarian. Nor the lion a predator.  Why isn't it important, well for us it had no mechanical bearing on what we did.



And again, what are you talking about? Honestly, these examples have no bearing on anything in the discussion whatsoever, John. We are discussing a human being learning a developed skill set, not a natural instinctual action that animals have, so this metaphor fails.

As to the second part, what on earth? The history, the fact that it is a Koryu, what Koryu it is, every part of it's past all completely informs the technical side of things, and has a gigantic impact on the mechanical side of the art. If you don't believe me, check out clips of Seitei Iai, then Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu, then Muso Shinden Ryu all doing the same kata. They're all different, and the reason is that the history, the lineage, the passing of the methods, all have a direct and huge impact on the mechanical aspects of the art and the way it is performed.

If you seriously believe this, then you have had no experience of Koryu at all.



JohnEdward said:


> Sure at a certain rank we were allowed to survey other other arts, from Ikebana to iaijuitsu, even zen meditation at a Japanese temple.  It was to give us an idea what the old arts or koryu arts were about. He directed us to these different dojos and places, basically the ones he knew where authentic.



You don't seem to have paid enough attention. Of course, if your instructor didn't think much of a Koryu approach, then I don't know that he would have been the best guide for you.



JohnEdward said:


> We got a sense and understood certain mannerism and customs that help us tell apart the an authentic art from the non-authentic art. Of course what we learned. It was implied that we where to emulate that "mood" (as he called it) in our dojo as students. The way he taught was traditionally and that was an example of his approach to teaching. You experience instead of reading about it.



Woah, woah, woah. So your instructor didn't think a Koryu approach mattered, he never used the term, he didn't teach in a Koryu form from your accounts (aside from some vagueries about "teaching traditionally"... although I'd be interested to hear what you mean by that, as I have suspicions that it actually may not have been as "traditional" as you may think), but sent you to old systems, such as Ikebana (flower arranging, for those reading along), so that you could bring back the attitude of training from these systems in what he taught? Seriously, I have to say that doesn't paint him in a very good light there.

And, for the love of all that is sweet and tiny, and has such an oh-so-cute button nose, who said anything about reading? That's the thing, John, the history is ever present in the training, whether it is a Koryu or a modern system, or anything else. The history of the system has lead to what it presently is, and that is experienced through training it. That's where the understanding of it's history comes into it. 

I'm not suggesting classes turn into lecture halls, guys, seriously. I'm suggesting you understand what it is your art does and why it does it based on where it comes from. And, frankly, most already know it, on some level. No book reading, no assignments, no homework and exams, just understanding your own art and what makes it what it is.



JohnEdward said:


> That is what has shaped my views on this thread. It is nice to be able to collect historic information. But, it is even better how good you are at it. You really don't need to know what running is  to run.


 
Then I'm going to suggest, once again, go back and re-read the thread. That should inform you on what it's about, as it's not what you have been arguing.

You know what, I'm going to try one last time. John, what Koryu did you study? Can you just answer that simple question, as it's comments like the one above that show a desperate lack of understanding of the subject.



jasonbrinn said:


> I studied a Koryu art for 14 + years and I can definitely tell you that understanding its culture and the influences, its history and its lineage not only added to the physical functionality of the techniques - it actually was essential to know for me to honestly progress.
> 
> The tradition and history gave insight into the design which allowed me to understand what was done based on principles and what was done just for etiquette and other reasons.  I have had personal experience where others _are_ doing things for functionality which were never designed to be for such uses but there lack of knowledge into such things results in basic repeating of what they saw and misunderstood.
> 
> Knowing the lineage of my particular art has taught me so much and kept me on track with the progression in study of functionality that I don't think I could do half the techniques without this knowledge properly.



Yep! Koryu, more than anything else, relies on the history side of things. What I've been saying is that it's more present there, but it's still in every other art as well, as it needs to be. The thing is that you can only be considered a martial artist if you understand the art, and the only way to understand it is to know what it is, what it does, why it does it, and all of that comes from where it's come from. Koryu is just the biggest, most obvious, most overt version of that.


----------



## Steve (Nov 2, 2011)

Chris, I enjoy discussing things with you, but I'm not convinced you are understanding my point.  While I'm not saying you're wrong, you seem to be suggesting that I am wrong.  It appears to me that you are debating from an absolute position.  Maybe I'm not completely understanding your point, but at least consider that you might not really understand mine.  

It seems that you are a very strong advocate for the question, "Why?"  Have you ever heard of the "5 Why's" technique?  It's a nutshell technique used to identify root causes, typically of a problem.  Toddlers use this technique intuitively.  Simply put, the idea is to ask the question, "Why?"  And to do this at least five times.  If you do, you'll get at the origin of an issue or problem.  In practice, the technique can be annoying and cause more conflict than it resolves.  But in theory, it's a good thing.  It drives you to consider that you may be dealing with a symptom as though it was the disease.

All of that to say, I get it.  I understand the value of "Why."  But the point I'm making is that you can do very well without asking, "Why?"  You cannot, however, do well at all unless you have a thorough understanding of, "What?"

"What?" is the question that must be answered.  Not, "Why?"  You can be an accomplished musician knowing "what" do to, without understanding all of the ins and outs of "why."  Parents use this technique all the time, as do managers. 

"Why don't we have very many kicks in Ninjutsu?"
"Because if we had more kicks, it would be something else."


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 2, 2011)

Hey, Steve,

Always good talking with you as well. I think the issue here isn't that there isn't an understanding of "what", it's that we're both looking at different "what's" in the first place. You're addressing the application of specific technical approaches, whereas I'm looking at the overall approach of the system, which includes the technical aspects in a general sense. It can get into the nitty-gritty technical details of movement to movement (that's how each of the actions developed, really), but that's a different area. I only used it as an example for Tez and Wado's throws because it came up in the conversation. So we're agreed that the first question is "what", otherwise you have nothing to ask "why" about, but what the "what" is we're both looking at is different. And that was kinda my point above, really. In a gentle, smiling, happy for intelligent conversation way, I'd say you're looking at the wrong "what", which is why you're not seeing what I'm saying about understanding the history. So, uh, with all due respect, Steve, yeah, I'm saying you're wrong. But only in what you're looking at.

Oh, and in that vein, the last part there, "because if we had more kicks, it would be something else" isn't really correct either. "Because they have no place here" is, and that comes down to the history. I know that sounds rather tied up in semantics, but the thing I'm trying to get across here is that the different systems are what they are due to their history. If there are other things in there, that's not necessarily an indication of "it's something different", it's an indication of not understanding the system in the first place.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 2, 2011)

jasonbrinn said:


> I studied a Koryu art for 14 + years and I can definitely tell you that understanding its culture and the influences, its history and its lineage not only added to the physical functionality of the techniques - it actually was essential to know for me to honestly progress.
> 
> The tradition and history gave insight into the design which allowed me to understand what was done based on principles and what was done just for etiquette and other reasons. *I have had personal experience where others are doing things for functionality which were never designed to be for such uses but there lack of knowledge into such things results in basic repeating of what they saw and misunderstood.
> 
> *Knowing the lineage of my particular art has taught me so much and kept me on track with the progression in study of functionality that I don't think I could do half the techniques without this knowledge properly.



Is this in your art or are you saying the rest of us who don't go into traditions and history have got it wrong?


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 2, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Right, the happy part first, with some explanation, then the less happy part with some clarification, and finally another happy part. This'll be fun!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The value of this thread doesn't lie with comments that start with my name. Or how you feel Chris concerning what I said. Evidently you have a huge issue with me as a result of your comments, how they are directed at me, etc. I tend to think you need to discredit me or something. I tend to feel that is the motivation for your comments. That is really getting in the way of your contributions.  

You may think a koryu is a big deal, I don't. I don't make my mission in life to go around internet challenging other martial artists. I find it really odd that someone of a gendai art (FWIW) is bullying people about their koryu. That is juvenile to me, and has no bearing on a damn thing. Then it turns into this huge waste of time of arguing over not believing the  facts given, i.e. "mine is bigger than yours."  Which really is a harassment game motived by personal dislike for some reason. It is a game am not going to play. So to please you, yes, you are better and more knowledgable than I. Your style of martial art is better than mine, and so is your sensei. And I have no clue of anything. Therefore, you don't even have to waste your time trying to prove me wrong.


----------



## Steve (Nov 2, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Hey, Steve,
> 
> Always good talking with you as well. I think the issue here isn't that there isn't an understanding of "what", it's that we're both looking at different "what's" in the first place. You're addressing the application of specific technical approaches, whereas I'm looking at the overall approach of the system, which includes the technical aspects in a general sense. It can get into the nitty-gritty technical details of movement to movement (that's how each of the actions developed, really), but that's a different area. I only used it as an example for Tez and Wado's throws because it came up in the conversation. So we're agreed that the first question is "what", otherwise you have nothing to ask "why" about, but what the "what" is we're both looking at is different. And that was kinda my point above, really. In a gentle, smiling, happy for intelligent conversation way, I'd say you're looking at the wrong "what", which is why you're not seeing what I'm saying about understanding the history. So, uh, with all due respect, Steve, yeah, I'm saying you're wrong. But only in what you're looking at.
> 
> Oh, and in that vein, the last part there, "because if we had more kicks, it would be something else" isn't really correct either. "Because they have no place here" is, and that comes down to the history. I know that sounds rather tied up in semantics, but the thing I'm trying to get across here is that the different systems are what they are due to their history. If there are other things in there, that's not necessarily an indication of "it's something different", it's an indication of not understanding the system in the first place.


LOL.  Well, there it is.  And ultimately, continuing with your last point, you didn't quite get where I was heading.  "Because if we had more kicks, it would be something else" could as easily be, "because we don't."  And for that student, learning that system, it would be enough... unless that student had an additional interest in, "Why?"

I think what's interesting is that you have incorporated the history into your curriculum to such a large degree that you can't seem to appreciate that other styles do not.  I would be willing to bet that 80% or more of the elite grapplers at the last Mundials in Long Beach have more than a cursory understanding of the history of BJJ.  And yet they are competing at the highest level without a deep understanding of the relationship BJJ has with Judo and Jujutsu.  In fact, I'd wager that there is a more keen understanding of the relationship BJJ has with MMA than with Judo, although even here I don't expect many would know how intimate the UFC/BJJ link really is.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 2, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> The value of this thread doesn't lie with comments that start with my name. Or how you feel Chris concerning what I said. Evidently you have a huge issue with me as a result of your comments, how they are directed at me, etc. I tend to think you need to discredit me or something. I tend to feel that is the motivation for your comments. That is really getting in the way of your contributions.
> 
> 
> You may think a koryu is a big deal, I don't. I don't make my mission in life to go around internet challenging other martial artists. I find it really odd that someone of a gendai art (FWIW) is bullying people about their koryu. That is juvenile to me, and has no bearing on a damn thing. Then it turns into this huge waste of time of arguing over not believing the facts given, i.e. "mine is bigger than yours." Which really is a harassment game motived by personal dislike for some reason. It is a game am not going to play. So to please you, yes, you are better and more knowledgable than I. Your style of martial art is better than mine, and so is your sensei. And I have no clue of anything. Therefore, you don't even have to waste your time trying to prove me wrong.



Please, John, I'm begging you here, read what I wrote.

There is no aim to discredit you, or your training. There is an aim to clarify it, which you consistently run from with posts such as this one.

There is no belief that Koryu is any more or less important than any other martial art. Just that if you're putting your posts out as representative of Koryu, but have no understanding, experience, knowledge, or history in any Koryu, that makes your posts about it less representative. It'd be as if I was posting about the inner workings of a cars engine. I have no idea about them, I just know the ones I think are pretty. But if I was posting about the difference between the engine of a Ferrari F430 and a Mercedes SL500, and had no idea about what those engines actually were, that might cast some questions about where I got my information.

There is no dislike. There is a lot of confusion as to why you can't simply name the Koryu you study. I am just interested in where your view is coming from, as it doesn't gel with any other viewpoint I've come across in this. Seriously, this would never have gotten to this point if, when asked at the beginning what Ryu you study, you had said "X-Ryu", or "It wasn't one". Why you couldn't just answer the question, and allowed it to get this far, I really don't understand.

In terms of "the value of this thread not being about what I feel about what you said", John, I'm only really seeking clarification of where you're coming from, and correcting errors in what you've said, whether in relation to Koryu, the application of history, the thrust of the thread, or otherwise. This is a discussion board, if you post something and someone has something to say about it, they're allowed to say it. I'd actually encourage such things, personally. You might grow and learn by such interaction.

And finally, while my profile might not state it, I train in three separate Koryu systems as well as the Gendai one, so that's where I'm coming from.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 2, 2011)

Steve said:


> LOL.  Well, there it is.  And ultimately, continuing with your last point, you didn't quite get where I was heading.  "Because if we had more kicks, it would be something else" could as easily be, "because we don't."  And for that student, learning that system, it would be enough... unless that student had an additional interest in, "Why?"
> 
> I think what's interesting is that you have incorporated the history into your curriculum to such a large degree that you can't seem to appreciate that other styles do not.  I would be willing to bet that 80% or more of the elite grapplers at the last Mundials in Long Beach have more than a cursory understanding of the history of BJJ.  And yet they are competing at the highest level without a deep understanding of the relationship BJJ has with Judo and Jujutsu.  In fact, I'd wager that there is a more keen understanding of the relationship BJJ has with MMA than with Judo, although even here I don't expect many would know how intimate the UFC/BJJ link really is.



Ah, but "because we don't" isn't really an answer, is it? It's the same as "because" being the single word answer to "why", it doesn't really answer the question. So while the instructor might get away with it, I don't think that's the same as it being an answer for the questioning student.

As to the degree of history in my and other schools, I think I've said at least three of four times now (although it keeps seeming to be missed... hmm) that the degree to which the history side of things features is relative to the class itself. And in many, it's an unspoken thing, it's just always underneath the techniques, probably never even articulated. But that is different to it not being there. 

Tell you what, here's a few video examples. If nothing else, they should be good for a laugh, in some ways...

Okay, yeah, it's Koryu, here in this case it's Takenouchi Ryu. Honestly, that's not important, it's to show an extreme case of having an understanding of history and it's implications and influences versus not. 






Right, the thing to look at there is the type of actions that are being employed. What gets preference, what doesn't, what types of attacks are there, that kind of thing.






The second one is Tenjin Shinyo Ryu, again, though, look to the same things.






Then, Fusen Ryu. Again, you should see something fairly similar, even though each system has their own set of technical quirks and peculiarities.

These systems are all old Japanese Jujutsu Ryu-ha, running from over 500 years old to about 150 years old, and are all informed by their history.






These guys claim to be from the same type of history. Seriously? Yep, they do. But the fact is that, if you look at it properly, you can see the history of this school all over it's techniques. And that history is basically one of some karate and a lot of movies.

It doesn't need to be explicit in class, but it does inform the entire art. Without it, there is no system at all. Really, a cursory understanding is fine, in a number of cases, it's overkill for what a lot of students need in some systems, but by getting an understanding of the art (what it does, what it doesn't do etc) you are, whether you realise it or not, getting a lesson in it's history. Basically this thread is more about making people more aware of that simple fact, which may be able to enhance the way they view their own art, and give them a deeper appreciation of what they do, and where it's come from, even if it's just a newly created system made by a guy who did some karate, some BJJ, and thinks he knows something about weapons. All of that will be seen in the system. It doesn't hurt to be able to see it.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 2, 2011)

For me Koryu is a term related to Japan history. It isn't something us Americans really need to use. We don't share the same history with the Japanese.  Yet for some reason in some circles it is a term highly valued outside Japan. I can't see this to a point. It works to point out the frauds and charlatans. But that is all it just points them out. It doesn't stop them.  It is my feeling that many Koryu arts practitioners whose arts don't compete and are now pure art forms feel the need for competition by means of calling out other to prove whose are is better.  In competitive arts things are settle in competition, i.e. how in the 1990s BJJ in this country proved they had the goods. Because some arts are truly arts and don't compete some feel the need to argue in lieu of competition. Which in my opinion doesn't settle or change squat.

Here is the funny thing about the term Koryu. Part of the definition is to have an unbroken line of secession or transmission past a point in time in history, i.e. a genealogy or pedigree to give a rough or basic idea for the sake of the discussion. Please note,  I am not the Japanese guy who drew the Koryu line in the sand, or an expert on the definition. It can't be argued BJJ is a koryu art because it can be traced to the founder of Judo and then his background can be traced to samurai arts which can be traced by to someone or some Tengu, or something. The counter argument would be Maeda (or who ever it was, I don't feel like surfing the next to find out) taught outsiders and that doesn't count. Then there is more endless arguing for what, what is the point really. The Gracies and Machados  don't care, the BJJ community doesn't care. It has no value to them nor should it. 

The purpose of lineage. Now back in the 70's and 80's here it was all the martial arts rage to play samurai. Many arts used that as a type of marketing tool for their own personal notoriety. So you seen allot guys who taught sword and other thought to be samurai arts claim historical links to esoteric samurai families. That these Americans learned from Japanese senseis who where the heads of these long family histories samurai arts and the was given to these Americans to carry on after their Japanese sensei's death, as sokes- or what ever title they gave themselves. It turns out years later many of these guys who had been claiming being sokes etc. for years where big frauds. It was found out they make up allot of what they where teaching from Japanese samurai movies, or from other arts. In those days, it was hard to disprove such a claim. It wasn't until the late 1980s and 1990s when more information became available that refuted these "sokes" and their knowledge.  One way they were exposed was due to errors in their self-proclaimed lineage chart when compared to the real lineage charts around the 1990s.

In these terms for Japanese martial arts, the term koryu to some is important. But to others it doesn't. In my opinion the term koryu is only in terms of lineage for those who claim to be a Soke or any other inheritor of a Japanese martial art. But even then that doesn't stop people from going to fraudulent arts, or instructors. It doesn't stop anything. What it does it allows for people concerned with practicing an authentic Japanese art. 

Just came to mind, the term koryu is useful to some who have a liking for Japanese terms to mean traditional art vs. modern art or sport.  Overall, koryu is just a Japanese label for their purposes to demarcate a time in history which has the terms greatest significance, imo, as I said before. 

Just want to add I didn't see any of the posts between this one and my last. It seems Chris and I agree on those who use movies as the basis of technique.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 2, 2011)

And after quickly looking at Chris is last post, I would like to add the term koryu is no guarantee quaility or authentic of an art. That is a koryu can deteriorate or change or lose its techniques over time and not be worth a damn.  A problem  koryu face as any art, is the loss of technique, quality, and authenticity overtime. But the snobbiness doesn't seem to go away...:lol:

I am not commenting on those arts in anyway in terms of authenticity etc. as I have not practiced those arts, but if asked I can offer my opinion against my experience using jujutsu in the area of mechanics.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 2, 2011)

Another perspective (or perhaps the same one as Chris, but simplified for some): Among the arts I practice is Miyama ryu jujutsu-a gendai ryu, created in the 60's by a Antonio Pereira, 6th dan judo, aikido teacher, and sosuishitsu ryu menkyo (though, to be honest, there is quite a bit of discussion around this last one). Having studied judo, sosishitsu ryu and being a rather current aikido student, I can see the roots of all these arts in various parts of miyama ryu, and even figure out why the founder used them-where they make it possible for me to "kick butt," or, more importantly,_ keep me from getting my butt kicked. 

_Among the kata of judo, for instance, is the _koshiki no kata,_ the "form of antiquity." It's from Kito ryu, one of the koryu jujutsu forms judo's founder, Jigoro Kano studied. It's a _kumiuchi_ form, one intended for grappling in armor. Kano kept it because it demonstrates several principles inherent to judo. Because it's a kumiuchi form it's imporatant that it be practiced "in the mood" of wearing armor. Now, one might think that because of all that, it's no longer relevant: who wears armor these days? I've found, though, that because of the way some of its movements work, they're really good methods for moving in tight fitting western street clothes like a three piece suit, or a tux. 

[yt]MLStFnYer1s[/yt]

[yt]N4ggqaoLR7A[/yt]

History is very useful-it offers insights that we really shouldn't ignore, ones that help us "kick butt," even....

EDIT: this one is good-the right pace and full length:

[yt]e3xFGrWXZjs[/yt]


----------



## Steve (Nov 2, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Ah, but "because we don't" isn't really an answer, is it?


Exactly.  And it's okay.  Now I think you understand my point!  

I'm not suggesting that the question should or shouldn't be answered.  I'm saying that the answer isn't necessary.  It can help.  It can be interesting, but it isn't a deal breaker.  Sometimes, asking why can get in the way of really understanding "what."


----------



## Steve (Nov 2, 2011)

elder999 said:


> History is very useful-it offers insights that we really shouldn't ignore, ones that help us "kick butt," even....


I hope it's clear that I am not saying otherwise.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 2, 2011)

jasonbrinn said:


> I studied a Koryu art for 14 + years and I can definitely tell you that understanding its culture and the influences, its history and its lineage not only added to the physical functionality of the techniques - it actually was essential to know for me to honestly progress.
> 
> The tradition and history gave insight into the design which allowed me to understand what was done based on principles and what was done just for etiquette and other reasons.  I have had personal experience where others _are_ doing things for functionality which were never designed to be for such uses but there lack of knowledge into such things results in basic repeating of what they saw and misunderstood.
> 
> Knowing the lineage of my particular art has taught me so much and kept me on track with the progression in study of functionality that I don't think I could do half the techniques without this knowledge properly.



Jason make a good point for me, yes this knowledge can enhance the martial arts experience, but in my view it isn't essential. btw, I tend to agree with Steve.

I see where Chris is coming from,  him how he defines and outlines history is important to him and his own martial arts experience. But, I tend to agree with Steve. 

If you think about what Steve studies it has prove his point.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 2, 2011)

Steve said:


> Exactly. And it's okay. Now I think you understand my point!
> 
> I'm not suggesting that the question should or shouldn't be answered. I'm saying that the answer isn't necessary. It can help. It can be interesting, but it isn't a deal breaker. Sometimes, asking why can get in the way of really understanding "what."



But if you look at _koshiki no kata_, it's *all* "why." The "what" doesn't come without understanding "why," in this instance......


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 2, 2011)

Okay, cool, now we're getting somewhere. There's a lot of misunderstanding in this post, so I'm going to head off on a tangent for a bit and clarify and correct as we go. I hope this can be of help to you, John, and you can see where I've been coming from. Everyone else, this won't necessarily be a part of the main thrust of the thread.... 

That said, let's go for it!



JohnEdward said:


> For me Koryu is a term related to Japan history. It isn't something us Americans really need to use. We don't share the same history with the Japanese.  Yet for some reason in some circles it is a term highly valued outside Japan. I can't see this to a point. It works to point out the frauds and charlatans. But that is all it just points them out. It doesn't stop them.  It is my feeling that many Koryu arts practitioners whose arts don't compete and are now pure art forms feel the need for competition by means of calling out other to prove whose are is better.  In competitive arts things are settle in competition, i.e. how in the 1990s BJJ in this country proved they had the goods. Because some arts are truly arts and don't compete some feel the need to argue in lieu of competition. Which in my opinion doesn't settle or change squat.



Okay, the first thing is to understand what the term "Koryu" refers to. There's two ways of looking at that, and both need to be applied at all times for it to be accurate. The first is simple, and that is that it is a Japanese martial tradition whose origins, or founding predates the Meiji Restoration of about 1868 (the date slightly varies depending on who is looking at it, which organisation, etc). The second is a particular approach that is found in the  specific Ryu itself. That approach is founded on the ideas of passing the tradition down as it was transmitted in the first place. There's a lot more to it, but that's the basic crux of it. 

I will say, explicitly at the outset here, that the idea of generalising in regard to the actual practice methods of the wide range of Koryu that exist make such statements as "arts that don't compete and are now pure art" rather dangerous to try to apply, as, unless you are a member of the Ryu in question, you most likely don't have much idea as to what is actually involved in the training of the art itself. Competition, in a form, is a part of a number of Koryu traditions, and there was the old practice of Taryu Jiai, basically inter-school contests. Embu, to a degree, are a modern form of that with a very different practice, but a very similar reason. So, John, the entire second half of this paragraph has nothing to do with Koryu at all, and is just a personal value of yours, which goes against Koryu methodology and mindset. (Bear in mind, that's not an attack, it's an observation).



JohnEdward said:


> Here is the funny thing about the term Koryu. Part of the definition is to have an unbroken line of secession or transmission past a point in time in history, i.e. a genealogy or pedigree to give a rough or basic idea for the sake of the discussion. Please note,  I am not the Japanese guy who drew the Koryu line in the sand, or an expert on the definition. It can't be argued BJJ is a koryu art because it can be traced to the founder of Judo and then his background can be traced to samurai arts which can be traced by to someone or some Tengu, or something. The counter argument would be Maeda (or who ever it was, I don't feel like surfing the next to find out) taught outsiders and that doesn't count. Then there is more endless arguing for what, what is the point really. The Gracies and Machados  don't care, the BJJ community doesn't care. It has no value to them nor should it.



It can't be argued that BJJ is a Koryu because: 
a) It's not Japanese
b) It was founded in the 20th Century in Brazil, therefore not pre-Meiji
c) It is not based in continuation of a transmission, but in development based in competitive testing
d) It is about the opposite of Koryu.

There is no counter argument.

But I don't understand what this has to do with a conversation (in this post, at least) on Koryu. It's like saying that a helicopter isn't a bus because it doesn't have enough seats, but you could argue it is because it has an engine.... Really, it makes no sense. 



JohnEdward said:


> The purpose of lineage. Now back in the 70's and 80's here it was all the martial arts rage to play samurai. Many arts used that as a type of marketing tool for their own personal notoriety. So you seen allot guys who taught sword and other thought to be samurai arts claim historical links to esoteric samurai families. That these Americans learned from Japanese senseis who where the heads of these long family histories samurai arts and the was given to these Americans to carry on after their Japanese sensei's death, as sokes- or what ever title they gave themselves. It turns out years later many of these guys who had been claiming being sokes etc. for years where big frauds. It was found out they make up allot of what they where teaching from Japanese samurai movies, or from other arts. In those days, it was hard to disprove such a claim. It wasn't until the late 1980s and 1990s when more information became available that refuted these "sokes" and their knowledge.  One way they were exposed was due to errors in their self-proclaimed lineage chart when compared to the real lineage charts around the 1990s.



And I don't know what you're talking about here, honestly. I've seen a lot of fake sword schools, and some very delusional individuals teaching them, but this doesn't really have much to do with the conversation, does it? And the ideas of what was Koryu were already coming out in the Hoplology Society from the 60's and 70's.



JohnEdward said:


> In these terms for Japanese martial arts, the term koryu to some is important. But to others it doesn't. In my opinion the term koryu is only in terms of lineage for those who claim to be a Soke or any other inheritor of a Japanese martial art. But even then that doesn't stop people from going to fraudulent arts, or instructors. It doesn't stop anything. What it does it allows for people concerned with practicing an authentic Japanese art.



No, in the Japanese martial arts the term "Koryu" isn't "important", it's accurate. That's it, really. It's like saying that some people think calling this fruit an "apple" is important, others don't, and just call it "round thing", or "bubble berry". 



JohnEdward said:


> Just came to mind, the term koryu is useful to some who have a liking for Japanese terms to mean traditional art vs. modern art or sport.  Overall, koryu is just a Japanese label for their purposes to demarcate a time in history which has the terms greatest significance, imo, as I said before.



No, again that's not the point. It is simply an accurate classification. That's all. That's it's big use, it's a classification. One of my friends (a Koryu practitioner) when the idea of "Koryu snobbery" came up said very accurately that there's no real snobbery, there's just the accurate description. It either is, or it isn't. That's it. And if it isn't, claiming it is isn't correct.

Really, Koryu are no better or worse than any other of the myriad of martial art options out there, they're just their own distinct "flavour" of martial art.


JohnEdward said:


> And after quickly looking at Chris is last post, I would like to add the term koryu is no guarantee quaility or authentic of an art. That is a koryu can deteriorate or change or lose its techniques over time and not be worth a damn. A problem koryu face as any art, is the loss of technique, quality, and authenticity overtime. But the snobbiness doesn't seem to go away...:lol:



Some Koryu have become little more than relics, preserving the methods in more of a "museum" kind of way. Others are far more dynamic. That is no different from saying that a school with the label "Karate" can be good, bad, or in between. And seriously, John, there is no snobbery. There is just concern with things being what they claim to be.

But from all of this, I think it's very safe to say that you have no experience in Koryu, yes? Good, then we can move on from this. I might suggest refraining from stating anything about Koryu, though, as you still have a very skewed and incorrect image here....


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 2, 2011)

Steve said:


> Exactly.  And it's okay.  Now I think you understand my point!



Ah, I always got it, my friend....



Steve said:


> I'm not suggesting that the question should or shouldn't be answered.  I'm saying that the answer isn't necessary.  It can help.  It can be interesting, but it isn't a deal breaker.  Sometimes, asking why can get in the way of really understanding "what."



Okay, here it is as simply as I can put it.

It is always there. Whether you learn it, pick it up, become aware of it, or lazily never recognise the patterns of movement that underlie everything in your system, it is always there. There is no getting away from it, it is always there. Whether you want to learn the history or not, it is always there. Without "why" there is no "what". Without the history, there is no system or technique. 

All I'm suggesting here is that it's possible to look at your art and see it, perhaps for the first time, perhaps in a different way, but it is there. It cannot be a deal breaker or maker, it is present because without it there is no deal to make or break.

PS Elder, love the Koshiki no Kata demos, especially the last one. So few people understand that part of the art... I remember taking some of my guys to a Japanese Cultural and Martial Arts demo a year ago, and there was a demonstration of Koshiki no Kata done there. I was rapt, but my guys didn't get what they were looking at. So I started explaining. My word, a lot of questions came up!


----------



## ap Oweyn (Nov 2, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Now, do you need to know that history in order to have that behaviour? No, not really. However, if you want to understand that behaviour, or more importantly, change it, then you do. For instance, it may be a lot of fun for my friends to keep teasing me by putting pencils, bits of paper, and so on near my ear, because I always react the same way, but when I met my latest girlfriend, Scarlett Johansson, she has a habit of leaning in and whispering in my ear. After the third time I swatted her in the face, it became important to figure out, and understand the history, so that I could change it (and no, I'm not getting into changing behaviours here, although there are a few clues in that little story).


That's not really true though, is it?  That you need to understand the bee thing in order to also understand that smacking Scarlett Johansson in the face isn't a viable option?  From a purely technical standpoint, "stop doing that because Scartlett doesn't like getting batted in the face" is no less useful than "stop doing that, despite the fact that you were stung... "

History and cultural insight are valuable if we _place_ value on them.  And my personal preference is certainly to do so.  But in purely technical performance terms, "use this stance because it offers more stability" will guide your execution just as much as "use this stance because previous generations developed it to help them retain their stability in muddy and slick environments common in that part of the world" does.

I'm _interested_ in that kind of detail.  But that's not the same as _needing_ it.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 2, 2011)

Ah, that was getting into a kinda different area, I had to pull myself up from putting a range of other things down at that point. The crux of it was the past informing the present. But, to take your lead, having Scarlett (lovely girl, by the way...) say "Stop that!", and having that be the reason you stop, or alter your response, that would then be part of the new history, which would then inform the new behaviour (movement).

In terms of the stance thing, though, "use this stance because it offers more stability", well, that had to come from somewhere as well. For instance, Northern Chinese systems and Southern Chinese systems have rather different concepts of stances, due to their terrain. For Southern, with rockier and less-stable ground, they have wider stances for stability. Northern ones tend towards narrower ones, because they had a more stable, flatter ground, and could afford to be narrower, and therefore faster. So "because it offers more stability" is already an insight, or aspect, of it's history right there. And the individual might not need to know it to that degree, but the system does.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 2, 2011)

I am removing this post so if it shows up in a quote sorry. Ap Owyen in his post said it better than I. I wish I was that good saying things.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 2, 2011)

The point of my post was that you were still way out in terms of getting to what Koryu actually applies to, though. And, to clear it up again, there is no importance placed on the term, or more realistically, there is no more importance placed on the term than there is any other term in martial arts. It is just a classification which should be correctly applied. Otherwise it's like you showing me a boxing match, and saying it's Aikido, my saying "no, it's not", and you saying "Wow, I didn't know the term was that important to you". It's not, but if it's not being correctly applied, that's what I'm looking to avoid, as it just leads to a lot of confusion for everyone involved.

And, while I understand your loyalty to your instructor, and their pedigree as you see it, from the descriptions you give here, either he didn't get what the term referred to either (not uncommon, even in Japan), or he wasn't getting across what he meant to you. Because that's not really a correct usage of the term, which is the only bit that has any importance.

I guess what I'm saying is that opinion doesn't matter here. It's like having an opinion that says that apples are all bright orange and slightly sour. Now, you can have an opinion that you prefer oranges to apples, but the opinion based on apples being orange and sour isn't really an opinion of an apple, if you get what I mean.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 2, 2011)

Chris, I don't get what you are attacking, or what you are trying to argue, again, if you feel you are superior in your knowledge of koryu and you are an expert of it, great. Have at it. But isn't my interest to go around discrediting or harassing people.  If it was, I would return fire with something like, where is your Ph.D. in Japanese Koryu studies, is that a wikipedia degree you got? You don't study a koryu art? What makes you qualified to critique as you did those Jujutsu videos when you don't practice any of those art, you computer chair docent.  And then you would fire back, and we would go on and on. I will past on that rodeo. Nerd fights are not my thing. Even though I am flattered you chose me as a worthy opponent. But it does distract from the thread.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 2, 2011)

John, for crying out loud, there is no attack, there is no discrediting, there is no superiority, or anything of the kind. Anything like that you think you are seeing you are reading into it. Okay? I am talking about correct classification, that is it, end of story. If you think that your system not being Koryu means I think less of it, I have stated on a large number of occasions that that is not the case. Please read what I write, not into what I write, as you keep seeing things that aren't there.

That said, I do have a question for you. You mention that the videos I posted are proof that Koryu classification isn't guarantee of anything, which I'm not arguing with. But which clip, or clips, did you mean? I'm only asking so I can get an idea of what you see when you look at them.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 2, 2011)

I believe it was the last one. Which your comment spurred a thought to include into my comment that Koryus are subjected to change and deterioration over time, for various reasons. Implying the value of history in your view and as Jason pointed out it is only as good as the quality of the koryu. It is extremely difficult to know if that has happen to an art or not. Today with modern technology of recording imagines, we can determine only as far back as say the 1900s if lucky.  Some arts go back as far as back as around the 1500s or so. Lot can change over time, and it did in Japan. And there is no way of knowing what exactly. Point being the value of history pertaining to martial arts is only as good as those before us. In the future it will be less difficult from the say the 1900s with the advent of photography. that is what I was getting at.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 2, 2011)

I put four clips up there, do you mean the fourth one? That's not a Koryu, it's a bogus, invented, modern, Western  "Ninjitsu" school. That was the point, that it claimed the history of the other three, but it's movements were a dead giveaway of it's actual history.

The first three were all Koryu, starting with Takenouchi Ryu Koshi no Mawari, then Tenjin Shinyo Ryu Jujutsu, and finally Fusen Ryu Jujutsu. If you thought the "Koga Ryu Ninjitsu" one was a Koryu....

That said, there can be some interesting things found in the world of Koryu. This, for instance, often generates a laugh... but trust me, you would not want to be facing these guys for real!


----------



## ap Oweyn (Nov 2, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Ah, that was getting into a kinda different area, I had to pull myself up from putting a range of other things down at that point. The crux of it was the past informing the present. But, to take your lead, having Scarlett (lovely girl, by the way...) say "Stop that!", and having that be the reason you stop, or alter your response, that would then be part of the new history, which would then inform the new behaviour (movement).



I feel like "new history" is a bit of a bait and switch though.  Not on purpose, of course.  But there's a big difference between knowing events from hundreds of years back and recognizing a basic stimulus-response reaction taking place right in front of you.  Retaining information that you, yourself, have just observed is a fairly broad view of history.



> In terms of the stance thing, though, "use this stance because it offers more stability", well, that had to come from somewhere as well. For instance, Northern Chinese systems and Southern Chinese systems have rather different concepts of stances, due to their terrain. For Southern, with rockier and less-stable ground, they have wider stances for stability. Northern ones tend towards narrower ones, because they had a more stable, flatter ground, and could afford to be narrower, and therefore faster. So "because it offers more stability" is already an insight, or aspect, of it's history right there. And the individual might not need to know it to that degree, but the system does.



Yeah, I'm familiar with that explanation.  And it's true that, _if_ your priority is to preserve the culture and history of your style, these details are important.  But, again, from a purely technical performance standpoint, every living practitioner of a given Southern kung fu style could suddenly be rendered blissfully unaware of the above explanation.  And it wouldn't change the basic, observable, reproducible fact that broad stances offer stability.  

Again, I want to emphasize that I, personally, like to retain the sort of cultural detail you're espousing. But "I value this" is still different from "this is necessary."

Does that make sense?

Good to see you again, by the way, Chris.


----------



## Steve (Nov 2, 2011)

ap Oweyn said:


> I feel like "new history" is a bit of a bait and switch though.  Not on purpose, of course.  But there's a big difference between knowing events from hundreds of years back and recognizing a basic stimulus-response reaction taking place right in front of you.  Retaining information that you, yourself, have just observed is a fairly broad view of history.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is what I was driving at.  Well said.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 2, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> I put four clips up there, do you mean the fourth one? That's not a Koryu, it's a bogus, invented, modern, Western  "Ninjitsu" school. That was the point, that it claimed the history of the other three, but it's movements were a dead giveaway of it's actual history.
> 
> The first three were all Koryu, starting with Takenouchi Ryu Koshi no Mawari, then Tenjin Shinyo Ryu Jujutsu, and finally Fusen Ryu Jujutsu. If you thought the "Koga Ryu Ninjitsu" one was a Koryu....
> 
> That said, there can be some interesting things found in the world of Koryu. This, for instance, often generates a laugh... but trust me, you would not want to be facing these guys for real!



Often the question is this, how is someone to determine what is or isn't BS. Well one school of thought, which Chris you may agree with, is refer to history, study history, use history. Ok, for those who subscribe to this method, I can't disagree. But the issue you will face is your knowledge is only as you as your sources. Which is the case for any historical research. Now, the alternative is to ask around, or directly ask an authority. You also have the net to find out.  To the untrained eye, they don't see the earmarks, or the flaws, etc. It is had for them to determine the authentic from the none authentic and they will go to the art that looks the more legit based on their stereotype or background information. The risk here is you may think your asking someone posing as authority providing wrong or fraudulent information.  Either has their benefits and drawbacks, though I personally would rather ask. 


Chris I think you are pointing this out, if the videos where shown to those unfamiliar with this school, they would pick the fraudulent as the authentic school. Just based on the videos you presented.


----------



## dancingalone (Nov 2, 2011)

ap Oweyn said:


> Again, I want to emphasize that I, personally, like to retain the sort of cultural detail you're espousing. But "I value this" is still different from "this is necessary."
> 
> Does that make sense?



Isn't he talking about this in the context of koryu arts?  If he is, all the 'trappings' are in fact part and parcel of the whole deal and cannot be left out without changing the system.  He's not talking purely about effectiveness or practical usage which is the point you are making about the rationale for a wider stance, regardless of any historical reasoning behind it.   

This from a proud practitioner of gendai arts (karate & aikido), so I have no dog in the fight myself.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 2, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> In  For instance, Northern Chinese systems and Southern Chinese systems have rather different concepts of stances, due to their terrain. For Southern, with rockier and less-stable ground, they have wider stances for stability. Northern ones tend towards narrower ones, because they had a more stable, flatter ground, and could afford to be narrower, and therefore faster. So "because it offers more stability" is already an insight, or aspect, of it's history right there. And the individual might not need to know it to that degree, but the system does.



hmmm... I'm gonna ask my Sihing about this tonight.  This explanation seems overly simplistic to me.  Rocky terrain or not, you don't need much room for a stance, whether the stance is wide or narrow.  I can't belive a region of the country would be so covered in loose gravel, demanding a specific stance to the extent that it would completely dictate stance in a martial system.

My method comes from Tibet, and thru Southern China.  We use a fairly high, narrow stance in the main, but wide and deep stances are found in our system at various points, to accomplish a task.  Our main stancework is designed with a very specific function in mind, and that is the reason for our stances.  We develop and deliver technique in a specific manner, and our stances reflect that, because our stances drive our technique.  I've never heard that our stances were dictated by terrain.  It's always been about how the system itself is designed and how it works, and how technique is developed and delivered.

My suspicion is that any well designed system would be the same: stances are used that function within the way the techniques are designed.


----------



## ap Oweyn (Nov 2, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> Isn't he talking about this in the context of koryu arts? If he is, all the 'trappings' are in fact part and parcel of the whole deal and cannot be left out without changing the system. He's not talking purely about effectiveness or practical usage which is the point you are making about the rationale for a wider stance, regardless of any historical reasoning behind it.
> 
> This from a proud practitioner of gendai arts (karate & aikido), so I have no dog in the fight myself.



Well sure.  Chris is speaking from a koryu perspective.  After all, he has bugei fever.

...

Sorry.

I don't have a dog in that fight myself, not being a practitioner of _any_ Japanese art longer than three months (college class).  But based on the thread title and the fact that this isn't specifically a koryu forum, there's an implication that this applies across the board.  Which is the point I might disagree with.

But let's assume, for a moment, that we are talking about koryu.  Then sure, the history of the styles is important to the transmission of (wait for it) the _history of the styles_.  And that's true across the board as well. My understanding of this debate is that it relates to whether or no the history is necessary to convey technical understanding of specific movements.

If the debate is over whether history is important in a broader sense, then my answer would change promptly.  I do want to know (and do know) much of the history of my chosen styles.  But that's a different matter.


----------



## dancingalone (Nov 2, 2011)

ap Oweyn said:


> But let's assume, for a moment, that we are talking about koryu.  Then sure, the history of the styles is important to the transmission of (wait for it) the _history of the styles_.  And that's true across the board as well. My understanding of this debate is that it relates to whether or no the history is necessary to convey technical understanding of specific movements.



I think it is clear Chris is talking about koryu systems given the many references he has made to them in his conversation with John.  He's also been very forthcoming that he is not talking about combat effectiveness nor intrinsic worth of koryu vs. gendai martial arts.  Just the distinctions that make a koryu art koryu in the first place.

By the way, this has been an interesting thread.  Many thanks to the participants.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 2, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> hmmm... I'm gonna ask my Sihing about this tonight. This explanation seems overly simplistic to me. Rocky terrain or not, you don't need much room for a stance, whether the stance is wide or narrow. I can't belive a region of the country would be so covered in loose gravel, demanding a specific stance to the extent that it would completely dictate stance in a martial system.
> 
> My method comes from Tibet, and thru Southern China. We use a fairly high, narrow stance in the main, but wide and deep stances are found in our system at various points, to accomplish a task. Our main stancework is designed with a very specific function in mind, and that is the reason for our stances. We develop and deliver technique in a specific manner, and our stances reflect that, because our stances drive our technique. I've never heard that our stances were dictated by terrain. It's always been about how the system itself is designed and how it works, and how technique is developed and delivered.
> 
> ...


----------



## ap Oweyn (Nov 2, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I think it is clear Chris is talking about koryu systems given the many references he has made to them in his conversation with John. He's also been very forthcoming that he is not talking about combat effectiveness nor intrinsic worth of koryu vs. gendai martial arts. Just the distinctions that make a koryu art koryu in the first place.


And I've been clear that I'm not talking specifically about koryu but extending those points to the larger context. Chris is fully aware of my lack of involvement with koryu, and my resulting perspective. As is anyone else who's read this thread. I guess I'm not really clear on what you're telling me.

If the thread were "role of history in koryu arts," I'd have passed right on by. 



> By the way, this has been an interesting thread. Many thanks to the participants.



No debate there.


----------



## dancingalone (Nov 2, 2011)

ap Oweyn said:


> I guess I'm not really clear on what you're telling me.



I was addressing this line you wrote:  "But let's assume, for a moment, that we are talking about koryu."  The thread has become about koryu arts - certainly the last two  pages with the back and forth between Chris and John, but arguably for longer than that if we read through the entire series.  

Thus, any remarks about art efficacy without historical knowledge are very well and good, but not what the discussion is or has turned into.


----------



## ap Oweyn (Nov 3, 2011)

dancingalone said:


> I was addressing this line you wrote: "But let's assume, for a moment, that we are talking about koryu." The thread has become about koryu arts - certainly the last two pages with the back and forth between Chris and John, but arguably for longer than that if we read through the entire series.
> 
> Thus, any remarks about art efficacy without historical knowledge are very well and good, but not what the discussion is or has turned into.



And am I to take it that I'm not in a position to shape the progression of the discussion then?  I should just stick to where others have taken it?


----------



## Cyriacus (Nov 3, 2011)

ap Oweyn said:


> And am I to take it that I'm not in a position to shape the progression of the discussion then?  I should just stick to where others have taken it?


That would depend.
The Other Discussion may have still been Active.
Redirections are best served when the Previous Discussion has been Concluded somewhat.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 3, 2011)

Hmm, a few things need clearing up here, particularly in regards to what is being discussed, and what's a side issue from that....



ap Oweyn said:


> I feel like "new history" is a bit of a bait and switch though.  Not on purpose, of course.  But there's a big difference between knowing events from hundreds of years back and recognizing a basic stimulus-response reaction taking place right in front of you.  Retaining information that you, yourself, have just observed is a fairly broad view of history.



Not really, if the change was a one-off, yeah, but if it starts a new behaviour (new martial art, or branch of that art), then that is specifically the relevant history in that instance that informs the new system/behaviour. That's kinda the point that I'm getting at with the history (the events and personalities that went into the creation and make-up of the art, whether something that happened 600 years ago, or 6 years ago) being important to be understood. In this instance, Scarlett's complaints are the event that alters the behaviour... which might be seen as a metaphor for a change that forms a new martial art or expression (think of it along the lines of the introduction of Judo by Maeda to the Machados and Gracies forming the new art of BJJ, or the transition from the first, multi-style tournaments of the UFC to the MMA format for gaining accreditation and status with the Sporting Commissions giving rise to modern MMA. These aren't basic stimulus-response sets, they are a new event creating a new behaviour/system) which is what I was getting at.



ap Oweyn said:


> Yeah, I'm familiar with that explanation.  And it's true that, _if_ your priority is to preserve the culture and history of your style, these details are important.  But, again, from a purely technical performance standpoint, every living practitioner of a given Southern kung fu style could suddenly be rendered blissfully unaware of the above explanation.  And it wouldn't change the basic, observable, reproducible fact that broad stances offer stability.


 
That's not really the point, though. The stances are the way they are because of the history of that system, whether the awareness is there or not. This may come as a surprise to a great many, but martial systems that only do things due to purely technical efficacy don't exist. They just don't. As I said earlier, these arts don't spring up out of a bubble, they are a product of their environment, which is a part of the history I've been referring to (the "where it comes from" part). Otherwise you might as well teach Wing Chun (narrow, high stances) with wide, deep stances, such as Hung Gar uses, because "it's more stable". Sure, but that's not Wing Chun, and if you're doing things like that, then you don't understand your art enough, which is, well, the thrust of this thread.

I mean, it also wouldn't change the basic, observable, reproducible fact that broad stances are slower and less mobile, either. Which value does the system hold? Mobility, or stability? Or compromise between the two? On more stable ground, mobility is safer to prefer, however on rockier ground, mobility can lead to falling over, and being killed, so stability is preferred. And, again, that comes back to the history as to which the system prefers. 



ap Oweyn said:


> Again, I want to emphasize that I, personally, like to retain the sort of cultural detail you're espousing. But "I value this" is still different from "this is necessary."
> 
> Does that make sense?



Right. I really want to clear something up here. I want everyone to listen carefully to this, because I don't think it's been listened to for the last, oh, 9 pages or so.

AT NO POINT HAVE I ESPOUSED, SUGGESTED, RECOMMENDED, INSISTED, DESIRED, INSTRUCTED, DICTATED, DEMANDED, CLAIMED, OR BELIEVED THAT ANY DEGREE OF CULTURAL DETAIL IS REQUIRED.

Seriously, I think I've said a number of times now that the degree of understanding and knowledge of the history of the system is entirely relative to the system itself. And the vast majority of it comes simply through training the system. When you train in Judo, you don't start wondering where all the roundhouse kicks are, or three sectional staff work, and if someone asks you about them, you say that they're not a part of Judo. If asked why, the answer would be "it's a Japanese grappling system that comes from old Jujutsu systems". I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Judo practitioner that wasn't aware of this part of the history. Do they need to know which systems gave which part of Judo's syllabus to it? No. But they do need to understand why Judo is made up the way it is (throwing primarily) instead of another way.

That's it.

Other areas, such as Koryu, need a lot more. But they are their own case, really.

So when it comes to "necessary", yes, it is necessary. Otherwise you have Judo schools with three sectional staff classes, roundhouse kicks, and Bat'leth...

Does that make sense?



ap Oweyn said:


> Good to see you again, by the way, Chris.


 
Good to see you too, Stuart.



JohnEdward said:


> Often the question is this, how is someone to determine what is or isn't BS. Well one school of thought, which Chris you may agree with, is refer to history, study history, use history. Ok, for those who subscribe to this method, I can't disagree. But the issue you will face is your knowledge is only as you as your sources. Which is the case for any historical research. Now, the alternative is to ask around, or directly ask an authority. You also have the net to find out.  To the untrained eye, they don't see the earmarks, or the flaws, etc. It is had for them to determine the authentic from the none authentic and they will go to the art that looks the more legit based on their stereotype or background information. The risk here is you may think your asking someone posing as authority providing wrong or fraudulent information.  Either has their benefits and drawbacks, though I personally would rather ask.



Right. So, if I read you correctly here, John, you're saying that you learn by being educated, and if you're not educated, you should ask those who are? Okay, not sure if I see the relevance, but okay...

Oh, and what to look for when checking for BS is to look for congruence both internally and externally with contemporary examples.



JohnEdward said:


> Chris I think you are pointing this out, if the videos where shown to those unfamiliar with this school, they would pick the fraudulent as the authentic school. Just based on the videos you presented.


 
I sincerely hope that no-one looking for a traditional Japanese system would be caught out by the example I put forth. The number of gigantic red flags, issues, inconsistencies, errors, incongruence in action and claims are beyond funny. Honestly, I chose those videos because I felt it was patently obvious which one was the odd one out there (the old "one of these things is not like the other ones..." song)...

If anyone else thought the "Koga Ryu Ninjitsu" group were a legit system based on comparrison with the three Koryu systems it claimed to share contemporary history with, let me know, and I'll happily point out everything wrong with that clip so you don't get taken in in future.



dancingalone said:


> Isn't he talking about this in the context of koryu arts?  If he is, all the 'trappings' are in fact part and parcel of the whole deal and cannot be left out without changing the system.  He's not talking purely about effectiveness or practical usage which is the point you are making about the rationale for a wider stance, regardless of any historical reasoning behind it.
> 
> This from a proud practitioner of gendai arts (karate & aikido), so I have no dog in the fight myself.


 
No, I'm not talking specifically about Koryu excepting in the conversation with John in order to clarify where he was getting his ideas on them from. So while I'm not talking about effectiveness or practical usage, I am when it comes to that being the reasoning for such an aspect as the stances... depending on that being the reason in the history of the relevant system, of course.

Take, for instance, your karate and aikido training. Both arts have very different approaches, very different concepts, and very different ideas (there is certainly some cross-over, but by and large, they are very different, in some ways complimentary, systems). Those different concepts, approaches, and ideas are a direct product of each of those arts history. In order to understand why your karate moves the way it does, as opposed to the way your aikido moves, you have to have some understanding of where it came from, and the different path it took to your aikido to come to the expression it now has. And that can be as simple an understanding as "Well, karate came from the striking systems of China to Okinawa, and then were introduced to Japan. Aikido, on the other hand, came from a grappling Jujutsu system in Japan", with other aspects added in for increased richness. The more you understand about the history of each, the better each will be, as the similarities and differences will be clearer to you, and far more obvious in your training of each.



Flying Crane said:


> hmmm... I'm gonna ask my Sihing about this tonight.  This explanation seems overly simplistic to me.  Rocky terrain or not, you don't need much room for a stance, whether the stance is wide or narrow.  I can't belive a region of the country would be so covered in loose gravel, demanding a specific stance to the extent that it would completely dictate stance in a martial system.



Yeah, it was very simplistic. I could have gone specific and discussed the histories of Hung Gar versus the histories of Wing Chun if I wanted to give a more detailed and specific example, but it was a broad strokes example to illustrate a point. That said, the terrain in which a system was prevalent, or active, absolutely would influence it's physical expression, starting with the stances.



Flying Crane said:


> My method comes from Tibet, and thru Southern China.  We use a fairly high, narrow stance in the main, but wide and deep stances are found in our system at various points, to accomplish a task.  Our main stancework is designed with a very specific function in mind, and that is the reason for our stances.  We develop and deliver technique in a specific manner, and our stances reflect that, because our stances drive our technique.  I've never heard that our stances were dictated by terrain.  It's always been about how the system itself is designed and how it works, and how technique is developed and delivered.



Terrain is only one possibility, Michael, and a single, simple example at that. Other influences include the armour used, any other typical clothing worn, any weapons used, whether it's designed for indoors or outdoor use, social customs of the time and location, other martial systems encountered, preference for striking or grappling, and so on. But to terrain, it can be far more influential than you may realise... boxing stances and MMA stances are different for a couple of reasons, and one is that the competitive surface of a boxing ring is firmer than an MMA ring, as the MMA ring needs to cushion falls and takedowns far more, which slows the footwork, and means the stance will get wider (which is also a result of the included grappling range in MMA, by the way). In fact, that's one of the reasons that Royce (and other grapplers) did so well in the initial UFC contests... the strikers weren't used to the slower surface, had too narrow stances, and couldn't get the purchase and speed they were used to. The grapplers, though, were used to it, and had stances that worked with the surface.



Flying Crane said:


> My suspicion is that any well designed system would be the same: stances are used that function within the way the techniques are designed.


 
Yes, but the question then comes into how the techniques are designed. For instance, in my systems, one of the schools, Kukishinden Ryu, has a naval history, so the kamae (postures) are wider, giving stability when on a boat. It also has a history of armoured combat, so the kamae reflect this additional weight being present (their form of "hicho" [flying bird] kamae, which typically is a single leg posture, just features the feet brought closer together). And, once again, that comes down to the history of the system.



ap Oweyn said:


> Well sure.  Chris is speaking from a koryu perspective.  After all, he has bugei fever.
> 
> ...



Oh, come on Stu, that was awful man....



ap Oweyn said:


> Sorry.



Just don't do it again, yeah?



ap Oweyn said:


> I don't have a dog in that fight myself, not being a practitioner of _any_ Japanese art longer than three months (college class).  But based on the thread title and the fact that this isn't specifically a koryu forum, there's an implication that this applies across the board.  Which is the point I might disagree with.
> 
> But let's assume, for a moment, that we are talking about koryu.  Then sure, the history of the styles is important to the transmission of (wait for it) the _history of the styles_.  And that's true across the board as well. My understanding of this debate is that it relates to whether or no the history is necessary to convey technical understanding of specific movements.
> 
> If the debate is over whether history is important in a broader sense, then my answer would change promptly.  I do want to know (and do know) much of the history of my chosen styles.  But that's a different matter.


 
Absolutely right, this is far from Koryu specific. They will have a far greater emphasis on their personal history than other systems, but that's about it. And honestly, it's easier to get the histories of Koryu systems in order to see the development, the influence of other systems and so on, in order to make the points, but, once more for emphasis, every art is the product of it's history, and to understand the art is to understand the history of it, as without it, there is no art. But, again, that does not mean that everyone needs to know, by rote, every detail in the history, formation, and development of their art, and all related systems, but they do need to have an understanding of what makes their art what it is. And that understanding is in the history.



dancingalone said:


> I think it is clear Chris is talking about koryu systems given the many references he has made to them in his conversation with John.  He's also been very forthcoming that he is not talking about combat effectiveness nor intrinsic worth of koryu vs. gendai martial arts.  Just the distinctions that make a koryu art koryu in the first place.
> 
> By the way, this has been an interesting thread.  Many thanks to the participants.


 
Er, except I'm not. They have been used as demonstration examples, and to make points, and there has been some focus in regard to the information and views coming out about them which was rather inaccurate, to say the least, but that's it. 



dancingalone said:


> I was addressing this line you wrote:  "But let's assume, for a moment, that we are talking about koryu."  The thread has become about koryu arts - certainly the last two  pages with the back and forth between Chris and John, but arguably for longer than that if we read through the entire series.
> 
> Thus, any remarks about art efficacy without historical knowledge are very well and good, but not what the discussion is or has turned into.


 
Here's the catch that may have been overlooked. The history of a particular system may indeed be it's efficacy in the arenas it exists in. MMA, certainly, as well as BJJ, have their entire history based in the efficacy and demonstrable effectiveness and applicability within their competitive arenas, which is what has helped shape them into what they are today. Tez, for example, while saying that the history side of things may not be exactly what she is into all of this for, is the first to come forth and correct the history on the development of MMA as it stands today. Just because that history is recent, and primarily competitively based doesn't alter the fact that that is it's history, and that is what defines and influences the system known as MMA itself.

In other words, the history of MMA is based in the continued development of training and technical approaches designed to give better success in the field of MMA competition. It has a history of doing that, and that history is what makes MMA what it is (stemming originally from the multi-style contests, where strikers and grapplers began cross-training in the other ranges in order to generate success, leading to MMA training as it exists now).



ap Oweyn said:


> And am I to take it that I'm not in a position to shape the progression of the discussion then?  I should just stick to where others have taken it?



Stuart, your position is, if not better than most others, then at least as valid as any to shift the conversation to any expression of the topic that you see is relevant. Not that I think any here could stop you...


----------



## Steve (Nov 3, 2011)

I'm confused, Chris.  

Initially, as in, after the first 50 or so posts, I was under the impression that this was a discussion about it being necessary for a student to understand the history in order to properly execute the technique.  I remain unconvinced, largely as a direct result of what I see occurring in BJJ every day.

Now, it seems, Chris, that you are saying that the history of an art permeates the techniques so that a student benefits from the history in a passive way, even if they don't take an active interest.  That the techniques are what they are as a result of the history.  If this is the case, I guess I thought this was self apparent.  I mean, who would suggest otherwise?  For literally any thing, you can point to a series of events and influences that culminate in a moment in time.  I am who I am because of where I've been.  BJJ is what it is because of its history. 

As others have said, if this has become a discussion about a specific subset of Japanese martial arts, I'll duck out.

But if it's about martial arts in general, there are arts taught where, sure, the history of the art influences the instruction, but not in any active manner.  Once again, in BJJ, techniques are shown for which no name is given, and as you move from one school to another, different techniques are taught in different ways with different names.  The history of the art, while surely being present underneath the instruction, has no overt place on the mats.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 3, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Hmm, a few things need clearing up here, particularly in regards to what is being discussed, and what's a side issue from that....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am not clear Chris with you augmentation style. When trying to discuss something with you, it doesn't seem you will go past elementary initial repudiation. There is no developing the discussion beyond that. I find it difficult to carry a conversation with you that isn't on the edge of developing into an ad hom rodeo. I think what I said was pretty clear and straight forward.   I express my opinion that my choice is to ask around instead of taking the historical route to find out information.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 3, 2011)

Asking around to check the authenticity vs. historical avenues for verification of authenticity. 

If I go over old ground I apologize. I have learned in my lifetime the power of word of mouth, to ask those who are legitimate experts or those in fields of those most qualified.  Others rely on acquiring that knowledge (for sake of argument) prevuing historic information and doing scholarly research and study. Personally, I am a person who practices a historic Japanese martial art (aka koryu) within that field I my process for legitimacy if I care to, I will ask around and do a bit of research. My art of jujutsu is pretty small and I know who is, and who isn't generally. Now if I was to venture outside of Japanese koryu jujutsu, say into Japanese koryu sword, I would then my process on the historic side would follow what makes an art a koryu. If I was to into say, another countries arts, my process would be the same, sculpted by the criteria of what makes a legitimate art. 

I fell into my old school jujutsu martial art, and the previous other martial arts I took. But am going to focus on jujutsu to simplify my discussion here.  At the time, all jujutsu back then was taught in that frame. BJJ didn't exist in this country nor was I aware of it.  If you want jujutsu outside that koryu frame, that traditional Japanese feel, you had go and do Judo. The alternative to that was Hapkido, or Chin-na, or the local karate club at the YMCA teaching self-defense moves - not a complete program. And the stress of something being authentic didn't exist. That criteria was based on the instructor looking and playing the part, or the instructor being the part.  And if you got caught up in a school that made you think twice after awhile, or you heard your school was full of B.S. you dropped and move to another school. Basically, over time you found out which was the best school in your area. I think that still is a pretty viable way of doing things.  

But, some people enjoy the historical process, in terms of a koryu learning Japanese, scrutinizing the lineage, pouring over documents, and documentations etc. Verifying all information set by the established criteria of what defines a koryu. That is fine. 

I study also Taichi. I personally lacked any knowledge of it, but I had experience in knowing what constitutes a good knowledgable instructor and what doesn't. I used that as my criteria and what was my needs and goals for taking up Taichi. I didn't know Chen, Yang, Wu etc. from each other. I had no historical background (which turned out to be more politically important than anything), and I ended up doing Yang style, from a pretty good and knowledgable instructor. Not based on the style but based on the instructor for legitimacy.  The most significant historical factual information to pass through my hands is that Yang was derived by Chen style. I was curious to see Chen style to see the original form that Yang style was based. It was a good experience. It provided a different way of looking at my Yang style. Helped understand the root of my movements and it was improved my understanding of my moves, and show me more about the changes and developments that differentiate Yang style.  Honestly, that is much clearer of an area than it is from between different Yang teachers teach in what I term the as the core form. It isn't standardized like say Shotokan Karate where katas are standardized which is much more helpful in legitimacy, and authenticity. In Yang Taichi there is a lineage but it doesn't have a strong arm to standardize Yang Taichi. Taichi is principle based for health and exercise and not combat. Also, being principle based that is what is emphasized and not standardized movement that are in a organized structure. Let's not get persnickety and point out that I am wrong based on JKA vs. all the others associations modifications to kata and all the minutiae.  In my experience, in this case, historical information wasn't very useful in legitimacy for me.   


I don't say hey, my way is right abandon the historical process. No. But I find asking around, and a bit of research does just fine in finding out about legitimacy.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 3, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Yeah, it was very simplistic. I could have gone specific and discussed the histories of Hung Gar versus the histories of Wing Chun if I wanted to give a more detailed and specific example, but it was a broad strokes example to illustrate a point. That said, the terrain in which a system was prevalent, or active, absolutely would influence it's physical expression, starting with the stances.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't intend to make a big deal out of this point, so I'll just add a few comments and leave it at that.

I absolutely do believe that environment and circumstances can have an impact on how a system develops and what its techniques end up looking like.  Your example of a system trained while wearing armour is a good one, that weight and cumbersomeness of the armour will have a big impact on what can and cannot be considered and done.  But if later generations training in this system do not continue to train with the armour, I suspect the system itself will change dramatically because the practitioners will no longer have the practical perspective of wearing the armour.  Without the armour, the training methods may not make much sense.

However, I believe it is tempting to see this more broadly than is realistic.  Going back to my own method, that was developed on the Tibetan plateau...we train with big, circular and sweeping techniques.  It is tempting to say, "the big open spaces of the Tibetan plateau allowed for such techniques to develop", but I don't think that's it.  Regardless of the big open spaces, I still need only a small space to practice big sweeping movements.  A space a few feet by a few feet would do it.  I am sure the crowded environment of Hong Kong would still offer me plenty of space to train my system.  Infact, the system did end up in Hong Kong, and thrived there.  Hong Kong is not so crowded to preclude such training methods.  Everyone from Hong Kong does not do Wing Chun as an adaptation to the crowding.  People are not literally shoulder-to-shoulder.

The thing is, those big sweeping movements that we practice do not ultimately represent our fighting technique in action.  Rather, they are a training method designed to develop a method for delivering a powerful technique.  It is just a tool to get you there.  When you use the technique to fight, it is much smaller movement, but we have learned to develop the kind of power that our system is built upon.  But the big movement teaches you to do it, and once you develop that skill, the same power can be used with small movement.  So our system is not really a system of big, sweeping techniques.  It is a training method that uses big movements as a tool, that become small movements in actual use.

What this tells me is, somebody in the distant past (circa 14th century) figured out a method for training how to develop a certain kind of power.  The method made sense, and it was perpetuated.  I think it's coincidental that it happened on the Tibetan plateau.

I don't discount the possibility that terrain and region may have had some influence on this, but I think it's not so much as people sometimes want to believe.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 3, 2011)

That insight into powerful small movements being trained by powerful large movements resonates in the armed arts too, FC.  

As I read what you posted I was nodding, for one of the things that I have learned in swordwork is that the quality of a swordsman can be measured, to an extent, by how small a fragment of the arc (a sword takes to the target) he needs to generate the tip speed to make an effective cut.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 3, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> That insight into powerful small movements being trained by powerful large movements resonates in the armed arts too, FC.
> 
> As I read what you posted I was nodding, for one of the things that I have learned in swordwork is that the quality of a swordsman can be measured, to an extent, by how small a fragment of the arc (a sword takes to the target) he needs to generate the tip speed to make an effective cut.



aye Sir.  You aren't the only one here who plays with sharp, pointy objects.:headbangin:


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 3, 2011)

Steve said:


> I'm confused, Chris.


 
Ha, you're confused?  



Steve said:


> Initially, as in, after the first 50 or so posts, I was under the impression that this was a discussion about it being necessary for a student to understand the history in order to properly execute the technique.  I remain unconvinced, largely as a direct result of what I see occurring in BJJ every day.



Okay, I want to know where this idea has come from, so I've gone back to the start to find it. First, though, a brief explanation as to how this thread started, as that could have some bearing on the confusion that we find ourselves with here.

Basically, in a thread in the Hapkido section (on the effectiveness of joint locks), I made some comments correcting the over generalisation and misinformation that JohnEdward had provided, which lead oftheherd1 to ask me some specific questions about the connections between Japanese arts and those of Korean and China. JKS split that post, and the following two, to create this thread, giving it it's title, to avoid thread drift there, and to promote a new conversation here. So it never really had any defined purpose or question to it, instead the origin was really a question and answer self contained in the initial post. There was no mention of a need to learn history, and certainly nothing about needing to know the history to be able to execute the technique.
*
Page 1 (posts 1-15)
*So that's the first three posts, followed by Cyriacus seeking clarification of the progression of some arts. Next was JohnEdward putting across his take on what he meant by Jujutsu, which was lacking to my mind, Tez describing the way she sees Tang Soo Do as basically a copy of the Wado Ryu she had already studied, then John again making an incorrect over generalisation of martial systems of the major cultures mentioned, and the first idea of someone needing or not needing to be a "walking wikipedia", or particularly schooled in the subject of history. Jenna added a post primarily tongue-in-cheek, then Chinto and Boar Man spoke about the particular approaches of different systems, and where that came from based on their origins and history. Mook Jong Man further embellished on the brief history of Wing Chun I had previously provided, and Tez mentioned the issue of false histories and accurate ones. Finally I came back and clarified what I saw as a few issues, and answered questions that had been posed, such as demonstrating the effects that different elements in the history of some karate styles had on the physical methods and approaches of those systems, clearing up the issues with the aforementioned take on Jujutsu, and pointing out how an understanding of the history, and what effect different elements would have, can help you when viewing systems you are unfamiliar with to tell if they are genuine or not. That brings us to the end of page 1, and post 15. So far, no mention of anything needed to "properly execute techniques", and certainly nothing about any link between physical performance and book learning.

*Page 2 (posts 16-30)
*Post 17 is where it starts to shape up, with Jenna saying that the art can happily be practiced "in a vacuum" separate from any historical knowledge of the path that lead it to your training hall. She also asked what valuable things can be learned that will assist in the practice of the art here and now. I answered that the degree depends on the art itself, but that the history provides the "what" by first providing the "why" through the "when", "who", and "how". Some interjection from Angel comes in, and Jenna asks why knowing the history is important, surely the technique is the technique no matter how it came to be? My answer is basically that it came to be by a specific path, and to continue to follow that art, and stay true to it, you need to stay to that path, or at least understand it in order to break or branch from it. In post 25 Tez brings up the first mention of whether knowing the history of your system makes you a "better" martial artist or not, which has not actually been a question up til then. She asks how knowing history can make you a better kicker, for example, but also admits that she could be taking the idea of learning history in order to understand the art too literally (I'd personally say that she is just looking at the technical mechanics, rather than what I would consider the martial art itself). More back and forth with Angel, followed by Jenna continuing the discussion by essentially asking how knowing about the various arts that went into Ueshiba's education help her in her performance of Aikido, as Aikido should be a stand-alone system without requiring such knowledge.

So far, it's really only Tez who has mentioned anything about learning techniques being improved, and she admits she may have not understood what was being meant.

*Page 3 (posts 31-45)* 
Okay, page three starts with my answering Jenna, and agreeing that I am not saying that knowing about all the details of the antecedant arts (in this case, Daito Ryu for example) isn't necessary to say you understand Aikido, but knowing Aikido's history is, as that is what leads the art to be Aikido in the first place. While this is what gives shape to the techniques, I am still not talking about it being part of learning techniques. Some more back and forth with Angel, and Frank Raud joins in the posit that history and tradition is given emphasis precisely because it is important. Tez asks about this, and Frank describes martial mythology as a drawcard for the arts, which play on the histories of the various systems. JKS pays a visit to stop the back and forth with Angel, and to try to steer the thread in the direction he had in mind when he created it, which is to look at the histories of the various arts, where, say, the Korean systems actually come from, and so forth. While the side-story with Angel stops, this idea for the thread isn't followed, which is fine. Oftheherd1 returns, and points out that I have been rather Japan-centric (yeah, fair call... but there are reasons for that!), followed by a post (post #42) which gets at my basic message throughout the thread, namely that the history helps you understand why emphasis is placed on one or another aspect, and in that way, helps you to pick the right art for yourself (and simply understand where your own art is coming from). I like that, because that's all I've really been saying when I say that knowing the history is part of understanding the art. Then we get to post 43, and that's where it all starts to really turn. In this post, JohnEdward takes the concept that Tez had brought up in post 25, and starts asking if knowing history makes your timing better, for instance, as well as starting the discussion on Koryu by essentially displaying no understanding of Koryu whatsoever (by reasoning with such things as "when my butt is on the line", and arguing that the history side doesn't make him more or less of a Koryu practitioner....). He also completely misses the point that Oftheherd1 was making, relating history to book learning and scholarship, which has not been done at any point in the thread up til that point. Ralph McPherson adds a false, and inaccurate analogy involving knowing the history of the guitar in order to play one, and Tez ends the page with the idea of having a broader understanding of history allowing better understanding of other people's arts (which is certainly a benefit, and an argument for a more scholarly approach, but not what I have been discussing).

So, the thrust of this "does learning the history mean you can punch harder/do the techniques better on the mat" concept comes from JohnEdward here, as well as the idea of understanding, or knowing the history here referring to a more scholarly, or academic pursuit. That has never been my contention or statement.

*Page 4 (posts 46-60)
*Here we start with Cyriacus taking Tez's example of broader understanding of martial history and education, and Jenna asking how knowing the history of her own system affects, or alters the practice of her art in the here and now, with a reference to the physical techniques. Tez agrees with this, asking how knowing the history will help her fight. Jenna comes back to reiterate, with the "glib" statement that she is "armed with the technique, not armed with the history", although she is open to concrete examples of knowing the history being relevant to the practice, where not knowing the history can be detrimental to such. This is post 50, and this is where the conversation has started to turn to "how does knowing the history help you perform the techniques?". It was never a part of the original answers or posts in this thread, especially not from myself. From there up to post 58 we basically have a slight error in the history of a system being given and a discussion stemming from that, and Frank comes back to correct the false analogy that Ralph had given earlier in regards to a guitar. Elder steps in for a second to make some points about how the historic details, particularly of the founder of the system, have helped give shape to the entire system, so knowing those aspects helps the student know why some things are done and others aren't. The last post on this page is from me, and it's a long one. In it I correct the mistake in history that was made, reiterate Franks take on Ralph's guitar analogy (sorry Frank, I was already typing my response when you posted, and didn't want to take it out), and confirm the reasons for my Japan-centric posting earlier. I also point out that I am seeing the concept of martial arts as far more than just "punches and kicks", or the technical make-up of the various systems, so I don't subscribe to the idea of "understanding your art" meaning "I hit harder". The Koryu side of things with John makes another appearance, with my pointing out some of the very non-Koryu things he's saying, giving that sub-plot another showing. In answer to Jenna, I start off by distinguishing between a "fighter", or a pure technician, someone only concerned with techniques, and a martial artist. This should show that I am not saying anything about knowing the history being linked to knowing how to perform a strike (although that can be extrapolated from it, if you know where to look). From there I give some examples of knowing the history helping in knowing how an art is performed, mainly from a tactical perspective. I also point out to Tez, specifically that knowing the history "won't help you fight, necessarily, but it will help you keep your practice on the same line, consistent and reliable, which will make the training that much more effective and powerful".

So, once again, my contention is specifically not that it is a direct aid to performance of technique, and certainly not that it makes you a better fighter. But then again, I don't take "martial artist" and "fighter" as equal terms.

*Page 5 (posts 61-75)
*This page starts out with Tez discussing a difference of definition of "history", and my confirming what I mean by the term. Jenna then seeks further clarity by positing a hypothetical "technique", wanting to know how knowing the history helps her train, learn, and apply it. In response to both Tez and Jenna, I try to describe the relationship between the history and the techniques (the physical expressions of the art, or it's behaviours) through the metaphor of a persons behavioural developments. I also describe how the not knowing the history can lead to getting the techniques incorrect, and in doing so, the history provides more a way of checking rather than actually being a way of improving striking power, for instance (although I don't touch on the history giving approaches and methods that are designed to do just that, as that would just muddy the waters...). Next is, frankly, JohnEdward equating things that I have not said, nor subscribe to, implying that the learning of the history of your system and the learning of the art are separate, and that learning of history is a separate academic study, deep and detailed. He also questions "what you know, or think you know", and tries to get into the idea of amateur and professional academics, which is all completely beside the point, as well as a gross misinterpretation of what I've been saying. Tez, following this misinterpretation, asks about how knowing the history of Wado Ryu helps her with her Wado Ryu throws, surely she's better off talking with a Judoka, for instance. Again, not what I've been talking about, but I'm still able to find an answer within the history, more about why you would possibly not look to a Judoka if you want to know the Wado method for performing throws. John again brings up his status as a "Koryu practitioner", again though, showing a great lack of understanding of what that implies. He also continues to mistake scholarly approaches for what I am discussing. I give another long post which includes pointing out, again, that the degree of knowledge of history is relative to the system, with most not requiring much beyond basic details, and that I am in no way advocating scholarly approaches unless you want to be a scholar. I also start questioning this Koryu claim of John's in more detail, asking what are the most basic questions that should be a simple answer, such as "what Ryu do you study?". I asked this of a Bujinkan member who is also training in a Koryu yesterday, he immediately got back to me with "Chris I study Masaki Ryu". It's really a very simple question.... I also point out that the lessons gained from understanding the history are more along the lines of knowing why this art favours kicks, but this one grappling. Why this one is more aggressive, and why this one is more evasive, and so on. Which has been the whole point all along. Jenna comes back to say she understands what I mean now, but seeks clarification as to the degree of knowledge of the history that is needed, and John gets, frankly, unnecessarily defensive over simple questions that he seems unable or unwilling to answer.

Here we have me clarifying a few times that knowing the history is not about the individual punches and kicks, more why it favours punching over grappling, and that I am in no way advocating a scholarly approach. In fact, only a small amount of knowledge is really required for what I am talking about.

*Page 6 (post 76-90)
*Page 6 starts with John again completely misinterpreting what I've been saying, putting words and ideas into my mouth that have never been put across by myself, with the concept of a "good" martial artist, as opposed to a lacking one, and playing into the idea that I am insisting on scholarship. While I may have shown some personal tendancies towards scholarship approaches myself, I have at no point in this entire debate advocated it for anyone, nor insisted on it for a criteria for anything. At all. Then you jump in, Steve, and immediately go to a technical standpoint, despite that not being much of a feature other than Tez's initial comment and John's insistance, as well as Jenna's hypothetical Monkey Catching Cricket. In fact, it's something I've dismissed a couple of times already as not what I mean. Tez comes back in and continues your theme of looking at the individual techniques, despite that not being what was meant by myself in any way. Next follows a slight detour into the military applications and histories of TKD. I then come back in and clarify in a response to Jenna about the level of knowledge needed, and the fact that I am not talking about extra research, but that this understanding should be a part of the learning of the system itself, and provide a story from one of my systems that mimics her "Monkey Catching Cricket" story as an illustration. I also go back to Johns defensive post, and point out a range of issues with his Koryu claim, as well as correcting his misinterpretation from the beginning of this page. Then, in answer to yourself, Steve, I point out that some techniques do have a history that is part of them, but that is a case-by-case basis, and as a result not correct in a broad stroke form for all martial systems, and as such, not what I am discussing, or meaning. I do, however, give an example of how the particular history changes seemingly similar or identical physical methods quite drastically. Again, though, this is on a case-by-case basis, not a universal rule. Sometimes the same is just the same, but with a different name (although, if you look closely enough, it'll be different on some level). I again point out the "understand the art" argument, and use your technical examples of how being informed about the art helps in your application and execution of the techniques in some cases. But it should be remembered that such examples are me taking the points you are giving me and extrapolating, not me making the argument myself that the history helps you apply a rear naked choke properly. Then there's a little more TKD specific history entered into for a moment.

*Page 7 (posts 91-105)
*Right, page 7. JohnEdward put down a long post filled with misunderstandings of my argument, putting words and ideas into my mouth again, such as the "good" martial artist distinction and being a scholar, to which I advise him basically to re-read the thread, and completely disavow the arguments he says I am making. He also puts down some very vague and inconsequential details about his teacher, a lot of which show him to not be teaching Koryu as a way of claiming that he is a Koryu student, while completely failing to answer the very simple and basic questions that would be the first step. He edits this post down to a couple of lines that basically screams "I don't study Koryu", and somehow thinks this is better. Jason Brinn comes along, and basically says how he approaches looking at the history and how it influences an art. Cool. You come back, Steve, and basically try to continue talking about specific technical details, as well as the application of BJJ's tactical approach. John comes back, and again gets rather defensive, asking why I would even care about his credibility as a Koryu practitioner, as well as "apologising" for my post. Hmm. He then goes on to give a very inaccurate take on Koryu systems and what they value, as well as missing the point of my asking, what I'm asking, and the point of the discussion with some very false analogies that have nothing to do with the argument. Jason comes back to help correct John, but I don't think he got what Jason was saying (the same way he didn't get what Paul Smith was saying to him a number of months ago). I come back to clarify to Steve that he's gone past what I'm talking about, so he's missed the exit, so to speak. It's not about the individual techniques, it's about the basic thrust of the system itself, where it has come from, what it does (in broad terms), and why it does that. I then turn to John, pointing out that he's not taking on board anything that has been said so far, as well as pointing out that, if he's going to be making claims about Koryu training based on being a Koryu practitioner, it'd help if he had a clue what he was talking about, so I am trying to ascertain where his Koryu knowledge comes from, as it is very lacking to say the least. I'm also not happy about him "apologising" for my words. I then pull apart the issues with his statements about Koryu themselves. That is followed by a little back and forth between myself and Steve, clarifying what the "what" we are referring to is, and John coming back, defensive again, missing what has been said, and again not answering the basic questions that would show whether he has any credibility to discuss Koryu. I finish the page by one more time asking John to go through the thread and see why I've asked about his Koryu education.

So, again, there is the disavowing of the idea that it's about the ways of training or learning the individual techniques, although that can be enhanced. And the Koryu side of things is really a side issue about John's credibility to talk on such things, not the main thrust of the discussion.

*Page 8 (posts 106-120)
*This page starts with myself offering a demonstration of the history of systems showing through in their methods, with three actual Koryu systems and a fake modern "ninjitsu" system who claims to be contemporary with the Koryu systems, showing that the actual, modern history of the fake school shows through, no matter what history they claim. This is followed by another two posts of John's showing large gaps in his understanding of Koryu, with misapplication of terms, mistakes in history, not understanding the purpose of such systems, and so on, followed by his take on the videos I posted. Elder gives some good clips of Koshiki no Kata, and Steve starts to come round, although there's still a bit of an issue. John again shows an approach and value directly opposed to Koryu training and education, I then correct John's major misunderstandings on Koryu, basically demonstrating that John's experience, whatever it was, was not Koryu. In the slightest. I also clarify something with Steve's response, which Elder had already touched on, in that the "why" and the "what" aren't, and really can't be separated. Stuart (ap Oweyn) comes along, and also gets into the misinterpretation of this being about technical application and efficacy. I clarify my statements to Stuart, and then John posts a long post which had really nothing to do with Stuarts post, so the edit of "I am removing this post because ap Oweyn put it better than me" doesn't make much sense, but basically it said that he may not do much reading or research, but he had a Japanese instructor who didn't put much stock in Koryu (despite apparently teaching it?), so why am I questioning his posts? My post there is a response to this original post of Johns, basically saying that I question his take on Koryu because it's so far out from every single Koryu practitioner I have ever dealt with, it denies most of the core values of Koryu, there are huge gaps in understanding, mistakes in history, and more. Basically, because it shows that John has no Koryu education at all. John again accuses me of claiming superiority, and being "snobbish", basically missing entirely what I have said. He also shows a fair amount of lack of understanding of who he's talking to, but that's another story...

So again, on the eighth page now, I am still clarifying that I am not talking about learning individual techniques, nor being a scholar. And the Koryu thing is about John giving bad and inaccurate information under the guise of education.

*Page 9 (posts 121-135)
*I clarify to John that I am not attacking him, nor claiming any superiority of Koryu over anything else. I do ask him to clarify what he meant when he spoke earlier about the clips I posted of Koryu and a fake system showing that Koryu isn't an indication or guarantee of quality... He says he was referring to the last one, which was the fake system. I take this as absolute proof positive that John has absolutely no idea about Koryu whatsoever, let alone Japanese traditional martial arts in any guise. For fun, I put up some Jigen Ryu clips, just because, well, any excuse, really. Stuart then comes back to talk about a few details from earlier posts, and John again seems to confirm a lack of any knowledge of old Japanese martial arts by saying that most people would think the fake system was genuine when put against the authentic Koryu systems. I really don't know how to take that. We then get to the question of whether or not the discussion is about Koryu or not, as well as adding some discussion of the role of prevalent terrain in forming parts of a systems approach.

*Page 10 (posts 135- )
*In which I start by clarifying a few details with Stuarts reading of my earlier post, and continue the discussion of terrain and other influences on stance. I also clarify, again, that I am not espousing, suggesting etc a scholarly approach unless that is someones personal choice. I also point out that anyone who had any experience with Koryu systems would never, and I mean never, think that "Koga Ryu Ninjitsu" system was genuine. I then clarify that the Koryu side of things was a side issue based on John making statements that were being accepted by other people, and even thanked by them for, which were blatantly inaccurate and misleading, so I wanted to clarify what his actual Koryu experience is. At this point, it is painfully obvious that, no matter what John may think he has trained in, it is not a Koryu. In any respect.

And that brings us to here.



Steve said:


> Now, it seems, Chris, that you are saying that the history of an art permeates the techniques so that a student benefits from the history in a passive way, even if they don't take an active interest.  That the techniques are what they are as a result of the history.  If this is the case, I guess I thought this was self apparent.  I mean, who would suggest otherwise?  For literally any thing, you can point to a series of events and influences that culminate in a moment in time.  I am who I am because of where I've been.  BJJ is what it is because of its history.



That's what I've said since the start, though. Others have misread, misinterpreted, misunderstood, applied inaccurate assumptions, and tried to claim that I am saying, or arguing things that I haven't been, but that doesn't change the fact that I have been discussing, since the beginning, the history of a system informing the overall approach of that art, which extends to the technical side, but is removed from being about being a good fighter, or from learning the techniques except in some case-by-case situations.

Seriously, see the above breakdown and see if I've said anything different over the last 10 pages... if I have, I couldn't find it. 



Steve said:


> As others have said, if this has become a discussion about a specific subset of Japanese martial arts, I'll duck out.



Nope, martial arts in general, and all inclusive. Stay and have fun!



Steve said:


> But if it's about martial arts in general, there are arts taught where, sure, the history of the art influences the instruction, but not in any active manner.  Once again, in BJJ, techniques are shown for which no name is given, and as you move from one school to another, different techniques are taught in different ways with different names.  The history of the art, while surely being present underneath the instruction, has no overt place on the mats.


 
Except that it does. The very way the art is trained, the drilling methods, the way it is taught, are all just as much an expression and extension of the history as the mechanics chosen for their effectiveness in competition. The history is where the method of instruction comes from. Now, that history might be recent, if it's a recent art, or old, if it's something like a Koryu system, but in either case, it's the history that has lead to that teaching method.



JohnEdward said:


> I am not clear Chris with you augmentation style. When trying to discuss something with you, it doesn't seem you will go past elementary initial repudiation. There is no developing the discussion beyond that. I find it difficult to carry a conversation with you that isn't on the edge of developing into an ad hom rodeo. I think what I said was pretty clear and straight forward.   I express my opinion that my choice is to ask around instead of taking the historical route to find out information.



What? Can you write that out again with some grammar? And what on earth do you mean I don't go past "elementary initial repudiation"? I have pointed out where your take on things shows it to be against Koryu approaches for 10 pages, John, you have consistently failed to engage in actual discussion that would support your contention that you learned a Koryu. And as far as being clear and straightforward, uh, not the way I read it, gotta say. I'd also say that your comment here goes against the way I read your initial statement (which made more sense, honestly), as you're basically saying here that, rather than actually research, you'd just ask around? Okay, how about you ask around here. Your first port of call for Koryu related information is the Koryu Corner, which you might find I was involved in setting up, and I am a rather vocal participant of. In other words, John, here, I am your Koryu source. If I'm correcting you, that means that you're most likely wrong. And I don't correct opinions, I correct facts.



JohnEdward said:


> Asking around to check the authenticity vs. historical avenues for verification of authenticity.
> 
> If I go over old ground I apologize. I have learned in my lifetime the power of word of mouth, to ask those who are legitimate experts or those in fields of those most qualified.  Others rely on acquiring that knowledge (for sake of argument) prevuing historic information and doing scholarly research and study. Personally, I am a person who practices a historic Japanese martial art (aka koryu) within that field I my process for legitimacy if I care to, I will ask around and do a bit of research. My art of jujutsu is pretty small and I know who is, and who isn't generally. Now if I was to venture outside of Japanese koryu jujutsu, say into Japanese koryu sword, I would then my process on the historic side would follow what makes an art a koryu. If I was to into say, another countries arts, my process would be the same, sculpted by the criteria of what makes a legitimate art.



No, sorry John, this doesn't add up. For one thing, you have the closest we have here on Martial Talk to an expert in these things correcting you, and you're not listening. And you do not practice a Koryu. That much is blatantly obvious.

But can I ask one favour? Before you hit submit next time, can you just give a quick re-read for grammar? Half these sentences I have no idea what you're talking about ("I would then my process on the historic side would follow what makes an are a koryu"? What?) 



JohnEdward said:


> I fell into my old school jujutsu martial art, and the previous other martial arts I took. But am going to focus on jujutsu to simplify my discussion here.  At the time, all jujutsu back then was taught in that frame. BJJ didn't exist in this country nor was I aware of it.  If you want jujutsu outside that koryu frame, that traditional Japanese feel, you had go and do Judo. The alternative to that was Hapkido, or Chin-na, or the local karate club at the YMCA teaching self-defense moves - not a complete program. And the stress of something being authentic didn't exist. That criteria was based on the instructor looking and playing the part, or the instructor being the part.  And if you got caught up in a school that made you think twice after awhile, or you heard your school was full of B.S. you dropped and move to another school. Basically, over time you found out which was the best school in your area. I think that still is a pretty viable way of doing things.
> 
> But, some people enjoy the historical process, in terms of a koryu learning Japanese, scrutinizing the lineage, pouring over documents, and documentations etc. Verifying all information set by the established criteria of what defines a koryu. That is fine.



I'm sorry, we're talking basically early 80's, yeah? There were plenty of non-Koryu Jujutsu and Jujutsu-style systems around, Wally Jays' Small Circle Jujitsu, VeeJitsu, a plethora of "American Jujitsu" systems... maybe not exactly where you were, but they were there. In fact, finding Koryu back then would have been the hard part. You would basically have had to move to Japan for that, and that's about it. Oh, and Chin-na isn't an art of itself, it's a subset classification of Chinese grappling methods. 



JohnEdward said:


> I study also Taichi. I personally lacked any knowledge of it, but I had experience in knowing what constitutes a good knowledgable instructor and what doesn't. I used that as my criteria and what was my needs and goals for taking up Taichi. I didn't know Chen, Yang, Wu etc. from each other. I had no historical background (which turned out to be more politically important than anything), and I ended up doing Yang style, from a pretty good and knowledgable instructor. Not based on the style but based on the instructor for legitimacy.  The most significant historical factual information to pass through my hands is that Yang was derived by Chen style. I was curious to see Chen style to see the original form that Yang style was based. It was a good experience. It provided a different way of looking at my Yang style. Helped understand the root of my movements and it was improved my understanding of my moves, and show me more about the changes and developments that differentiate Yang style.  Honestly, that is much clearer of an area than it is from between different Yang teachers teach in what I term the as the core form. It isn't standardized like say Shotokan Karate where katas are standardized which is much more helpful in legitimacy, and authenticity. In Yang Taichi there is a lineage but it doesn't have a strong arm to standardize Yang Taichi. Taichi is principle based for health and exercise and not combat. Also, being principle based that is what is emphasized and not standardized movement that are in a organized structure. Let's not get persnickety and point out that I am wrong based on JKA vs. all the others associations modifications to kata and all the minutiae.  In my experience, in this case, historical information wasn't very useful in legitimacy for me.


 
Well, Chen style is considered to be the original, so no surprises that Yang came from it.... Oh, and Taiji not for combat? Depends on who's teaching, I suppose, but you may find a few here who'll argue with you over that. And, for the record, some of the nastiest things I've seen come from Taiji. That said, I'm not really sure what this post is to do with, other than how you've not trusted historical records and information, and instead based your take on history on what someone who may or may not have had the slightest clue about what they were talking about told you. Hmm, you know what, I'll stick to actual history myself. 



JohnEdward said:


> I don't say hey, my way is right abandon the historical process. No. But I find asking around, and a bit of research does just fine in finding out about legitimacy.


 
Asking around, fine. But if you're looking for historical legitimacy, taking someone's word tends not to cut it. You really do need the research side of things. And, to be frank, in terms of the Jujutsu, it seems like the asking around approach didn't actually help you if you were after actual Koryu (old, traditional) methods.



Flying Crane said:


> I don't intend to make a big deal out of this point, so I'll just add a few comments and leave it at that.
> 
> I absolutely do believe that environment and circumstances can have an impact on how a system develops and what its techniques end up looking like.  Your example of a system trained while wearing armour is a good one, that weight and cumbersomeness of the armour will have a big impact on what can and cannot be considered and done.  But if later generations training in this system do not continue to train with the armour, I suspect the system itself will change dramatically because the practitioners will no longer have the practical perspective of wearing the armour.  Without the armour, the training methods may not make much sense.
> 
> ...



Hey, Michael.

With regard to the armour, there's still plenty of non-armoured systems, particularly Japanese, that still retain quite a lot of giveaways to their armoured past, so I wouldn't be so quick to say that they'd abandon them. You'll find that things like the grips in Judo, for instance, are originally based on where the handholds would be on a suit of yoroi (Japanese armour), and the displacement of balance is all armour based as well (as is the emphasis on throws in the first place, let's not forget).

With the big movements, yeah, I wouldn't attribute that to anything like "big sweeping plains" in anything other than a metaphorical, or symbolic sense. But I would say that that method of learning and training power generation, regardless of if it is based on the terrain, a vision of a bullfrog, or the mechanics of a chameleons tongue, or just good old fashioned "hey, I've found something that works", the method itself comes from the history, and the way it has been passed down, including the lessons that accompany it, are all a result of the influence of that history. Which is the same as everything else here, really.


----------



## mook jong man (Nov 3, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> I don't intend to make a big deal out of this point, so I'll just add a few comments and leave it at that.
> 
> I absolutely do believe that environment and circumstances can have an impact on how a system develops and what its techniques end up looking like.  Your example of a system trained while wearing armour is a good one, that weight and cumbersomeness of the armour will have a big impact on what can and cannot be considered and done.  But if later generations training in this system do not continue to train with the armour, I suspect the system itself will change dramatically because the practitioners will no longer have the practical perspective of wearing the armour.  Without the armour, the training methods may not make much sense.
> 
> ...



Usually the one that is trotted out about Wing Chun is that it developed because of the overcrowding and narrow alleyways of Hong Kong , I've always thought this to be complete garbage.
There's lots of places in the world like India etc that have large populations and narrow alleyways why didn't some Wing Chun like system evolve there.

Since we are talking about stances , I do not believe the high narrow stance of Wing Chun came about due to terrain either , my opinion is that it came about due to practicality.

The triangular forward facing stance is stable and resistant to force from all sides , but most importantly this stance enables the practitioner to have up to three limbs in operation at the same time , it's very useful if fighting someone a lot larger than yourself to attack the high line and the low line simultaneously.

This would be very difficult if not impossible to do from a deep or side on stance.
Also related to that is the fact that Yee Jee Kim Yeung Ma stance offers equal opportunity for either arm or either leg to strike with or strike with  arm and leg simultaneously , this is crucial to  Wing Chun's principle of directness.

Because everything is so direct and non telegraphic the opponent cannot predict what he will be hit with first.

So it is my feeling that the Wing Chun stance came about because it was the best way to execute the techniques according to the Wing Chun principles of Directness ,Practicality and Economy of movement not because of the type of terrain or population issues.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 3, 2011)

mook jong man said:


> Since we are talking about stances , I do not believe the high narrow stance of Wing Chun came about due to terrain either , my opinion is that it came about due to practicality.
> .



Or from fighting on boats in Kowloon harbor. Or a tai chi master's response to western boxing. Or the diminutive size of a Buddhist nun. Or the need to be able to train people up to fighting ability in a hurry.

Just sayin'......


----------



## mook jong man (Nov 3, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Or from fighting on boats in Kowloon harbor. Or a tai chi master's response to western boxing. Or the diminutive size of a Buddhist nun. Or the need to be able to train people up to fighting ability in a hurry.
> 
> Just sayin'......



In my lineage we believe the founder to be the Abbess Ng Mei , one of the considerations for her in designing the system was that it would take less time than other Kung Fu systems to learn.

But in reality it can take a long time to learn to generate close range striking power , and though the movements can be easily copied they take a lifetime to master.


----------



## jasonbrinn (Nov 3, 2011)

I was gone for a minute and it seems I missed A LOT.  Well, I feel like there is a lot I could say here as well but I will try and remain brief.

I feel understanding any arts lineage and history is HIGHLY productive even when talking in pure functional terms.  Most of us I would imagine either study arts that are sports sided or arts that are more history based.  I have had the privilege of studying both.  More than likely a very few of us actually study straight "self defense."  (although I am sure most of our studies lend to and better equip us all for self defense scenarios).

So, looking at the sports side.  I studied BJJ and I can tell you teachers from different lines definitely teach different things.  Some teachers under certain lines teach things one way while others teach the exact same thing for a totally different purpose.  It is well known that some BJJ teachers are experts in a particular area of "the game" then others.  A student under X teacher will look at things from that perspective and react differently for different reasons directly related to who taught them, how they taught them and why they taught them what they did.  Let's be honest, some are better suited to prepare students for different aspects than others - I think this would be important to know - especially if you had to face someone from a particular school in competition (this could be all the help you needed to win).

On the historical based side of things I have trained a japanese koryu art.  Knowing its history meant the world.  The techniques were much better understood when one knew why they were handed down the way they were.  Even when it came to drills.  There are some Aikido schools that I know of that teach drills for learning how to "center" that were actually just parts of etiquette in the original art form and never were meant to be "trained" for anything.  Also, there are even techniques which were used for very specific ritualistic reasons within a castle that people will teach that unless you are living under a shogunate somewhere and inside a castle it makes little sense to do.

Bruce said "the person is always more important than the style" and I feel this is mostly true.  Good people can learn and use bad arts in productive ways while the opposite can be said too.  It is the heart of how you got the art, its intention and the understanding of your teacher of all of it that will most greatly affect you - not the actual land swimming itself.

my 2 cents


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 3, 2011)

To continue what I was saying,The other thing you have to watch out for is self proclaimed historians, it goes with the same caution when surfing the net for information. You really need to get the information from the qualified historical experts via the things the write in books or they publish on web. The internet is great it makes us all experts, but the issue is, it is reliable information. Is the person behind the keyboard hammering away at wikipedia really the history expert.  It is tough to determine that especially when the don't cite their references. And when they don't publish their works in respected journals. The thing with the web is anyone can look and sound like an expert.  That is the draw back with relying on historical information for proof, getting the right information from the right people. It is hard and takes a lot of time, and research. For me, I would rather ask around to find the legitimate expert. It is something a common reflex we do it so much. I don't know many who will pour over historical notes when buying shoes. We ask what is the best shoe. 


In Taichi, all the style and frames come directly or indirectly from Chen style. That you can find on the net, it is something historical. It is usually told to you by your instructor, and it's an oral tradition. The only significance really in Taichi being for health and exercise, is looking at Chen style for historical combat applications. Taichi, officially is taught for health and exercise, that isn't to say some aren't still teaching it for combat. Therefore there is little or no significances to know it is history if to be practice for health and exercise, just as it is for gymnastics. Because of that you will see a wide variety in Taichi exercises from teacher to teacher. 

I think some people over-stress the importance of history for several reasons, one it enhances the experience. Two, it provides some people with an alternative focus to the activity, i.e. a buff.  For example, a sports buff, or a Trekkie.   To them every bit of history is important. They are docents of the art. Now there are those with correct and incorrect information, to the lay and inexperience person determining who is who, well it's tough. Most people could never figure it out, unless they where told by experts themselves. Know the right information is always better. No one want to talk martial arts history at a at the water cooler and be wrong. Having the wrong or incomplete information is embarrassing unless you don't know otherwise, in that case you goofed by drinking the Kool aid.  Having the right historical information can enhance, but it is not required to know martial arts. Just as it isn't require to know the basket ball hoop started out as a peach basket. Or know who Friedrich Ludwig Jahn was and his historical influence to gymnastics to be a gymnast of any caliber. Not knowing who he isn't going to stop you from going to the Olympics.  But know that can be fun. 

I edited this post based on what Jason posted before me while I was hammering this out.  I have to agree with him. I like his approach to the topic, it was a good post.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2011)

I confess... it's all my fault!


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I confess... it's all my fault!
> 
> Ha, I wouldn't exactly say that... you made an assumption, it was corrected, others ran with it, and you followed.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2011)

Er, what did I assume? I still hold that knowing the history of my arts doesn't help me drop people. It still doesn't help me train or be any better. I know the history of BJJ and the only thing that does anything positively for me is knowing that Helio Gracie lived a long time and was still active at a great age which are a couple of my ambitions. I know the history of Judo as well and again it doesn't help me to throw any better, the same with Wado and TSD. for me, that's as complicated or as academic as I want to be, knowing the history of arts is interesting but doesn't help me in training or at work.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 4, 2011)

That what was meant by "understand your art" related to performing techniques in a mechanical fashion, which you posited in post 25. You also qualified that by saying that you may be taking it a little too literally, which was correct. And knowing the history of BJJ has done more than just inform you as to Helio Gracies performance in later life, it also informed you as to what their speciality is, what you might gain by training in the system, and so on. When it comes to learning the system itself, you get to see why the preference is for things like "position before submission", the history there being proven effectiveness. That's all.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 4, 2011)

Chris,  thank you for filling in more of what I said, though I think at this point you have really nailed and I am nailed your opinions down. You can stop hammering on your opinion. I got it way back when in your first posts. Let's move on shall we...and over here, is...... :lol:


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 4, 2011)

Hmm, I haven't really dealt with opinion for the majority of this thread, though. I've dealt with details and facts, as well as observation, but not opinion. One last thing for you, though, John. Would you mind answering at least one or two of the questions I've asked you over the thread? You seem to have missed answering a single one.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> That what was meant by "understand your art" related to performing techniques in a mechanical fashion, which you posited in post 25. You also qualified that by saying that you may be taking it a little too literally, which was correct. And knowing the history of BJJ has done more than just inform you as to Helio Gracies performance in later life, it also informed you as to what their speciality is, what you might gain by training in the system, and so on. When it comes to learning the system itself, you get to see why the preference is for things like "position before submission", the history there being proven effectiveness. That's all.



However I'm not taught BJJ by BJJ instructors and I've never heard of 'position before submission' before! I train with squaddies and we just go for it, usually someone learns a move somewhere often on a fight and they pass it on, it's a lovely pot pourri way of learning! Some of ours were training with some Canadians in Afghan and brought back techniques from there, a couple of others met up with someone we know who's a Royal Marine and was out in Afghan too, (that's Martin Stapleton btw he was on TUF) we collect techniques from everywhere and anywhere. We have some who we send out to Fairtex in Thailand to train, they don't get history as the instructors don't speak English at least not well.
I've probably just appalled any straight laced martial artists now lol!


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 4, 2011)

Then, to be honest Tez, that wouldn't qualify as learning BJJ to me. Part of learning or studying MMA, sure, learning techniques, absolutely, but not learning BJJ as essential elements are missing. You understand, yeah?


----------



## Cyriacus (Nov 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> However I'm not taught BJJ by BJJ instructors and I've never heard of 'position before submission' before! I train with squaddies and we just go for it, usually someone learns a move somewhere often on a fight and they pass it on, it's a lovely pot pourri way of learning! Some of ours were training with some Canadians in Afghan and brought back techniques from there, a couple of others met up with someone we know who's a Royal Marine and was out in Afghan too, (that's Martin Stapleton btw he was on TUF) we collect techniques from everywhere and anywhere. We have some who we send out to Fairtex in Thailand to train, they don't get history as the instructors don't speak English at least not well.
> I've probably just appalled any straight laced martial artists now lol!


Thats one thing I _love _about Grappling Arts.
Even so much as looking at a different Hall teaching the same thing for the same Organisation will show up different Methods, due to the, well, as you put it, Pot Pourri Distribution and Alteration of stuff.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Then, to be honest Tez, that wouldn't qualify as learning BJJ to me. Part of learning or studying MMA, sure, learning techniques, absolutely, but not learning BJJ as essential elements are missing. You understand, yeah?



I understand that you want things to be exact, precise and historical before they are of value. We learn BJJ there are no vital bits missing, what do you think is missing? We have had Gracies train with us and they are happy with what they see, we've had people who've trained in Brazil with 'masters' and they are happy with it.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 4, 2011)

Nah, nothing so stale as that, I just take the term martial arts, and anything that has that term applied to it, to mean more than technical methods. There's a base to it, a fundamental undercurrent that sets that particular system apart from the others. After all, if it was just the technical side of things that made these martial arts, then anyone that can put together a hodge-podge of kicks, throws, and punches can call what they do a martial art... but that's not what it'd be. 

With your approach there, I'm not surprised the Gracies would be happy with it, they'd be looking at the technical side of things, making sure that that is solid. And I have no problems with that being so, nor with your approach not being any more than the technical application of mechanics gleaned from their (and probably other) systems.

But in terms of what's missing, well, what's missing is the coherant whole, if you get what I mean. There are a range of BJJ systems around now, and each are a bit different. It's these differences, found when the entire approach is looked at as a whole, that make them all martial arts, rather than just methods of technique. Now, to be absolutely clear, I have nothing against such an approach, it just fails to meet my criteria for a martial art, that's all.


----------



## Steve (Nov 4, 2011)

Originally Posted by *Steve* 


But if it's about martial arts in general, there are arts taught where, sure, the history of the art influences the instruction, but not in any active manner. Once again, in BJJ, techniques are shown for which no name is given, and as you move from one school to another, different techniques are taught in different ways with different names. The history of the art, while surely being present underneath the instruction, has no overt place on the mats.






			
				Chris Parker said:
			
		

> Except that it does. The very way the art is trained, the drilling methods, the way it is taught, are all just as much an expression and extension of the history as the mechanics chosen for their effectiveness in competition. The history is where the method of instruction comes from. Now, that history might be recent, if it's a recent art, or old, if it's something like a Koryu system, but in either case, it's the history that has lead to that teaching method.


Okay, so, here's the thing.  Now I'm REALLY confused.  I think I get the point, but I'm now wondering why it generated such a long thread.  I guess I presumed that this point was self evident.  What I mean is, every single thing in existence is a product of those things that came before it.  A pear is what it is because of a seed that germinated, grew into a pear tree near enough to other pear trees that it flowered and was pollinated so that it bore fruit.  Judo is what it is, Wado-ryu is what it is, ninjutsu is what it is and BJJ is what it is because of what came before it. I'm the man I am.  I mean...  time marches on.    

In other words, if this was your point the entire time, I thought it was a given and agree entirely.


Tez3 said:


> However I'm not taught BJJ by BJJ instructors and I've never heard of 'position before submission' before! I train with squaddies and we just go for it, usually someone learns a move somewhere often on a fight and they pass it on, it's a lovely pot pourri way of learning! Some of ours were training with some Canadians in Afghan and brought back techniques from there, a couple of others met up with someone we know who's a Royal Marine and was out in Afghan too, (that's Martin Stapleton btw he was on TUF) we collect techniques from everywhere and anywhere. We have some who we send out to Fairtex in Thailand to train, they don't get history as the instructors don't speak English at least not well.
> I've probably just appalled any straight laced martial artists now lol!


Tez, if you don't learn BJJ from a BJJ instructor, you aren't learning BJJ.  I think this speaks directly to Chris Parker's point (unless I'm still having trouble tracking) and I agree.  The difference between Catch Wrestling, Judo and BJJ is not the techniques learned.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 4, 2011)

Ah, my friend, I wondered the same thing. I thought it was pretty obvious too, and there really wasn't any argument against it, but it seems the length has come more from misunderstanding (thinking the concept was equal to "know the history or you can't perform the techniques", which it never was, or "knowing the history means you need to be approaching it like a scholar or academic", which, again, was never the case). I'm not sure that this is what JKS had in mind when he split my post and the others to start this thread, though. I get the feeling that he was intending more for a discussion of "the history of my art says x, so we do y", kind of like the brief discussion on stance and terrain a page or so ago. But these threads do have a life of their own, and there was a lot of confusion as to the role of Koryu in the discussion, so that kinda pushed it one way as well.

That said, the stance/terrain conversation could start this thread going in another, related direction. That could be interesting.

Oh, and that's precisely what I meant in regards to the BJJ as well. No confusion needed.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2011)

Steve said:


> Originally Posted by *Steve*
> 
> 
> But if it's about martial arts in general, there are arts taught where, sure, the history of the art influences the instruction, but not in any active manner. Once again, in BJJ, techniques are shown for which no name is given, and as you move from one school to another, different techniques are taught in different ways with different names. The history of the art, while surely being present underneath the instruction, has no overt place on the mats.
> ...




Sigh, we don't do catch wrestling, we don't do Judo, we do BJJ, BJJ instructors such as the Gracies agree with us, that's what we do, the fact we don't have a BJJ belted instructor doesn't take away from that. We go to seminars, what we do is exactly the same as the BJJ people, we enter BJJ comps not one says go away you're not BJJ. Perhaps we are just a more liberal country...in so many ways.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 4, 2011)

Ah, but what makes it BJJ, though, and not Judo?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Ah, but what makes it BJJ, though, and not Judo?



The Portugese names ROFL! My instructor is a dan graded Judoka (who competed a lot), when he teaches Judo we can see it's different from BJJ, we can do Judo chokes and we can do BJJ chokes, they are different. I have the books by Renzo and Royler Gracie and Renzo with John Donaher, so yes we are doing BJJ. As I said the BJJ instructors we know say it as well. To be honest we don't care what it's called as long as it works. Our name for it is 'effective'.


----------



## Steve (Nov 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Sigh, we don't do catch wrestling, we don't do Judo, we do BJJ, BJJ instructors such as the Gracies agree with us, that's what we do, the fact we don't have a BJJ belted instructor doesn't take away from that. We go to seminars, what we do is exactly the same as the BJJ people, we enter BJJ comps not one says go away you're not BJJ. Perhaps we are just a more liberal country...in so many ways.


Tez, don't sigh.  We have judo guys, and sometimes guys from other styles, competing in our local tournaments, as well.  That doesn't mean they train in BJJ.  They may even do well in the tournament and have pretty good technique.

Just out of curiosity, do your guys ever compete in an IBJJF gi tournament, and if so, at what rank?  Josh Barnett is a notable example of this issue.  He's a catch wrestler who will readily state that he has never trained in BJJ, although he has trained with and competed against elite level BJJ black belts.  He eventually was awarded a BJJ black belt from Erik Paulson because of his competition record.  But he continues to be very vocal about the philosophical and strategic differences between BJJ and CACC Wrestling.   

Position before submission isn't a mantra we recite at the beginning of class.  It's a cliche that sums up a fundamental strategic approach to grappling, and is one way in which BJJ is clearly distinguished from CACC.    

You've mentioned that some of your guys have traditional backgrounds in other arts.  If you incorporate a side kick and a front kick into your MMA arsenal, would you take that further to imply that you train in Karate or Tae Kwon Do?


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 4, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Hmm, I haven't really dealt with opinion for the majority of this thread, though. I've dealt with details and facts, as well as observation, but not opinion. One last thing for you, though, John. Would you mind answering at least one or two of the questions I've asked you over the thread? You seem to have missed answering a single one.



I disagree, you have dealt with your perspective, and how right your perspective is and how wrong those you deem wrong are - in your opinion.  I sense a huge chip on your shoulder in regard to this. I am really cautious based on your view and your handling of this thread no to provide you any opportunity to personally attack me. Where then I will get really pissy and offended and fire back at you where we are both trying to discredit each other. Sorry, I am not joining that Rodeo. Been there done that, felt really stupid and childish, for getting down to that level of engagement. Too much negativity. The results are never good or resolves anything. Sorry, I will pass on that Chris, as I would rather suffer from your kicks of sand in my face than allowing myself to lose control. Because I know I will, I know I can, and if cornered  can get really mean and nasty. I hope you know what they say about old tigers. 

So, let's move on.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 4, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Because I know I will, I know I can, and if cornered can get really mean and nasty. I hope you know what they say about old tigers. .



That they have bad teeth, and prey on the weak? :lfao:

(_Old tigers, *sensing the end*, are most fierce_ )


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2011)

Steve said:


> Tez, don't sigh. We have judo guys, and sometimes guys from other styles, competing in our local tournaments, as well. That doesn't mean they train in BJJ. They may even do well in the tournament and have pretty good technique.
> 
> Just out of curiosity, do your guys ever compete in an IBJJF gi tournament, and if so, at what rank? Josh Barnett is a notable example of this issue. He's a catch wrestler who will readily state that he has never trained in BJJ, although he has trained with and competed against elite level BJJ black belts. He eventually was awarded a BJJ black belt from Erik Paulson because of his competition record. But he continues to be very vocal about the philosophical and strategic differences between BJJ and CACC Wrestling.
> 
> ...



We don't just 'do' MMA, we are a martial arts club, the traditional people don't always do MMA, that's just one of the things we do. If they did those kicks and I taught them it would be karate, if Sandy one of the others taught them is would be MT because we are instructors in those styles. At the moment we don't have an instructor in BJJ, we have had before but as you know we have a fluid membership.

Wrestling instructors are very hard to find in this country, apart from the traditional types such as Cumberland, Cornish etc. 
these are the comps we enter
http://www.thecombatacademy.com/HOCalendar.html
http://www.umauk.co.uk/2011%20Event%20Regsitration%20Pages/UMA_UK_Open_BJJ_Championships_Registration%20Page_22nd_October_2011.htm

I think people get annoyed at what they see as 'rogue' coaches and clubs, it can't possibly be the real thing unless it's endorsed by certain organisations or certain people, you have to belong to the in crowd before what you do is legitimate. We can't possibly do BJJ because we don't have a BJJ instructor at the moment, it must be wrestling or Judo. Oh well, as I said it's still effective.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 4, 2011)

elder999 said:


> That they have bad teeth, and prey on the weak? :lfao:
> 
> (_Old tigers, *sensing the end*, are most fierce_ )



And really bad breath when they do prey on the miscalculating weak.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> We don't just 'do' MMA, we are a martial arts club, the traditional people don't always do MMA, that's just one of the things we do. If they did those kicks and I taught them it would be karate, if Sandy one of the others taught them is would be MT because we are instructors in those styles. At the moment we don't have an instructor in BJJ, we have had before but as you know we have a fluid membership.
> 
> Wrestling instructors are very hard to find in this country, apart from the traditional types such as Cumberland, Cornish etc.
> these are the comps we enter
> ...



I understand your situation, I don't agree with your statement of not possibly doing BJJ because you don't have a BJJ instructor, that isn't true - btw, I got that. But none the less, not everyone teaching BJJ is at the same skill level, obviously does it really come down to a wink and a nob?  Like you said,  the importance lays, in the effectiveness. People forget when they get all caught up in to names, and labels and politics, that martial art from day one, absent of history and all of that junk, purpose was about effectiveness. Nothing else, plain and simple. If it isn't effective, no historical information, or category or any of that matters, why some may ask?  It is because you would be dead or gravely injured.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 4, 2011)

And it is because of that fact that in modern society places so much emphasis on the importance of historical information and other means of authenticity.  You don't need to prove your martial art though combat any more, unless it is a street self defense situation. Meaning not like it was historically needed.  So I invite everyone who really feels strongly that historical information and background on the authenticity of an art is far more important then it's effectiveness to prove that wrong.


----------



## Steve (Nov 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> We don't just 'do' MMA, we are a martial arts club, the traditional people don't always do MMA, that's just one of the things we do. If they did those kicks and I taught them it would be karate, if Sandy one of the others taught them is would be MT because we are instructors in those styles. At the moment we don't have an instructor in BJJ, we have had before but as you know we have a fluid membership.
> 
> Wrestling instructors are very hard to find in this country, apart from the traditional types such as Cumberland, Cornish etc.
> these are the comps we enter
> ...


I'm not trying to be elitist at all.  I have no doubt that your club is top notch.  Seriously.  Not even a question.  

But if you aren't learning BJJ from a person qualified to teach it, ie, at least a purple belt, then you aren't learning BJJ. I'm sure you guys are learning solid grappling and I have no doubt you are competing well within a ruleset.  But your not training in BJJ unless you're training in BJJ.  It's that simple.  If you're learning Cantonese, you are studying a dialect of Chinese, but you wouldn't suggest to anyone you are also learning Mandarin.  While both are "Chinese" languages, they aren't the same thing.  And you can't learn Cantonese from someone who doesn't speak it.  

Tez, you didn't answer the questions I asked.  Do you guys compete in IBJJF tournaments?  Do you compete in gi?  If so, what belt rank to your guys compete at? Who awards you rank?  We have guys in our local tournaments who compete who don't train in BJJ, and we do our best to place them where they belong.  But that doesn't fly at the Pan Ams, the Mundials, the European Open or any of the other IBJJF tournaments.  You have to hold rank in the style.  

I'm not making any kind of a value judgement here.  I hope that's clear.  But I would never suggest that I train in Judo, even though some of our techniques are identical.  One step further, I would never claim to be training in Judo, even though a couple of our guys are black belts in that system.  It's different.  Not better or worse, necessarily.  Just not BJJ.  



JohnEdward said:


> And it is because of that fact that in modern society places so much emphasis on the importance of historical information and other means of authenticity.  You don't need to prove your martial art though combat any more, unless it is a street self defense situation. Meaning not like it was historically needed.  So I invite everyone who really feels strongly that historical information and background on the authenticity of an art is far more important then it's effectiveness to prove that wrong.


I don't think it's important at all.  It just is what it is.  You don't call apples bananas.  Even though America and England share many similarities, you wouldn't call a Brit an American.  We're different.  Our paths diverged and we're not the same anymore.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 4, 2011)

Steve said:


> I'm not trying to be elitist at all.  I have no doubt that your club is top notch.  Seriously.  Not even a question.
> 
> But if you aren't learning BJJ from a person qualified to teach it, ie, at least a purple belt, then you aren't learning BJJ. I'm sure you guys are learning solid grappling and I have no doubt you are competing well within a ruleset.  But your not training in BJJ unless you're training in BJJ.  It's that simple.  If you're learning Cantonese, you are studying a dialect of Chinese, but you wouldn't suggest to anyone you are also learning Mandarin.  While both are "Chinese" languages, they aren't the same thing.  And you can't learn Cantonese from someone who doesn't speak it.
> 
> ...


 Historically that is true, Brits and Americans diverged, but that is because we Americans choose to. We were one at one time. But that is historical tracing, which has no bearing in either country being super powers; our military effectiveness. Historical information doesn't effect our applied might.  BJJ has it's roots in Judo newaza, and when BJJ first came to the US, that historical fact made no difference in BJJ's effectiveness. Keep in mind I am thinking along your line of thought, about divergence. Both Judo and BJJ can trace be traced to Jujutsu. But when Judo proved its self against jujutsu, judo was accepted not because of the historical information. It was effective because of its effectiveness over jujutsu. Despite the fact Judo is a composite of variety of traditional battlefield jujutsus.  Historically it can be said, BJJ is a variation of Jujutsu that can be traced to "koryu" jujutsus. True or not, it doesn't change any of the arts effectiveness. Like anything else at the end of the day it has to work.


----------



## ap Oweyn (Nov 4, 2011)

Cyriacus said:


> That would depend.
> The Other Discussion may have still been Active.
> Redirections are best served when the Previous Discussion has been Concluded somewhat.


And how would it be concluded precisely?


----------



## Steve (Nov 4, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Historically that is true, Brits and Americans diverged, but that is because we Americans choose to. We were one at one time. But that is historical tracing, which has no bearing in either country being super powers; our military effectiveness. Historical information doesn't effect our applied might.  BJJ has it's roots in Judo newaza, and when BJJ first came to the US, that historical fact made no difference in BJJ's effectiveness. Keep in mind I am thinking along your line of thought, about divergence. Both Judo and BJJ can trace be traced to Jujutsu. But when Judo proved its self against jujutsu, judo was accepted not because of the historical information. It was effective because of its effectiveness over jujutsu. Despite the fact Judo is a composite of variety of traditional battlefield jujutsus.  Historically it can be said, BJJ is a variation of Jujutsu that can be traced to "koryu" jujutsus. True or not, it doesn't change any of the arts effectiveness. Like anything else at the end of the day it has to work.


I don't disagree.  But at the end of the day Americans aren't Brits and BJJ isn't Judo.  Efficacy is a different conversation altogether.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2011)

So because we don't currently have a BJJ instructor what we do is Judo, okay if it makes you all happy. When we do get one and we carry on doing what we are doing in exactly the same way it'll be BJJ again. Just because my instructor and others haven't got the magic BJJ belts it can't possibly be BJJ, well I can see that BJJ instructors would say that else how could they charge for gradings? I'm also guessing that all the BJJ people with real belts who have trained with us are lying when they say we do BJJ. We don't grade in anything so I guess we don't train anything either.

If I were learning Mandarin from a Mandarin speaker who wasn't a trained teacher does that mean I'm not learning Mandarin? It's only Mandarin when a specific organisation says it is. I tend to think if Royce Gracie was happy with our Jits (and he was) anyone should be, if not well we're not bovvered!


----------



## Steve (Nov 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> So because we don't currently have a BJJ instructor what we do is Judo, okay if it makes you all happy.


It's not judo, either, unless you're learning from someone qualified to teach it.  It's grappling, for sure, and I'm confident that it's quality grappling.  But unless you're learning Judo... you're not learning Judo.  





> When we do get one and we carry on doing what we are doing in exactly the same way it'll be BJJ again.


If you are training with someone who is competent to teach and award rank in BJJ, sure.  





> Just because my instructor and others haven't got the magic BJJ belts it can't possibly be BJJ, well I can see that BJJ instructors would say that else how could they charge for gradings? I'm also guessing that all the BJJ people with real belts who have trained with us are lying when they say we do BJJ. We don't grade in anything so I guess we don't train anything either.


Jesus.  You're throwing a temper tantrum, Tez.  





> If I were learning Mandarin from a Mandarin speaker who wasn't a trained teacher does that mean I'm not learning Mandarin? It's only Mandarin when a specific organisation says it is. I tend to think if Royce Gracie was happy with our Jits (and he was) anyone should be, if not well we're not bovvered!


One of us is bovvered (whatever that means), but I'm pretty sure it's not me.  

Here's my thing.  Why are you so keen to call it BJJ?  Why so adamant that it's not Catch Wrestling or Sambo or something else?

Also, I'm still interested to know whether you guys compete in IBJJF tournaments, and at what rank you guys compete at in your local BJJ tourneys.  Do you jump in as white belts and clean the place up, or do you borrow blue, purple, brown or black belts?  If you compete at higher belts, who helps you determine your appropriate rank?  Do you guys train under Royce Gracie, or are you using a snapshot in time at a seminar to legitimize your entire program?

Ultimately, you seem to be getting worked up about this, but I'm at a loss as to why.  I wouldn't want to presume competency in Judo.  I certainly don't try to imply competency in CACC Wrestling or Sambo.  I would suspect that many of the techniques and skills I've learned will carry directly over, but they're not the same.  As I said before, why are you so keen on presuming competency in BJJ?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2011)

Steve, I'm not in the least throwing a temper, I'm sat here with a box of choccies, very relaxed savouring my birthday, it's Mischief Night and I'm having fun, I'm off to watch a fireworks display shortly. so don't assign emotions to me that I'm not having! I'm not worked up, you don't accuse Chris of that when he writes his long posts. chill!
Why are you all so keen to say what we do isn't BJJ, why on earth do you care what we do? It's very amusing! I do actually have a belt in BJJ as does my instructor and a couple of others, colour of mine? Blue. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSNK-9v7_JI&feature=relmfu


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 4, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Hey, Michael.
> 
> With regard to the armour, there's still plenty of non-armoured systems, particularly Japanese, that still retain quite a lot of giveaways to their armoured past, so I wouldn't be so quick to say that they'd abandon them. You'll find that things like the grips in Judo, for instance, are originally based on where the handholds would be on a suit of yoroi (Japanese armour), and the displacement of balance is all armour based as well (as is the emphasis on throws in the first place, let's not forget).



I've not heard that Judo (Kano's judo, anyway) was built around an assumption of wearing armour.  I know it derived from older jiu-jitsu methods, but I have never heard it still maintained an "armour-centric" approach.  But hey, I'm not really up on the Japanese arts so I'm not gonna try and argue it.



> With the big movements, yeah, I wouldn't attribute that to anything like "big sweeping plains" in anything other than a metaphorical, or symbolic sense. But I would say that that method of learning and training power generation, regardless of if it is based on the terrain, a vision of a bullfrog, or the mechanics of a chameleons tongue, or just good old fashioned "hey, I've found something that works", the method itself comes from the history, and the way it has been passed down, including the lessons that accompany it, are all a result of the influence of that history. Which is the same as everything else here, really.



No argument from me that whatever we do now is a result of the history that was before.  

I'll say a bit more about my own particular method.  Our oral history traditions tell us that the seeds of our system took root when a Tibetan Lama witnessed a fight between a crane and a monkey.  The Lama had prior martial experience, and witnessing this event planted some ideas in his head that he used to develop the fundamental methodology that later became the Tibetan White Crane system.

I do not believe this story is completely historical fact, but I believe there is some truth in it.  While there is probably some historical fact that SOMEBODY in the past was watching and taking hints from the activities of Cranes, the story as it exists today is probably chock-full of embellishments.

I do not believe that this story was created later as a way of explaining the big sweeping movements.  I do believe the crane itself did provide some direct inspiration for our training methods.  I say this because I have found in the literature descriptions of crane behavior written by ornithologists and conservation biologists, people completely un-connected to the martial arts, that is found directly in our forms and techniques.  When I find descriptions of aggressive crane behavior when defending the nest, and I can immediately recognize the same movements in our techniques and forms, it is clear to me that the crane is not merely metaphorical or allegorical in our system and history.  That is something that I find fascinating.

So how does this relate to the discussion here?  Well I suppose if the system had originated in Hong Kong, there may not have been the opportunity to observe the cranes and derive that inspiration.  Perhaps the Tibetan Plateau provided for a unique environment for the right individual with the right mindset to recognize the possibilities inherent in what he was seeing.  Living in a sparsely populated region, with a population of cranes that could be observed, provided the opportunity to develop our method.  The wrong environment, like a crowded city, would have not given the opportunity to observe the cranes, and this source of inspiration would not have existed.

So in that sense, I suppose geography and terrain had an impact on the development of our system.


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 4, 2011)

Steve said:


> It's not judo, either, unless you're learning from someone qualified to teach it.  It's grappling, for sure, and I'm confident that it's quality grappling.  But unless you're learning Judo... you're not learning Judo.  If you are training with someone who is competent to teach and award rank in BJJ, sure.  Jesus.  You're throwing a temper tantrum, Tez.  One of us is bovvered (whatever that means), but I'm pretty sure it's not me.
> 
> Here's my thing.  Why are you so keen to call it BJJ?  Why so adamant that it's not Catch Wrestling or Sambo or something else?
> 
> ...



Steve, I know you are speaking to someone else, I do see where your coming. I would say, not associated with your discussion with Tez, you seem to be concerned with demarcation of the arts. Knowing that BJJ is Brazilian based on Japanese Judo newaza and Judo is the fusing of several martial arts into one, i.e. giving credit where credit is due. Would I be correct?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2011)

Steve you seem awfully concerned about this where as frankly I don't really care, I was arguing with you because you seem so adamant that what we do is not BJJ and can't be because we don't belong to a BJJ organisation you recognise. You seem to be insistant on saying what we do isn't BJJ. It's irrestistble to pull your tail over this. I'm just saying a Gracie recognised it as such lol, we are a legitimate club we don't need validation from an association who rips you off, what we do works that's proof enough. If well respected BJJ graded people come to us to train and say we are doing BJJ that's good enough for all of us. It seems to worry you that we are 'rogue', that we don't belong to anyone, many martial arts clubs here don't. We just are, that makes us legitimate, not a seminar, not someone from an association taking money off us, we just. There's no governing body for MMA here, that just is too.
Belts don't necessarily make you good or a competent instructor look again at the 6 year old black belts, joining an association doesn't make you good, practice with good instructors does.
As for it not being catch wrestling, I have a suspicion however what you know as catch wrestling may be different from we know it as.
http://sfuk.tripod.com/articles_02/lanccw_1.html

Dave is a very well respected martial artist here, he has his own organisation also well respected.


In competitions those of ours who go in for them are graded and go in the appropriate group. We don't grade people but remember we have many people coming and going in our club and many have belts from other clubs and gyms so that at least should satisfy your need for 'legitimate' BJJers lol! We don't get to enter comps often our lads are usually matched in another fight, one that last six months in a hot sandy country. 






Two of the people we do BJJ with, Jean is Brazilian. he's from Gracie Barra Luiz Barboza in Paraiba, fights out of London Shootfighters. So, theres a nice little history for you. :ultracool


----------



## Steve (Nov 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Steve, I'm not in the least throwing a temper, I'm sat here with a box of choccies, very relaxed savouring my birthday, it's Mischief Night and I'm having fun, I'm off to watch a fireworks display shortly. so don't assign emotions to me that I'm not having! I'm not worked up, you don't accuse Chris of that when he writes his long posts. chill!
> Why are you all so keen to say what we do isn't BJJ, why on earth do you care what we do? It's very amusing! I do actually have a belt in BJJ as does my instructor and a couple of others, colour of mine? Blue.


When you use exclamation points, I infer emotion.  Haven't you seen School House Rocks? 






Truth is, and don't tell Chris this, I only read every third paragraph in his posts.    (Just kidding, Chris.  I am riveted by your posts)

And to answer your question, I'm keen to say that you're not training in BJJ because you're not.  I wouldn't call you a man, because I know you're a woman.  I wouldn't say you speak French when you're speaking in English.  Wrestling isn't BJJ even though both are grappling.  

If you're training with people who hold rank in BJJ and are qualified to teach it, great.  You indicated earlier that you don't.  I can only react to what you write.



> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSNK-9v7_JI&feature=relmfu


What language is this?  I heard the laugh track, but I only speak English.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 4, 2011)

I think we went to different schools, there's no emotion in them! good job you don't live in 'Westward Ho!' yep that's it's name!
I use exclamation marks usually to denote surprise, laughter or more usually a sort of genial emphasis, it's an indication it's not serious. Research shows that women use exclamation marks a lot because we talk differently from men. As in well, 'you'd never believe it!' Serious is in italics, emotional will be in French and sarcasm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westward_Ho!

We train with people who have BJJ rank as well as without when we can, they aren't from our club, it isn't regular, nothing is regular with us, we do what we can when we can. Most of our students have been in Canada for the summer and only came back last week.

The video is a mixture of Estuary English and Chav.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 5, 2011)

First off, Tez, knowing that you print off the longer posts as the screen isn't your favourite thing to stare at, I'd like to say sorry for the trees that you're about to sacrifice....



Tez3 said:


> The Portugese names ROFL! My instructor is a dan graded Judoka (who competed a lot), when he teaches Judo we can see it's different from BJJ, we can do Judo chokes and we can do BJJ chokes, they are different. I have the books by Renzo and Royler Gracie and Renzo with John Donaher, so yes we are doing BJJ. As I said the BJJ instructors we know say it as well. To be honest we don't care what it's called as long as it works. Our name for it is 'effective'.



Hmm, just as confusion seems to be the order of the day with this thread, I'm going to address each bit of information as I go, which may mean my take on things changes once or twice during this post. We'll start with this part.

My question was "what makes what you train in BJJ, rather than Judo?", not to prove that what you did wasn't BJJ, or anything like that, it was to see what you use as definitions and classifications here, which I think we're getting towards. Cool. Before we get too far into that, it's probably best that I clarify what I use as well, to help fascilitate the conversation.

To me, a martial art, any martial art, is defined most by it's approach, something I've often referred to, or described as a guiding philosophy. It's from this guiding philosophy (which, to bring it towards the thread topic, is a direct result of the history of the system) that the techniques and training methods come. Now, you can learn these techniques in more of a "vacuum", which has been mentioned a few times here, but that to me is not learning the martial art. Learning the martial art is learning the approach of that art, of which the techniques are just one part.

For example, I've trained in BJJ myself in the past, including a seminar with Royce Gracie, and that training has helped inform a range of things that I do these days, particularly what works, and what is far less advisable, when it comes to ground fighting. There are a range of techniques that I learned there that I bring into our modern work when we focus on ground work, however when I do it, I am not doing BJJ. The reason is that, although the technical side may be pretty much identical, the approach to it isn't. We have a much higher focus on getting up, disengaging, and escape, rather than submission or control on the ground, for instance. The distinction is between doing techniques from BJJ and doing BJJ itself.

I guess the question would be, would you consider that you are actually doing BJJ, following their approach, intent, aims etc, or are you doing techniques from BJJ, as found in the books you have? Personally, I have no problem with either situation, and, for the record, I feel the latter is closer to the mark. And, honestly, that would make absolute sense to me, as BJJ techniques, especially their ground methods, their reversals, submissions, movement from position to position, I think is brilliant. The approach doesn't gel with me, but their techniques are fantastic.

Oh, but to get back to the history side of things, you mention that the chokes, for instance, are different from BJJ compared to Judo (as well as the somewhat different names going from Japanese to Portuguese...), that, my friend, would be down to the history of the system... so having an idea of where BJJ came from (Judo), what happened to it (introduced to a different environment and country, and developing into a specialisation) tells you about the changes in the chokes, as well as telling you which would be more "effective", based on the environment that they are intended to be used in.



Tez3 said:


> We don't just 'do' MMA, we are a martial arts club, the traditional people don't always do MMA, that's just one of the things we do. If they did those kicks and I taught them it would be karate, if Sandy one of the others taught them is would be MT because we are instructors in those styles. At the moment we don't have an instructor in BJJ, we have had before but as you know we have a fluid membership.



I think this is the distinction I'm talking about. I'd say that, unless those students are learning Karate from you, or Muay Thai from Sandy, then yeah. If they are learning that kick in a different environment, though, such as in the MMA training sessions, and the individual mechanical technique is divorced from the rest of the system, and taught in it's own little vacuum, then it's learning a kick from Karate, it's not Karate itself. For one thing, the exact mechanics would need to be adjusted in small or larger ways to fit in with the greater situation (MMA), removing it even further from it's origins. The techniques are part of the arts, and part of learning the arts, when they are learnt in a greater context, not in separate bubbles. So I'd say they'd learn a kick which came from Karate, but they wouldn't be "doing" Karate when doing that kick.



Tez3 said:


> I think people get annoyed at what they see as 'rogue' coaches and clubs, it can't possibly be the real thing unless it's endorsed by certain organisations or certain people, you have to belong to the in crowd before what you do is legitimate. We can't possibly do BJJ because we don't have a BJJ instructor at the moment, it must be wrestling or Judo. Oh well, as I said it's still effective.



To be fair, I don't think that's what Steve is meaning, and I know it's not what I'm saying either. For one thing, I'm not questioning any legitimacy to the techniques, or where they have been drawn from. I'm getting more to the idea of learning, training, and studying a martial art, as opposed to learning and applying techniques which have been taken from them. Basically, doing techniques from BJJ isn't the same as doing BJJ. Both approaches are legitimate, depending on what is claimed, and both are better suited to different circumstances. With the fluid membership and approach of "only if it's effective", I'd say that the approach of training the techniques, rather than the system, is the better one.



JohnEdward said:


> I understand your situation, I don't agree with your statement of not possibly doing BJJ because you don't have a BJJ instructor, that isn't true - btw, I got that. But none the less, not everyone teaching BJJ is at the same skill level, obviously does it really come down to a wink and a nob?  Like you said,  the importance lays, in the effectiveness. People forget when they get all caught up in to names, and labels and politics, that martial art from day one, absent of history and all of that junk, purpose was about effectiveness. Nothing else, plain and simple. If it isn't effective, no historical information, or category or any of that matters, why some may ask?  It is because you would be dead or gravely injured.


 
No, effectiveness is a value that some people have, not an importance for martial arts. Added to that the detail that effectiveness is relative to the environment, and the argument begins to disappear. As for the contention that martial arts, from day one, (were) about effectiveness, uh, not universally, by a fair long shot. But again, you'd need to define what "effectiveness" means, as that is dependent on a range of different circumstances.



JohnEdward said:


> And it is because of that fact that in modern society places so much emphasis on the importance of historical information and other means of authenticity.  You don't need to prove your martial art though combat any more, unless it is a street self defense situation. Meaning not like it was historically needed.  So I invite everyone who really feels strongly that historical information and background on the authenticity of an art is far more important then it's effectiveness to prove that wrong.


 
I'm not sure where you get this "in modern society" idea from. And again, it comes down to the old classic of "it depends". It's far from a universal rule, and even further from being a "modern" trait. There are a range of approaches that make historical background and information far more important than what you're referring to as "effectiveness", really, top on the list being Koryu. And no, Koryu were not universally created because they were "effective" in the way you seem to imply either.



JohnEdward said:


> Historically that is true, Brits and Americans diverged, but that is because we Americans choose to. We were one at one time. But that is historical tracing, which has no bearing in either country being super powers; our military effectiveness. Historical information doesn't effect our applied might.  BJJ has it's roots in Judo newaza, and when BJJ first came to the US, that historical fact made no difference in BJJ's effectiveness. Keep in mind I am thinking along your line of thought, about divergence. Both Judo and BJJ can trace be traced to Jujutsu. But when Judo proved its self against jujutsu, judo was accepted not because of the historical information. It was effective because of its effectiveness over jujutsu. Despite the fact Judo is a composite of variety of traditional battlefield jujutsus.  Historically it can be said, BJJ is a variation of Jujutsu that can be traced to "koryu" jujutsus. True or not, it doesn't change any of the arts effectiveness. Like anything else at the end of the day it has to work.


 
Okay, Steve let this one go, but I'm going to argue a bit on it. First, Americans were never British, technically, they were Colonists. So it was not so much a split between Americans and British where the British living in America became American due to the War of Independance as it was a split between the American Colonies and the British Empire who they were a part of, but they were always, from settlement onwards, Americans. Next, the "military effectiveness" argument? Hmm, if you don't think that's to do with the history, you may want to revisit both how such "effectiveness" was attained, followed by how it was lost (in the case of the British Empire... note, I'm not saying the current British Military forces isn't effective, or incredibly good at what they do, just that the military might and power of the British Empire doesn't exist anymore, for reasons found in history...). The US Military is highly influenced by it's history, and is rightfully very protective and proud of such (as are other Military Forces around the world). Historical information absolutely does affect the might of the current Military (the history of the US giving it it's cultural psychology, which has a high emphasis and value on the military arm of it's power [just listen to the lyrics of the national anthem....], leading to political emphasis on it, the military in turn having a huge influence on political history and reality in the States, leading to more emphasis again, and much of the US self image being tied directly into the Military itself, and so on). So, no, the argument fails on that count.

When it comes to BJJ's effectiveness when it came to the US having nothing to do with it's origin in Judo's newaza, are you serious? The source of it's technical approach, further refined and developed over years in Brazil, and you think that had nothing to do with it's effectiveness? And Judo's acceptance wasn't really much to do with being "effective over Jujutsu"... for one thing, it was initially referred to as Kano-ha Jujutsu. Next, Kano was setting up "challenge matches" under rule sets that were unfamiliar to the Jujutsu schools he was challenging. But the main thing that lead to Judo's acceptance (and I'll also state that "acceptance" is not really the correct word here, mainstream adoption is probably better) was it's simplified approach compared to many Koryu systems (remember, Kano never got Menkyo Kaiden in his systems), which, combined with Kano's contacts and interest in education, lead to Judo being introduced to a number of levels of schooling in Japan. That's actually where the Kyu/Dan grading convention in Japanese martial arts comes from, as well as the idea of coloured belts. Kano would travel around holding seminars, and needed to be able to see at a glance the experience of the participants, so he knew who he could use as a demonstration dummy, whereas the Koryu (and other) systems around tended to be very singular, with a single dojo, and a single, or limited number of instructors. That allowed each instructor to be familiar with the skills of each student, so such ranking and belts weren't needed. And finally, the source schools of Judo are not "battlefield" systems per se, although Kito Ryu has retained some aspects of that. But Tenjin Shinyo Ryu certainly isn't. But in terms of Judo becoming popular not due to it's history, well, that's really not the point.

With BJJ tracing back to Koryu Jujutsu, well, yeah, but not really, to be honest. It traces to a system which traces to a few Koryu systems, which is not exactly the same thing. And in regards to it's effectiveness, and what effects that, well, that would be it's initial source material, and the development it went through in Brazil, including the forms of competition it encountered there. You know, it's history.



Tez3 said:


> So because we don't currently have a BJJ instructor what we do is Judo, okay if it makes you all happy. When we do get one and we carry on doing what we are doing in exactly the same way it'll be BJJ again. Just because my instructor and others haven't got the magic BJJ belts it can't possibly be BJJ, well I can see that BJJ instructors would say that else how could they charge for gradings? I'm also guessing that all the BJJ people with real belts who have trained with us are lying when they say we do BJJ. We don't grade in anything so I guess we don't train anything either.
> 
> If I were learning Mandarin from a Mandarin speaker who wasn't a trained teacher does that mean I'm not learning Mandarin? It's only Mandarin when a specific organisation says it is. I tend to think if Royce Gracie was happy with our Jits (and he was) anyone should be, if not well we're not bovvered!


 
Don't worry, Tez, I know what "bovvered" means...

No, the thing that Steve and I are saying is that if you don't have someone teaching you the BJJ approach, with the techniques in a BJJ context, then it's not BJJ. Not that it's Judo, but that it's not BJJ, strictly speaking. The purple belt is basically an entry teaching rank, showing that enough of the approach of BJJ has been internalised by the student to begin passing it on. In terms of Royce saying that he was happy with it, from a technical point of view, I'm sure he was. And in terms of him referring to what he saw as "jits", well, that's what Royce sees, and what he was brought in to see. Same with the other BJJ belted practitioners that come through, they will see things through the context of their personal experience, and if you're using techniques drawn from BJJ, that's going to be seen.

With the teacher thing, no, learning Mandarin from a Mandarin speaker is learning Mandarin... but that analogy, doesn't really work here. The actual analogy would be if you are learning Mandarin from a Mandarin dictionary, you wouldn't necessarily be getting the grammar, the conjugation, the proper honorifics, and so on. So it'd be more learning Mandarin words, rather than to speak the language. Very interesting, but not in context. Now, what you can do, is take those words and apply them in context by integrating them into English sentences, most likely at a Chinese restaurant, or in China Town, or similar. But that's still different from learning the language.



Tez3 said:


> Steve, I'm not in the least throwing a temper, I'm sat here with a box of choccies, very relaxed savouring my birthday, it's Mischief Night and I'm having fun, I'm off to watch a fireworks display shortly. so don't assign emotions to me that I'm not having! I'm not worked up, you don't accuse Chris of that when he writes his long posts. chill!
> Why are you all so keen to say what we do isn't BJJ, why on earth do you care what we do? It's very amusing! I do actually have a belt in BJJ as does my instructor and a couple of others, colour of mine? Blue.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSNK-9v7_JI&feature=relmfu


 
Ah, happy birthday, Irene!

And what do you mean, long posts? 

Oh.

Right.

Carry on.



Flying Crane said:


> I've not heard that Judo (Kano's judo, anyway) was built around an assumption of wearing armour.  I know it derived from older jiu-jitsu methods, but I have never heard it still maintained an "armour-centric" approach.  But hey, I'm not really up on the Japanese arts so I'm not gonna try and argue it.



Kano's Judo (the Kodokan) is the only Judo around (there was a Koryu system or two that used the term a century and a half before him, but that's fairly different). In terms of Judo being built around an assumption of wearing armour, uh, no it isn't. However, culturally, Japanese arts prefer grabbing over striking due to striking in armour being ineffective and dangerous for the most part (there are exceptions), and that has influenced the dominant grips found in Japanese methods. The standard "Judo grab", for instance, is known by a few different names in different systems, such as Kumi Uchi, and the right hand high originates from grabbing the shoulder straps, with the grab to the sleeve coming from the shoulder guards (sode). Variations include the left hand grabbing the belt (or both hands grabbing the belt), again present in armour, and both hands high, or both hands on the sleeves. Systems that don't deal with armoured origins as much have a different form of double lapel grab, where both hands are in the centre of the body, holding the folds of the kimono together. This prevented accessing hidden weapons, as well as being a more secure grip than the shoulder and sleeve in lighter kimono, which could rip when you tried to apply the techniques. Then there are methods from Kito Ryu preserved in the Judo methods, such as the Koshiki no Kata that Elder posted earlier, which is designed to be performed in armour. So while there isn't an armour-centric approach in Judo, it's methods betray such origins.



Flying Crane said:


> No argument from me that whatever we do now is a result of the history that was before.
> 
> I'll say a bit more about my own particular method.  Our oral history traditions tell us that the seeds of our system took root when a Tibetan Lama witnessed a fight between a crane and a monkey.  The Lama had prior martial experience, and witnessing this event planted some ideas in his head that he used to develop the fundamental methodology that later became the Tibetan White Crane system.
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, such stories are typically as much symbolic as literal events, I've come across a range of systems that include such stories. What I was getting at with the terrain aspect, though, was that that was one aspect of the history of a system that, no matter where in the world it may be taught now, retains it's place with the only reason of "effectiveness" relating to it's earlier environment. You'd probably be surprised to know why a whole range of things are done in a range of systems, honestly, with some forms of walking (which might look odd) being based around the style of clothes worn at a certain period in time, or being specifically for a type of building at night, or for walking around a battlefield, so avoiding getting your feet stuck in the mud that is created by the combination of blood and other bodily fluids and the ground. I was just trying to use a simple, gross example.



Tez3 said:


> Steve you seem awfully concerned about this where as frankly I don't really care, I was arguing with you because you seem so adamant that what we do is not BJJ and can't be because we don't belong to a BJJ organisation you recognise. You seem to be insistant on saying what we do isn't BJJ. It's irrestistble to pull your tail over this. I'm just saying a Gracie recognised it as such lol, we are a legitimate club we don't need validation from an association who rips you off, what we do works that's proof enough. If well respected BJJ graded people come to us to train and say we are doing BJJ that's good enough for all of us. It seems to worry you that we are 'rogue', that we don't belong to anyone, many martial arts clubs here don't. We just are, that makes us legitimate, not a seminar, not someone from an association taking money off us, we just. There's no governing body for MMA here, that just is too.
> Belts don't necessarily make you good or a competent instructor look again at the 6 year old black belts, joining an association doesn't make you good, practice with good instructors does.



Again, I don't know that that is what Steve was getting at. Being a part of an association doesn't guarantee legitimacy, not being a part of doesn't preclude it.



Tez3 said:


> As for it not being catch wrestling, I have a suspicion however what you know as catch wrestling may be different from we know it as.
> http://sfuk.tripod.com/articles_02/lanccw_1.html
> 
> Dave is a very well respected martial artist here, he has his own organisation also well respected.



Now that is a very nice article (not entirely sure of the "Shaolin Chuan Fa" origin of Karate, although in a roundabout way it can be traced back there, I suppose...). And it really highlights a lot of my points, actually. It shows that Lancashire Catch is an approach, rather than a series of techniques, including an approach to the training itself (gotta love the "time" approach to things like squats... ha!). The techniques themselves can then be transplanted and put into other contexts, but unless you're training in that Lancashire Catch method, you're not training in Lancashire Catch.



Tez3 said:


> In competitions those of ours who go in for them are graded and go in the appropriate group. We don't grade people but remember we have many people coming and going in our club and many have belts from other clubs and gyms so that at least should satisfy your need for 'legitimate' BJJers lol! We don't get to enter comps often our lads are usually matched in another fight, one that last six months in a hot sandy country.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Now we're getting more to it. So when Jean is teaching, he's more likely to be taking a BJJ class, with a BJJ approach, rather than a class that has BJJ techniques (which is really the distinction). So in these cases, that would most likely satisfy the idea of training in BJJ (for the record, I don't think there's been any claim that what you're doing isn't legitimate, just that the approach didn't match a BJJ approach, therefore it wasn't BJJ strictly speaking. That didn't mean it wasn't legitimate, though...).



Steve said:


> Truth is, and don't tell Chris this, I only read every third paragraph in his posts.    (Just kidding, Chris.  I am riveted by your posts)



Ha, well, truth is, only every third paragraph I put any effort into... hmm, was this number two or three? Eh, I lose count....



JohnEdward said:


> I disagree, you have dealt with your perspective, and how right your perspective is and how wrong those you deem wrong are - in your opinion. I sense a huge chip on your shoulder in regard to this. I am really cautious based on your view and your handling of this thread no to provide you any opportunity to personally attack me. Where then I will get really pissy and offended and fire back at you where we are both trying to discredit each other. Sorry, I am not joining that Rodeo. Been there done that, felt really stupid and childish, for getting down to that level of engagement. Too much negativity. The results are never good or resolves anything. Sorry, I will pass on that Chris, as I would rather suffer from your kicks of sand in my face than allowing myself to lose control. Because I know I will, I know I can, and if cornered can get really mean and nasty. I hope you know what they say about old tigers.
> 
> So, let's move on.



Just to finish, I'll come back to this.

John, I want to say this as clearly as I can. There is no chip on my shoulder. There is no opinion being offered in regard to what you do. I have given my perspective based on the information you have provided, as well as my schooling and background in these matters, and your posts are very lacking when it comes to martial arts history, Japanese arts, Japanese methodology, and Koryu. This is not a slight on your training, your ability, your knowledge of your system, your skills with it, your applicability of it, your teacher, or anything else. There is, in fact, no negativity whatsoever.

However, to take your own arguments from earlier to be wary of "self appointed historians/experts", my background and knowledge in this field is pretty well established, and if you want further information I am more than happy to provide it. Some will need to be by PM, but as much as I can put publicly I will. You, on the other hand, have not provided any information to back up where your highly unusual take on such matters comes from, despite many opportunities and frequent requests. As a result, your credibility is highly suspect in these fields. And when I see you posting information (typically either incorrect, or grossly, and inaccurately simplified or generalised) under the credibility of having experience in Koryu, that concerns me. Especially when others take what you say as accurate, due to their not knowing any better.

Now, frankly, I don't think any of that is malicious on your part. I think you genuinely believe what you are posting, and genuinely believe you have a Koryu background. As a result, this is not an attempt to discredit you. It is an attempt to get some understanding about where you are coming from. However you are seemingly completely unwilling to actually answer the most basic of all questions to start to help your credibility, or to give you more information about what you're actually training in, which is this: What Ryu is it?

This is not backing you into a corner, John. It's inviting you out into the open. The only person backing you into a corner, I have to say, is you. So how about it? Can you answer the question? Or are you going to respond to that question with the same passive aggressive evasions as you have here?


----------



## Champ-Pain (Nov 5, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> I disagree, you have dealt with your perspective, and how right your perspective is and how wrong those you deem wrong are - in your opinion.  I sense a huge chip on your shoulder in regard to this. I am really cautious based on your view and your handling of this thread no to provide you any opportunity to personally attack me. Where then I will get really pissy and offended and fire back at you where we are both trying to discredit each other. Sorry, I am not joining that Rodeo. Been there done that, felt really stupid and childish, for getting down to that level of engagement. Too much negativity. The results are never good or resolves anything. Sorry, I will pass on that Chris, as I would rather suffer from your kicks of sand in my face than allowing myself to lose control. Because I know I will, I know I can, and if cornered  can get really mean and nasty. I hope you know what they say about old tigers.
> 
> So, let's move on.


 John: I've had the same experience with this old tiger, as you. My suggestion to you is to just put that tiger in a cage and stop feeding it, as I have done... "IGNORE LIST" - then you can move on, as I have .


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 5, 2011)

Champ-Pain said:


> John: I've had the same experience with this old tiger, as you. My suggestion to you is to just put that tiger in a cage and stop feeding it, as I have done... "IGNORE LIST" - then you can move on, as I have .



Good advice is always well taken and appreciated.  I am sure you sensed my frustration and I appreciate that advice.  Thanks. Will do.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 5, 2011)

Before you do that, John, might I suggest you do what Angel didn't do, and actually read what was written? He got frustrated at the fact that I had a different take on martial arts to his sports only one, and wouldn't listen to the answer to his own question. You, on the other hand, just seem to refuse to answer them.

You were complaining about not being able to discuss with me, weren't you? How about you try?


----------



## JohnEdward (Nov 5, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> Good advice is always well taken and appreciated.  I am sure you sensed my frustration and I appreciate that advice.  Thanks. Will do.



Done.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 5, 2011)

Off subject for a minute... I've only blocked one person on here and thats because he was getting personal, aggressive and hectoring as well as following me from thread to thread so it was easier to block than keep complaining etc. To block someone just because they disagree with you is a nonsense. Steve and I often have minor arguments on various things, I think it keeps the pair of us on our toes, I really wouldn't like not to be able to discuss stuff with him. I don't always agree or even understand Chris lol but to block him? I'd suggest PMing (or emailing if you can) first so you can have what the politicians call 'full and frank' discussions or just don't post. It seems a shame to block someone because of a difference in points of view.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 5, 2011)

Thanks, Tez. For the record, Angel blocked me because he wasn't reading the answers I was giving, and John seems to have rather than answer any questions about the system he trains in... Odd, if you ask me.


----------



## Steve (Nov 5, 2011)

Two things.  First, Tez, that article is exactly what I mean when I refer to Catch Wrestling.  The holds, counters and submissions are very similar or the same.  The entire approach is different.  It's a different philosophy.  Getting to the submissions is different.  Regarding the rest of what's going on, I do disagree with Tez, although I don't think we disagree on anything that really matters, except the UFC, which I believe she and her club owe more to than they will admit.   But disagreement is what makes conversation around here.  If we all agreed on everything, there would be little to discuss.There's a difference between disagreement and disrespect.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 5, 2011)

Steve said:


> Two things. First, Tez, that article is exactly what I mean when I refer to Catch Wrestling. The holds, counters and submissions are very similar or the same. The entire approach is different. It's a different philosophy. Getting to the submissions is different. Regarding the rest of what's going on, I do disagree with Tez, although I don't think we disagree on anything that really matters, except the UFC, which I believe she and her club owe more to than they will admit.  But disagreement is what makes conversation around here. If we all agreed on everything, there would be little to discuss.There's a difference between disagreement and disrespect.



I'd be more impressed with the UFC if they hadn't threatened us. We were threatened by them because our fight promotion includes the word 'ultimate', we along with a few other promotions here were contacted by the UFC to say we would be taken to court. After seeing our solicitors ( at a cost we couldn't really afford) we haven't heard anything for a while. To go to court,even if we had won would have bankrupted us personally, it would have been unlikely the UFC could have won as it's not a protected word here but they would have served their purpose of putting us out of business just by going to court. A huge organisation doesn't need to do that to tiny, compared to them, shows who just promote locally.
I'd also be more impressed if they charged less for tickets here to see fighters we have all seen on British promotions.
£40 for the upper tiers, running through £65, £85, £100 and £150 to a top price of £250 for floor seats. Ticket prices here are around the £20-£30 for floor seats.

Cornish wrestling 




Cumberland and Westmorland http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXsgnrXhjs8&feature=related

Scottish http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gN5nS67kuM&feature=related

This is what we know as catch wrestling. What you know as catch as catch can is Lancashire wrestling here and is the one most like BJJ/Judo/MMA type of grappling.


----------



## elder999 (Nov 5, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I'd be more impressed with the UFC if they hadn't threatened us. We were threatened by them because our fight promotion includes the word 'ultimate', we along with a few other promotions here were contacted by the UFC to say we would be taken to court. After seeing our solicitors ( at a cost we couldn't really afford) we haven't heard anything for a while. To go to court,even if we had won would have bankrupted us personally, it would have been unlikely the UFC could have won as it's not a protected word here but they would have served their purpose of putting us out of business just by going to court. A huge organisation doesn't need to do that to tiny, compared to them, shows who just promote locally.



Trademark infringement is a big deal, and it's all the _lawyers_ protecting that trademark-*not* the UFC. Real story-back in New York, my neighborhood deli was owned by a Korean family named "Ma." Their store was called "Ma's." The lunch counter's hamburger special? _The Big Ma_-for about a month-then MacDonald's lawyers moved in on him. The UFC, like every corporation, has people that just do this as part of their job-otherwise, there could be more than one "UFC."


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 5, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Trademark infringement is a big deal, and it's all the _lawyers_ protecting that trademark-*not* the UFC. Real story-back in New York, my neighborhood deli was owned by a Korean family named "Ma." Their store was called "Ma's." The lunch counter's hamburger special? _The Big Ma_-for about a month-then MacDonald's lawyers moved in on him. The UFC, like every corporation, has people that just do this as part of their job-otherwise, there could be more than one "UFC."



However you cannot, in this country at least, trademark *one* word. The word 'ultimate' is used in many places on many things so it would have been ridiculous to try to stop others using it, something their high powered legal people, instructed and employed by the UFC, would have known so the aim would be to bankrupt people using that word rather than actually stop them using it. If the word was trademarked I wouldn't be able to use it in this post without paying the UFC. It's mean and small minded and very petty of them, the main competitors to them in this country aren't us, it's Cagewarriors and BAMMA who both have larger crowds attending their events, something the UFC could remedy if they put their prices down. Trade marking 'UFC' is fine, no quarrels there.


----------



## Steve (Nov 5, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I'd be more impressed with the UFC if they hadn't threatened us. We were threatened by them because our fight promotion includes the word 'ultimate', we along with a few other promotions here were contacted by the UFC to say we would be taken to court. After seeing our solicitors ( at a cost we couldn't really afford) we haven't heard anything for a while. To go to court,even if we had won would have bankrupted us personally, it would have been unlikely the UFC could have won as it's not a protected word here but they would have served their purpose of putting us out of business just by going to court. A huge organisation doesn't need to do that to tiny, compared to them, shows who just promote locally.


You're mixing things up.  You don't need to like, be impressed by or enjoy the UFC in order to acknowledge the impact that the UFC has had on MMA worldwide.  There are more guys making better livings in MMA than ever before.  There is a codified ruleset.  It's safer, more lucrative and more popular than ever in large part due to the success of the UFC.  





> Cornish wrestling
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great videos.  Are you saying that what you do is one of these styles of wrestling now?  I'm not tracking.  Looking at these videos again, and the original Lancashire website, it appears to me that Catch wrestling to you guys means just about any kind of wrestling.  Kind of loses its usefulness if you use it to describe any kind of folk wrestling style.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 5, 2011)

Okay this is where we go back to the OP and martial arts history.

The history of shootfighting/MMA in the UK is different from that in the USA. The UFC was unknown here for a long time, our first experience of MMA was when Lee Hasdell a kickboxer who had been competing in K1 in Japan had seen MMA/shootfighting on the same card as his bout. He'd previously promoted MT and kick boxing so in 1995 he brought the first MMA bouts here. It attracted the traditional martial artists, the Judokas, karateka and the TKDists who looked to the East anyway as well as the MT people. Boxers weren't and still aren't interested in MMA, in fact boxing promoters want it banned. Lee has had a huge effect on MMA here and we were all into Pride and the other Japanese promotions, it seemed natural for us to do that. We didn't start taking notice of the UFC until 2000 when Ian Freeman was invited to fight on it in America, even then it was only martial artists who took interest. It wasn't until the UFC38 came to London in 2002 that it started with it's publicity machine so that it came to the attention of the general public, mostly though it was negative publicity ie human cock fighting. Cage Rage a UK promotion was getting bigger audiences than UFC38 got, basically because the British want to see British fighters preferably local ones to them and also because as I have mentioned before the UFC charges horrendous prices for it's tickets. 

No one in the UK makes a living from MMA not even Bisping, there isn't the money in MMA here or in Europe for anyone to earn a living at fighting. You can make a living at running a gym if you teach martial arts full time but the rest of us have day jobs. In the UK and Europe we have no unified rules, they differ with each promotion sometimes with each fight as fighters will agree on the rules they want to fight with. We have no ruling bodies in the UK or Europe. Safety depends on the promoter as there's no licensing. When you talk about it being more lucrative etc you are talking about the USA not the rest of the world.

There is a market in the UK and Europe for the UFC videos and merchandising but not for the shows themselves, whenever they've held a show in Europe it's been a failure. Fans while they might like watching the UFC on television prefer to watch homegrown promotions and fighters live. France only allowed MMA fights last year until then they were illegal, they too are building up their own shows. Russia has had it's own cage fighting for a long time, they too take their influence from Japan rather than the UFC.

Wrestling.

Here we have several types of wrestling (an old English word btw originating in the 12th century), they are known by their names ie Cornish, Scottish, Lancashire etc. They are as old as the hills, they were old when Columbus discovered America, Henry the 8th was accomplished in Cornish wrestling. they are every bit as old maybe older than the traditional Asian arts. We don't call them 'folk' arts as that sounds twee, we call them by their names. One style in particular travelled, that's the Lancashire wrestling, that's the one most people know, it's the one that probably started the catch as catch can style, though it's believed that it's actually the Irish wrestling that made it's way to America and that's the one you know. 
We don't wrestle in our club, very few people wrestle as you know wrestling. Maybe a hundred people in the country and that would be the Olympic stuff. The high school and college wrestling you know, we don't do. To find someone to teach you wrestling that you could use outside of the Olympics you'd have to really search. It's also why UK MMA is that bit different from USA MMA as we don't have the wrestling experience the Americans have, our ground work comes from Judo and BJJ. Japanese martial arts have been taught here since the late 19th century, Judo has a long history here another reason why we look to Japan in MMA.
http://www.budokwai.co.uk/the_club/history

A quick edit..I should probably add that none of us pay to watch UFC on the TV either, we watch it online and that's all I'm going to say lol!


----------



## Steve (Nov 5, 2011)

Okay.  Couple of quick things.  First, I used the term Catch Wrestling and CACC Wrestling to refer to EXACTLY what you also refer to as Catch Wrestling.  But you confused the issue by then calling that Lancashire Wrestling and saying that "Catch" wrestling to you was Scottish Wrestling and/or Cumborland Wrestling and/or Westmoreland Wrestling.  And then you tell me that I'm wrong, and Catch Wrestling is something else entirely, and you don't even use the term in England.  And you finish by telling me that there are maybe 100 people in all of England who wrestle at all, and that any grappling you guys do is based on BJJ and/or Judo, which makes the videos and articles you post pretty ridiculous.  Clearly SOMEONE in the UK does some wrestling, or you wouldn't be so bovvered to correct me as though I have no idea what I'm talking about and then post information that in no way contradicts what I'm posting.  

Seriously, Tez, I believe we get along well, but you're saying something completely different every time you post.  And you change tacks at least twice in this last one.  No matter what I say, you tell me I'm wrong and then prove me right.  If it weren't so funny, it would be irritating.

And just so you know, "Folk" Wrestling isn't a pejorative term.  If you're determined to take offense, I can't help that, but your inconsistency is making it difficult to follow your posts, and every time I try to connect some dots, you move them around on me.

Edit to add:  Regarding the UFC, you have not said anything that contradicts my points.  The sport is more popular than it has ever been, and many people, even some from the UK, make a living fighting and coaching others to fight.  The events are, on the whole, more professional and safer for the participants.  There is a unified ruleset that forms the basis for almost every event.  While rules vary somewhat from promotion to promotion, they're all pretty much the same.  And yes, this is particularly true in the USA, where we have commissions and yes, I understand that the UFC is more influential here than there.


----------



## Steve (Nov 5, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> A quick edit..I should probably add that none of us pay to watch UFC on the TV either, we watch it online and that's all I'm going to say lol!


just caught this edit, I thought the UFC was free in the UK on ESPN-UK.  Is ESPN a pay channel over there?


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 6, 2011)

Steve said:


> just caught this edit, I thought the UFC was free in the UK on ESPN-UK. Is ESPN a pay channel over there?



It is a pay channel. Expensive too as you have to have satellite for it then pay about £30 a month.

Steve you are getting a little muddled, I'm not contradicting myself and again you are assigning emotion where there is none. I reply because it's interesting not because I'm bothered about wrestling. 
You misunderstand me again, yes people do what you like to call 'folk' wrestling, it's not a perjorative term... as I said it's twee, that's when Americans come across here and call everything 'so cute', it's confined to the counties/countries they are in, it's done locally to them not nationally. Yorkshire people don't do Cornish wrestling, Cornish people don't do Cumberland etc, it's entirely a regional thing. You will only find people who do their regional sport in the region it's named after. We see it as catch wrestling, I said that I think what what* you* see as catch wrestling is probably the Lancashire varient though I looked it up and it may well be the Irish one you know as catch wrestling. The Lancashire is a bit better known though not much. 

The wrestling you know with the swimming costumes and earmuffs, the type that's in the Olympics, is the one done by maybe a hundred or so, just enough for us to have an Olympic team, these are the ones you will have to search for here. It goes under the name of freestyle and Greco-Roman, as I said it's for the Olympics.

No people don't make a living here fighting and coaching, I said they can make a living running martial arts gyms this involves teaching a lot of martial arts and fitness not just MMA. There is not a fighter here who makes his living fighting as I said not even Bisping makes his living fighting. I don't know how you can contradict something I know to be a fact. When the top purse here is about £2000 and only two promotions can pay that much doing two shows a year each, you cannot make a living fighting you need another job. Ian Freeman never made his living fighting, he runs a gym training fighters yes but also doing fitness classes, running a shop selling martial arts gear, writing for MMA mags and breeding dogs. Name me British fighters who earn their living fighting as well as British coaches who earn their living coaching just fighters. They all diversify, they have to, we don't even have much in the way of sponsorship.
Rosi Sexton works as an osteopath in Manchester, Leigh Remedious (another UFC vet) works as an engineer, name me a Brit fighter and I'll tell you what their job is. Often they are on the dole. 

The MMA rules, if you think the rules are all the same you are wrong, there is a huge variation in rules, there's a variation in what amateur rules are for a start, then there's semi pro rules. Each promotion is different, some allow slams, some don't, some allow elbows to the head on the floor some don't, some allow ankle locks some don't. Before you take a fight in UK or Europe you have to find out what the rules are, now unless you have been all over the UK to fight nights and to Europe as I have you can't gainsay this on the assumption that everyone follows UFC, some promotions allow stomps and groin kicks btw. 

Fight nights aren't necessarily any safer, another thing to check is that there's a medical team at the promotion or even a ref that knows what they are doing. We have a great many promotions popping up at the moment, there's no licensing, no governing body at all so people do what they want, we have to be very careful about where we take fighters. I don't think you understand quite how unregulated MMA over here is, there is no one to make sure the rules are even similiar. I've seen fights where it looked like kick boxing with throws such were the rules, they weren't to be on the ground for more than a few seconds, it was stand up, a throw and a submission hold had to be done immediately, no grappling, yeah go figure but that was the MMA 'rules'. I've seen a lot of major differences from the UFC rules, as I said people can make it up and they do. Eastern Europeans are the worst, they like no rules, it can get very bloody and quite nasty. Not much concern for saftey either, again who's going to make them? I've personally taken someone elses fighter to the local hospital because he received a downward elbow to the head and was dazed, the so called medic said he was fine, he wasn't. Yes often downward elbows are allowed. 

Events here and in Europe aren't in big stadiums, they are usually in night clubs, working mens clubs, pubs and village halls, some like us will try for local leisure centres but they aren't keen. Crowds are in the hundreds, amatuers and semi pros rarely get any money, we give expenses to them most don't. Those fighting pro rules will get a purse of a couple of hundred pound, we've had a spate of promoters not paying recently. As I said our fighter though they fight under professional rules aren't professional fighters, they work or are on the dole. The MMA scene here is very small, when I say I know all the fighters here it's not a boast or because I'm a know all, it's because there just aren't many in this country. I think you forget just how small the British Isles is.


----------



## Steve (Nov 6, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> It is a pay channel. Expensive too as you have to have satellite for it then pay about £30 a month.


That seems pretty expensive.  All of the feeds for the UFC I get are from the UK.





> Steve you are getting a little muddled,


I am, that's for sure.  But what's really frustrating me is that you refuse to take ownership of any of it.  It's not because you're changing your story or are involved in muddying the conversation.  Couldn't be that.  It's because I'm too poorly educated or not British enough to understand you.  You've used both of these to explain why I don't understand you, when from where I've been sitting, I've understood you perfectly, even though you can't say the same thing twice.  





> I'm not contradicting myself and again you are assigning emotion where there is none.


I disagree.  When you use an exclamation point, it's reasonable to assign emotion.  That's what interjections are for.  In English.  The language we speak.  An interjection is used to assign emotion.  Even where I went to school (which when you said that was pretty unnecessary).  I'm sure you'll say it's my fault for not understanding, but that was a pretty offensive statement.





> I reply because it's interesting not because I'm bothered about wrestling.


But you corrected me only to repeat what I initially said, then you said something completely different twice.  If you're going to presume to educate the dumb American who doesn't know anything about grappling, BJJ, Catch wrestling, Sambo or Folk Wrestling,  then at least stick to one coherent version of the story.  





> You misunderstand me again,


Yes, of course.  It's all me.  Not you in any way.  You're communicating perfectly. Using colloqualisms when it suits you so that you can fall back on them when you stir the pot unnecessarily.  





> yes people do what you like to call 'folk' wrestling, it's not a perjorative term... as I said it's twee, that's when Americans come across here and call everything 'so cute', it's confined to the counties/countries they are in, it's done locally to them not nationally.


I don't even know what to make of this.  It sounds to me like that chip on your shoulder is growing larger.  





> Yorkshire people don't do Cornish wrestling, Cornish people don't do Cumberland etc, it's entirely a regional thing. You will only find people who do their regional sport in the region it's named after. We see it as catch wrestling, I said that I think what what* you* see as catch wrestling is probably the Lancashire varient though I looked it up and it may well be the Irish one you know as catch wrestling. The Lancashire is a bit better known though not much.


Had you asked at the beginning, I could have told you what I meant.  But you didn't.  Of course, then you wouldn't have been able to take shots at my education, my understanding of grappling, or Americans in general.  And one last thing, regarding the UFC.  As I said earlier.  You don't have to like, appreciate, watch or support the UFC in order to acknowledge the profound affect this promotion has had on the sport.  It's safer, more professional and more lucrative for everyone now than ever before.  The wrestling you know with the swimming costumes and earmuffs, the type that's in the Olympics, is the one done by maybe a hundred or so, just enough for us to have an Olympic team, these are the ones you will have to search for here. It goes under the name of freestyle and Greco-Roman, as I said it's for the Olympics.No people don't make a living here fighting and coaching, I said they can make a living running martial arts gyms this involves teaching a lot of martial arts and fitness not just MMA. There is not a fighter here who makes his living fighting as I said not even Bisping makes his living fighting. I don't know how you can contradict something I know to be a fact. When the top purse here is about £2000 and only two promotions can pay that much doing two shows a year each, you cannot make a living fighting you need another job. Ian Freeman never made his living fighting, he runs a gym training fighters yes but also doing fitness classes, running a shop selling martial arts gear, writing for MMA mags and breeding dogs. Name me British fighters who earn their living fighting as well as British coaches who earn their living coaching just fighters. They all diversify, they have to, we don't even have much in the way of sponsorship.Rosi Sexton works as an osteopath in Manchester, Leigh Remedious (another UFC vet) works as an engineer, name me a Brit fighter and I'll tell you what their job is. Often they are on the dole. The MMA rules, if you think the rules are all the same you are wrong, there is a huge variation in rules, there's a variation in what amateur rules are for a start, then there's semi pro rules. Each promotion is different, some allow slams, some don't, some allow elbows to the head on the floor some don't, some allow ankle locks some don't. Before you take a fight in UK or Europe you have to find out what the rules are, now unless you have been all over the UK to fight nights and to Europe as I have you can't gainsay this on the assumption that everyone follows UFC, some promotions allow stomps and groin kicks btw. Fight nights aren't necessarily any safer, another thing to check is that there's a medical team at the promotion or even a ref that knows what they are doing. We have a great many promotions popping up at the moment, there's no licensing, no governing body at all so people do what they want, we have to be very careful about where we take fighters. I don't think you understand quite how unregulated MMA over here is, there is no one to make sure the rules are even similiar. I've seen fights where it looked like kick boxing with throws such were the rules, they weren't to be on the ground for more than a few seconds, it was stand up, a throw and a submission hold had to be done immediately, no grappling, yeah go figure but that was the MMA 'rules'. I've seen a lot of major differences from the UFC rules, as I said people can make it up and they do. Eastern Europeans are the worst, they like no rules, it can get very bloody and quite nasty. Not much concern for saftey either, again who's going to make them? I've personally taken someone elses fighter to the local hospital because he received a downward elbow to the head and was dazed, the so called medic said he was fine, he wasn't. Yes often downward elbows are allowed. Events here and in Europe aren't in big stadiums, they are usually in night clubs, working mens clubs, pubs and village halls, some like us will try for local leisure centres but they aren't keen. Crowds are in the hundreds, amatuers and semi pros rarely get any money, we give expenses to them most don't. Those fighting pro rules will get a purse of a couple of hundred pound, we've had a spate of promoters not paying recently. As I said our fighter though they fight under professional rules aren't professional fighters, they work or are on the dole. The MMA scene here is very small, when I say I know all the fighters here it's not a boast or because I'm a know all, it's because there just aren't many in this country. I think you forget just how small the British Isles is.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 6, 2011)

Steve why have you just repeated what I've posted and run it in with yours? it seems to me you are reading things into my posts that aren't there. when I said about the schools, I went to school in Scotland where the education is different from anyone elses, a fair statement I thought. If you are determined to take what I say the wrong way, I can't stop you. I think it's highly likely you would misunderstand me if what I'm trying to explain ( not well enough by the looks of it) how things are in a country I know well and you don't. Look at the political arguments that go on, we have different thoughts and definitations on many things, take 'liberals' for example, what we know here as liberals is different from what you know as liberals. Just because we both speak English doesn't mean we can communicate any better than if I spoke French and you German. 

Chip on my shoulder, not in the least, I'm trying to explain Britishism's to you. it's our history and as for taking pot shots at Americans I haven't. You had a go at my education using exclamation marks and saying I was over emotional! I'm just sitting here trying to explain Britishisms. It's not an easy subject I can tell you. Taking ownership of what? You won't accept that what I tell you about MMA here is true, you want me to say it's all down to the UFC. It's not here it's more down to Pride, with more than a nod to the UFC fair enough but you are telling me we make money at MMA here because of the UFC, my bank manager says we don't. The rules here aren't unified in the least.

We have wrestling here.

Native wrestling... Cornish, Scottish, Lancashire, Cumberland, Northumbria, Devon (they allow heavy boots and kicking), 

Pro wrestling... the fake entertainment stuff

Olympic wrestling... thats freestyle and Greco-roman.

I said _I thought_ the style you would be familiar with as catch wrestling was the Lancashire style. We know it as Lancashire wrestling. Catch wrestling is what people call wrestling that's not Olympic or professional, probably wrongly but there you are, there's not many who do wrestling so it's forgiveable. Catch wrestling to most of us is the native type of wrestling. I'm not saying you don't know your grappling, I'm just telling you what we know which as. 

Cornish wrestling is practiced in Cornwall only, though confusingly in Brittany, France it's also practised but as Breton wrestling. This is because both the Cornish and the Bretons are Celts with language, customs and genes in common not to mention smuggling. Scottish wrestling you will only find in Scotland, Northumbrian wrestling in the north east of England, Cumberland in the north west of England. Devon is obviously in Devon, a bit of an uncivilised place as it charge you to get back into it after visiting Cornwall.

The professional wrestling was popular on television in the 70's not so much now, the WWE types have taken over and spoiled it. If that's what you consider a slur on Americans I can't help that but the programmes are terrible, all shouting.

Olympic wrestling, we have a small wrestling academy in the north that co-ordinates the Olympic sport. They've run into arguments because they are recruiting foreign wrestlers and coaches. We did get a medal in the Olumpics for wrestling once, silver or bronze in 1984 I think.

There are a great many differences between us that don't show up at first, England isn't the UK, the UK, isn't Great Britain, we have five different governments here, we have parts of the British Isles that aren't parts of the United Kingdom, we have liberals you'd call conservatives and conservatives you'd call socialist. We have counties that are really countries, we have countries that are provinces and protectorates. I read that the UFC had a fight night in Dublin in the UK when it's was a different country altogether - Eire. We call the place pedestrians walk the pavement, we drive on the right, when wrestling you might say you landed on your fanny, to us you don't have one and we'd be offended by the use of that word. 

I'd be interested in what colloqualisms you think I use, if you mean twee, it's in the Oxford English dictionary, it's not slang or a regional idiom.


----------



## Steve (Nov 6, 2011)

LOL.  Okay.  You're right.  I give up.  You win.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 6, 2011)

Steve said:


> LOL. Okay. You're right. I give up. You win.



It's not a competition it's an exchange of information on how we do things in our respective countries. How can one win when telling of customs in your own country?


----------



## elder999 (Nov 6, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> It's not a competition it's an exchange of information on how we do things in our respective countries. How can one win when telling of customs in your own country?



 By knowing when to bow out, apparently:



Steve said:


> LOL. Okay. You're right. I give up. You win.


 :asian:

:lfao:


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 6, 2011)

Oh well, perhaps I should tell you about our ancient art of shin kicking. yes it's serious.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10261586

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shin-kicking


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 6, 2011)

I've been asking around MMA people and they have pointed to The Snake Pit as the home of catch wrestling, it is in Lancashire of course and they say that catch as catch can is Lancashire wrestling.
_"Historically, Lancashire has undisputedly been the home of Catch-as-Catch Wrestling and many would argue that Wigan is the Catch wrestling capital of the world. Wigan is a town known for it&#8217;s mining history and many chose Catch is their sport."

http://www.snakepitwigan.com/history/

_Now I don't know if this is what non Lancastrians think of as catch wrestling_,_ sadly it's not found much outside Lancashire though it looks as if they are working on trying to revive it, on the website there's a link to a catch club in Wales. Wigan isn't a very big place btw. You may know it from George Orwell's book 'The Road to Wigan Pier', sadly it is no richer now than then.

http://vimeo.com/31498884 this will bring tears to your eyes, it was done in 1980/81. Already a lost era.

However to the rest of us non Lancastrians I'm afraid catch wrestling is the still the 'catch all' name for native wrestling. Nice pun though lol!"


----------



## Cyriacus (Nov 7, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Oh well, perhaps I should tell you about our ancient art of shin kicking. yes it's serious.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10261586
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shin-kicking


Steel Toe Boots?
Im guessing these Contestants had... Really _long_ Careers.


----------



## fenglong (Feb 18, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Hmm. This is probably not the right forum for me to say what I'm about to say, but the question was asked, so I feel obligated to answer it.
> 
> I have never seen anything at all that I would class as a native Korean martial art. At all. There aren't any, they are all borrowed from other cultures, with varying degrees of success (Hapkido and Tae Kwon Do being some of the more successful), Each of these borrowed arts gets a degree of "Korean flavour", but that doesn't make them natively Korean arts.
> ...



It is alright that you have never seen one, but assuming that your limited experience is the ultimate truth is really bad. I do not even want to read the entire 11+ pages long thread but I doubt the sanity of people who believe someone so extremely narcissistic and narrow-minded.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 18, 2012)

fenglong said:


> It is alright that you have never seen one, but assuming that your limited experience is the ultimate truth is really bad. I do not even want to read the entire 11+ pages long thread but I doubt the sanity of people who believe someone so extremely narcissistic and narrow-minded.



Are you actually insulting Chris here as well as the rest of us?

As much as Steve and I verbally spar with each other it's done in good humour and spirit, I hope you don't get the impression you can just insult people willy-nilly on here.


----------



## fenglong (Feb 18, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> Are you actually insulting Chris here as well as the rest of us?
> 
> As much as Steve and I verbally spar with each other it's done in good humour and spirit, I hope you don't get the impression you can just insult people willy-nilly on here.



Yea I already got it how some people do their sparring online instead of in real life just to find a way to feel strong. But I guess your pitiful attitude in here is an actual improvement to what you do in your dojo. I know your kind.


----------



## Sanke (Feb 18, 2012)

fenglong said:


> It is alright that you have never seen one, but assuming that your limited experience is the ultimate truth is really bad. I do not even want to read the entire 11+ pages long thread but I doubt the sanity of people who believe someone so extremely narcissistic and narrow-minded.



Disregarding your quite frankly insulting post, not to mention your rather arrogant tone, can you name what you would call a truly native Korean martial art?
I agree with Chris, I've seen quite a lot of the MAs that come out of Korea, and not one is what I would call a native one.

Also, if you can't be bothered reading the thread, either don't post, or start a new thread.


Sanke on the move.


----------



## Sanke (Feb 18, 2012)

I would also like to point this out, after receiving Rep from (who I can only assume is you) Feng.

"I never said I can approve a native Korean MA, I simply said "just because you never saw one, you can not say there is none." That is pure arrogance. We are humans, no gods, we can fail and assume wrong, Chris Parker should learn that."

That's hardly the basis for an argument, you realise, and far from arrogance. It's simply observation. 
If there is what could be considered a native Korean martial art, I would love to see it. It's not a dig at KMAs to say that either, It's simply how their history turned out (mostly due to massive influence and invasions from other nations). This has nothing to do with 'Being human, not gods', it's simple statement of observation.

Also if you've something to say, say it here. No need to send messages like this via rep when there is a public debate going on.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 19, 2012)

fenglong said:


> It is alright that you have never seen one, but assuming that your limited experience is the ultimate truth is really bad. I do not even want to read the entire 11+ pages long thread but I doubt the sanity of people who believe someone so extremely narcissistic and narrow-minded.



My limited experience includes a while in Korean systems, and a lot more experience than you've even claimed, let alone been able to demonstrate. I suggest you read the thread if you wish to comment.

As for narcissistic and narrow-minded? You can have any opinion you want, really, even when it's completely devoid of reality.... hmm.

Oh, by the way, your recent action has been reported.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 19, 2012)

So Fenglong you give me a neg rep just because you don't like what I say and by the look of it I'm not the only one. I'm glad you know my type and what I do in the dojo, it will be enlightening for you. :ultracool


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 19, 2012)

Folks --

Discussing rep is against the rules (See section 12).  If you have a problem with rep comment or rep you received, please notify the staff via the Contact Us link or a PM to any staff member.

So are personal attacks and following members from thread to thread solely to attack them.


----------



## Sanke (Feb 19, 2012)

jks9199 said:


> Folks --
> 
> Discussing rep is against the rules (See section 12).  If you have a problem with rep comment or rep you received, please notify the staff via the Contact Us link or a PM to any staff member.
> .



Gotcha, my mistake. 


Sanke on the move.


----------



## puunui (Feb 19, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> My limited experience includes a while in Korean systems, and a lot more experience than you've even claimed, let alone been able to demonstrate.



Korean systems? Plural? I thought you said you studied Rhee Taekwondo for two years and got up to 2nd guep. Did you study something else besides that?


----------



## puunui (Feb 19, 2012)

Sanke said:


> If there is what could be considered a native Korean martial art, I would love to see it. It's not a dig at KMAs to say that either, It's simply how their history turned out (mostly due to massive influence and invasions from other nations).



What about taekkyon?


----------



## puunui (Feb 19, 2012)

Sanke said:


> I agree with Chris, I've seen quite a lot of the MAs that come out of Korea, and not one is what I would call a native one.



Which martial arts have you seen that have come out of Korea? Have you studied any? I think you told us about your 5th kyu in Australian Ninjutsu, but I wasn't aware of any other styles you may of studied, or at least "seen".


----------



## puunui (Feb 19, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> For example, I've trained in BJJ myself in the past, including a seminar with Royce Gracie, and that training has helped inform a range of things that I do these days, particularly what works, and what is far less advisable, when it comes to ground fighting. There are a range of techniques that I learned there that I bring into our modern work when we focus on ground work, however when I do it, I am not doing BJJ. The reason is that, although the technical side may be pretty much identical, the approach to it isn't. We have a much higher focus on getting up, disengaging, and escape, rather than submission or control on the ground, for instance. The distinction is between doing techniques from BJJ and doing BJJ itself.



You've studied a lot of things. I'm beginning to wonder if there is an art that you haven't studied.  I think we are up to 48 or 15, depending on how you count.... 



Chris Parker said:


> However, to take your own arguments from earlier to be wary of "self appointed historians/experts", my background and knowledge in this field is pretty well established, and if you want further information I am more than happy to provide it.



Pretty well established by who? And how about in the korean martial arts? Is your background and knowledge pretty well established in that?


----------



## puunui (Feb 19, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Tez3 said:
> 
> 
> > The first thing to look for when it comes to such people is the way they are treated by other established members of the group. In Koryu, how do they fit in with other Koryu people, for instance. And, once you get into a certain area, you will find who is respected in the main pretty quickly. See how the "self proclaimed" person compares - do they say similar things, or wildly different? What do other people in the field think of them? Are they respected in return? And you will often find that, even if there isn't official journals, there will still be something similar, a peer group based around discussion. Such as this one: http://www.facebook.com/groups/195458010500646/
> ...


----------



## puunui (Feb 19, 2012)

jks9199 said:


> Let's keep the discussion on topic:  how an art's history shapes and influences it.  Personally -- the history of a region and the history of it's martial arts are intertwined and influence its expression.  We see this in Western Martial Arts; targets, weapons... all shaped by Western Culture and beliefs.  We see this in Japanese and Chinese arts, too.  Let be build on the comments about Korean arts to show this:  Japan repeatedly invades and conquers Korea, and so the Korean arts end up taking on a Japanese flavor.



I think I came into this discussion too late. But Japan didn't repeatedly invade Korea, I think there was one major invasion (by TOYOTOMI Hideyoshi, which Japan ultimately failed to "win") and one annexation from Russia, at the beginning of the 20th century. I don't know how much of a japanese flavor korean martial arts took after TOYOTOMI Hideyoshi invaded, but there is no doubt that Japanese martial arts greatly influenced korean martial arts in the 20th century.


----------



## elder999 (Feb 19, 2012)

Actually, Hideyoshi invaded Korea twice, once from 1592-93, and again from 1594-96. Korea was also occupied by Japan in 1905, and annexed under Japanese rule from 1910-1945, as you know....


----------



## puunui (Feb 19, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> I have never seen anything at all that I would class as a native Korean martial art. At all. There aren't any, they are all borrowed from other cultures, with varying degrees of success (Hapkido and Tae Kwon Do being some of the more successful), Each of these borrowed arts gets a degree of "Korean flavour", but that doesn't make them natively Korean arts.



What about taekkyon? Where was that borrowed from? 



Chris Parker said:


> So when it comes to Japanese borrowing from the Koreans? None at all. Very much the other way around, actually. And, I have to say, that is a very sore point with the Koreans, as the reason the Japanese methods are so big (as well as certain Chinese methods) is that the Japanese had a very nasty habit of, when they were bored, sailing over to Korea and occupying it. As this went on over a century or so, the native Korean martial traditions were basically replaced by the Japanese ones. Essentially, Korea suffers badly from a lack of a sense of individual culture, and the cultural response seems to be to explain the similarities with the Korean culture to those around it as "well, they stole that from us". Sadly, that doesn't pass muster.



Wow, I don't know what to say about the above statement. Have you been to Korea and experienced its culture first hand? 

What is your explanation for where the Japanese people came from in the first place?


----------



## puunui (Feb 19, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Actually, Hideyoshi invaded Korea twice, once from 1592-93, and again from 1594-96.



I don't know why, but I tend to think of this as one continuous thing, rather than two separate things. 



elder999 said:


> Korea was also occupied by Japan in 1905, and annexed under Japanese rule from 1910-1945, as you know....



This one too, I tend to think of as one continuous thing. Also, I don't think there was any sort of "invasion" during this period, not in the military sense. 

But thank you for the contribution and clarification.


----------



## puunui (Feb 19, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> It's the same with the Korean arts, TKD, TSD etc are basically forms of karate with a Korean flavour,



Kukki Taekwondo has evolved to the point where it is sufficiently different from karate, especially the sparring aspect. So much so that karate schools now are adopting taekwondo techniques and training methodologies. One example, my student taught two karate students modern taekwondo steps, strategy and kicks, which they used to win gold at the karate world championships. 




Chris Parker said:


> Kumdo is Kendo, Yudo is Judo, Hapkido is basically Daito Ryu/Aikido with some combination of TKD-style aspects, depending on the line itself, and so on. They are not 'built on a foundation', so much as 'given a Korean flavour'.



Hapkido kicking techniques are fundamentally different than taekwondo kicking techniques. Taekwondo is a very adaptable art, such that many taekwondoin have adopted aspects of hapkido kicks (ax kick for example, and spin hook kick), but it still does not mean that hapkido is "basically Daito Ryu/Aikido with some combination of TKD-style aspects". At all.


----------



## puunui (Feb 19, 2012)

The Boar Man said:


> I do believe t is important to know the history of the martial arts or at least the art you are studying to a degree.  I don't think it matters how far back in the past you can trace your art, unless you are concerned with keeping it pure for historical purposes.  But I do think it helps to gain a deeper understanding of your art if you know it's recent history, or it's general history in the last 50-100years.



I go back and forth on the importance of understanding history in studying the martial arts. I think for most students, they don't need to learn it. I think time is better spent on technical aspects in the beginning. I do not believe for example, that understanding the development of the roundhouse kick from its dog urinating position to its present incarnation helps improve a student's ability to do and/or use a roundhouse kick. 




The Boar Man said:


> However looking into it's history in the 1970's shows  why things yet again changed to the new walking type patterns and the  Olympic style TKD.



Actually, the walking stance found in kukki taekwondo poomsae has nothing to do with olympic style taekwondo sparring.


----------



## puunui (Feb 19, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Add to that the detail that TKD wasn't built on a foundation of karate (Shotokan, primarily), it was a copy of it with a few things, mainly more kicks, added in. It wasn't a "leading to" situation, it was a "copying that" situation.



What do you mean when you say taekwondo wasn't built on a foundation of karate but rather is "a copy of it with a few things, mainly more kicks, added in."?


----------



## puunui (Feb 19, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I went to Tang Soo Do because that was available. The TSD books go on about how it's an ancient Korean art but the reason I progressed so quickly through the ranks of it is because it was so similiar to Wado (and Shotokan) it's patterns are virtually the same as those in Wado and Shotokan with some of the more difficult bits taken out and the addition of a random kick now and again, even the names of the patterns/hyungs are distinctly simliar to the Japanese.



Funny, but the gentleman who coined the term tangsoodo and first used it in korea, GM LEE Won Kuk, never couched tangsoodo history in terms of being an ancient korean art. When he spoke about tangsoodo history he spoke about his time training primarily under FUNAKOSHI Yoshitaka Sensei, who he referred to as "Waka Sensei", to distinguish him from his father, FUNAKOSHI Gichin Sensei.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 19, 2012)

Well, Glenn, have a good conversation with yourself there? Let's see about some answers, shall we?



puunui said:


> Korean systems? Plural? I thought you said you studied Rhee Taekwondo for two years and got up to 2nd guep. Did you study something else besides that?



Three years, for the record... but I've also had some experience with Hapkido, and other TKD schools, as well as ensuring that I am as familiar with other systems as I can be (not hard when they're not far removed from arts I already know...)



puunui said:


> What about taekkyon?



Find me any evidence that Taekkyon actually exists today. I see references to it, it's said that the name Tae Kwon Do was chosen due to the similarities in the names (as a callback to Taekkyon itself), but the only systems I've seen that claim to be Taekkyon are very modern systems with no hallmarks of an ancient combative system at all.

So, no.



puunui said:


> Which martial arts have you seen that have come out of Korea? Have you studied any? I think you told us about your 5th kyu in Australian Ninjutsu, but I wasn't aware of any other styles you may of studied, or at least "seen".



He has a TKD background before he came to me, Glenn. Believe it or not, not every minute of our martial careers are documented here....



puunui said:


> You've studied a lot of things. I'm beginning to wonder if there is an art that you haven't studied.  I think we are up to 48 or 15, depending on how you count....



Yeah, I get around... mind you, you didn't understand what was being referred to when you last asked a question like that...



puunui said:


> Pretty well established by who? And how about in the korean martial arts? Is your background and knowledge pretty well established in that?



In general arts and history, I think I've been born out pretty well here, and yes, that includes the Korean systems, although my focus is the Japanese ones.



puunui said:


> Perhaps that is the way it is in koryu, but I do not know if you can take that and apply it to a different art or culture, like the korean martial arts. I don't believe there is any sort of official journal or a peer group on korean martial arts history. If there was one, I'd like to join.



Wow, did you miss the context in that whole quote there... and yes, it's the same. Basically John Edwards, as he couldn't, or wouldn't supply any evidence as to his Koryu training, started to make veiled attacks upon my statements by stating that I was a "self-proclaimed" expert, and I was pointing out ways to see how someone's credibility may be established... but well done for trying.



puunui said:


> I think I came into this discussion too late. But Japan didn't repeatedly invade Korea, I think there was one major invasion (by TOYOTOMI Hideyoshi, which Japan ultimately failed to "win") and one annexation from Russia, at the beginning of the 20th century. I don't know how much of a japanese flavor korean martial arts took after TOYOTOMI Hideyoshi invaded, but there is no doubt that Japanese martial arts greatly influenced korean martial arts in the 20th century.



Well, there were also repeated Korean Campaigns by people such as Oda Nobunaga during this time as well. Kato Kiyomasa, one of Oda's generals, was famous for hunting tigers with his kamayari, for one thing. Face it, Korea has been most of Asia's whipping boy for when they get bored for centuries.



puunui said:


> What about taekkyon? Where was that borrowed from?



Again, find me some evidence that it still exists (as the ancient art). Until that turns up, my comments stand.



puunui said:


> Wow, I don't know what to say about the above statement. Have you been to Korea and experienced its culture first hand?
> 
> What is your explanation for where the Japanese people came from in the first place?



The people are believed to have come from the Korean Peninsula, among other places, a few thousand years ago, but that's really not the same as saying that the Japanese culture has borrowed anything from the Korean culture.



puunui said:


> I don't know why, but I tend to think of this as one continuous thing, rather than two separate things.



Might want to rethink it, then.



puunui said:


> This one too, I tend to think of as one continuous thing. Also, I don't think there was any sort of "invasion" during this period, not in the military sense.
> 
> But thank you for the contribution and clarification.



For further influence, we could look at the effects of the Sino-Japanese War, which was fought in large degrees in the Japanese territory of Korea.



puunui said:


> Kukki Taekwondo has evolved to the point where it is sufficiently different from karate, especially the sparring aspect. So much so that karate schools now are adopting taekwondo techniques and training methodologies. One example, my student taught two karate students modern taekwondo steps, strategy and kicks, which they used to win gold at the karate world championships.



Which is to be expected, but doesn't remove where the art came from in the first place. It was, and largely remains, a Korean-flavoured form of Japanese Karate. The higher emphasis on kicks gives it a particular flavour, which goes towards making it a distinct and separate art, but it is still not a "native" system (I might point out that I don't consider Karate to be a "native" Japanese system either, for much the same reasons).



puunui said:


> Hapkido kicking techniques are fundamentally different than taekwondo kicking techniques. Taekwondo is a very adaptable art, such that many taekwondoin have adopted aspects of hapkido kicks (ax kick for example, and spin hook kick), but it still does not mean that hapkido is "basically Daito Ryu/Aikido with some combination of TKD-style aspects". At all.



Depends on the form of Hapkido, doesn't it? 



puunui said:


> I go back and forth on the importance of understanding history in studying the martial arts. I think for most students, they don't need to learn it. I think time is better spent on technical aspects in the beginning. I do not believe for example, that understanding the development of the roundhouse kick from its dog urinating position to its present incarnation helps improve a student's ability to do and/or use a roundhouse kick.



Thanks for coming to the thrust of the conversation, but that was never the premise to begin with. For a thorough recap, I suggest post #143 on page 10. You might also note the section in capitals in post #136 at the top of the same page.



puunui said:


> What do you mean when you say taekwondo wasn't built on a foundation of karate but rather is "a copy of it with a few things, mainly more kicks, added in."?



Simply that for there to have been a foundation would require a thorough grounding in all aspects of the system, up to the higher levels so as to understand the reasoning of the lower ones.



puunui said:


> Funny, but the gentleman who coined the term tangsoodo and first used it in korea, GM LEE Won Kuk, never couched tangsoodo history in terms of being an ancient korean art. When he spoke about tangsoodo history he spoke about his time training primarily under FUNAKOSHI Yoshitaka Sensei, who he referred to as "Waka Sensei", to distinguish him from his father, FUNAKOSHI Gichin Sensei.



And that changes what was in the book that Tez was given on the history how? The claim was still made that it was an ancient Korean art, and that claim was very easy to disprove. In fact, you're doing so here again. Once more, Glenn, you've missed the point.


----------



## puunui (Feb 20, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Let's see about some answers, shall we?



How about answering the questions that you skipped over and/or ignored: 



Chris Parker said:


> I have never seen anything at all that I would class as a native Korean  martial art. At all. There aren't any, they are all borrowed from other  cultures, with varying degrees of success (Hapkido and Tae Kwon Do being  some of the more successful), Each of these borrowed arts gets a degree  of "Korean flavour", but that doesn't make them natively Korean arts.



What about taekkyon? Where was that borrowed from? 

Have you been to Korea and experienced its culture first hand?




Chris Parker said:


> Three years, for the record... but I've also had some experience with Hapkido, and other TKD schools, as well as ensuring that I am as familiar with other systems as I can be (not hard when they're not far removed from arts I already know...)



If these experiences were in Australia, who did you study hapkido and taekwondo with? Did you obtain any rank? I ask because I have friends and juniors in these arts living in Australia and wondered if you studied with them. 




Chris Parker said:


> Find me any evidence that Taekkyon actually exists today. I see references to it, it's said that the name Tae Kwon Do was chosen due to the similarities in the names (as a callback to Taekkyon itself), but the only systems I've seen that claim to be Taekkyon are very modern systems with no hallmarks of an ancient combative system at all.



You are approaching it from the wrong angle. But there are others who have a deeper and much better understanding of taekkyon than I and they can provide you with a better response. 



Chris Parker said:


> He has a TKD background before he came to me



He can answer for himself. 




Chris Parker said:


> Yeah, I get around... mind you, you didn't understand what was being referred to when you last asked a question like that...



I don't need to "understand" what was being referred to. All anyone needs to know is know many things you claim to know such that you feel you can speak authoritatively about them. 



Chris Parker said:


> In general arts and history, I think I've been born out pretty well here, and yes, that includes the Korean systems, although my focus is the Japanese ones.



Not in korean systems. I don't think too many consider you to be "born out pretty well" about that. Least I don't. 




Chris Parker said:


> Wow, did you miss the context in that whole quote there... and yes, it's the same. Basically John Edwards, as he couldn't, or wouldn't supply any evidence as to his Koryu training, started to make veiled attacks upon my statements by stating that I was a "self-proclaimed" expert, and I was pointing out ways to see how someone's credibility may be established...



I understood the context of the quote. I do believe that you are a "self proclaimed expert", at least with respect to korean martial arts. What I was pointing out was that there is no such "official journal" or "peer group" with respect to the korean martial arts. Personally, I don't consider what my "peers" think can establish credibility with regard to "credibility". I think what my teachers and seniors thought would carry much more weight than "peers". Even if there were such a group for korean martial arts and history, I don't think I've ever heard your name mentioned. 



Chris Parker said:


> Well, there were also repeated Korean Campaigns by people such as Oda Nobunaga during this time as well. Kato Kiyomasa, one of Oda's generals, was famous for hunting tigers with his kamayari, for one thing.



Really. What years did ODA Nobunaga have his repeated korean campaigns? As for KATO Kiyomasa, he was Hideyoshi's general in Korea, not Nobunaga. Kiyomasa was born in 1562; Nobunaga died in 1582. 




Chris Parker said:


> Face it, Korea has been most of Asia's whipping boy for when they get bored for centuries.



Invasion of Korea was not done because of "boredom", rather it was seen as the gateway to China, due to the close proximity of Japan and Korea. 



Chris Parker said:


> The people are believed to have come from the Korean Peninsula, among other places, a few thousand years ago, but that's really not the same as saying that the Japanese culture has borrowed anything from the Korean culture.



Wrong. Japan has borrowed many things from Korea, including such things as swordmaking, buddhism, pottery, etc. mainly from Paekje. 



Chris Parker said:


> Which is to be expected, but doesn't remove where the art came from in the first place. It was, and largely remains, a Korean-flavoured form of Japanese Karate. The higher emphasis on kicks gives it a particular flavour, which goes towards making it a distinct and separate art, but it is still not a "native" system (I might point out that I don't consider Karate to be a "native" Japanese system either, for much the same reasons).



Where does that emphasis or focus on kicks in korean martial arts come from? 




Chris Parker said:


> Depends on the form of Hapkido, doesn't it?



No it doesn't. Which "form of Hapkido" did you study which forms the basis of your comments? 



Chris Parker said:


> Thanks for coming to the thrust of the conversation, but that was never the premise to begin with. For a thorough recap, I suggest post #143 on page 10. You might also note the section in capitals in post #136 at the top of the same page.



I prefer reading the original posts rather than your summary, which I saw. But thanks for the offer. 



Chris Parker said:


> Simply that for there to have been a foundation would require a thorough grounding in all aspects of the system, up to the higher levels so as to understand the reasoning of the lower ones.



And the basis for your conclusion that taekwondo lacks this is what? 



Chris Parker said:


> And that changes what was in the book that Tez was given on the history how? The claim was still made that it was an ancient Korean art, and that claim was very easy to disprove. In fact, you're doing so here again. Once more, Glenn, you've missed the point.



Actually you missed the point, which I thought you might get, given your position on historical study. But that's ok.


----------



## puunui (Feb 20, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Well, there were also repeated Korean Campaigns by people such as Oda Nobunaga during this time as well. Kato Kiyomasa, one of Oda's generals, was famous for hunting tigers with his kamayari, for one thing.



Forgot about this. Got distracted by your irrelevant fact posting tactic. 

But *jks9199*_ said this: Let be build on the comments about Korean arts to show this: Japan repeatedly invades and conquers Korea, and so the Korean arts end up taking on a Japanese flavor._

Assuming you are correct, that "there were also repeated Korean Campaigns by people such as Oda Nobunaga  during this time as well. Kato Kiyomasa, one of Oda's generals, was  famous for hunting tigers with his kamayari, for one thing."

What Korean arts ended up taking on a Japanese flavor after those in the 16th century? And what specifically was taken up by the Korean arts? Did some Koreans adopt Kato Kiyomasa's tiger hunting techniques using a kamayari, for example?


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 20, 2012)

there are no native korean arts currently being practiced

There is no school, group or kwan that goes back before WW2

taekkyon? nope that story doesnt wash with me, ONE guy, with no proof? not even a scroll? no, it is clear to me that taekkyon is a modern recreation, not an unbroken line. It didnt exist till AFTER WW2 either

HRD? nope, mixed mash hodge podge of things joo bang lee studied, namely TKD and hapkido
KSW? same, but with the In Huk Suh

TKD? nope, thats been proven to death

kumdo?
yudo? 

nope

hapkido? nope, aiki ryu JJ with kicks


now here is the "kicker"

none of this matters, it is what it is, and the koreans have taken the arts of thier oppressors and made it thier own. And achieved great things

There is no shame is admitting the origins of modern day korean styles


----------



## Sanke (Feb 21, 2012)

puunui said:


> He can answer for himself.



You're right, Glenn, I can. However, out of anyone on this forum, I'm more than happy to let Chris answer on my behalf, as he is very familiar with my MA background and current studies (obviously). But to confirm, yes, I do have a background in WTF Taekwondo, and got to 2nd gup. I don't claim to have extensive knowledge of the system, just a fair amount of familiarity with how it works.



puunui said:


> Wrong. Japan has borrowed many things from Korea, including such things as swordmaking, buddhism, pottery, etc. mainly from Paekje.



Really. Japan borrowed methods of swordsmithing from Korea. Then would you be so kind as to show me any evidence supporting such a claim? 
All swordsmithing I have seen coming from Korea have not been anything like Japanese swordsmithing, and I am also yet to see a Korean sword system that would support the idea either. So no, I don't buy it.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 21, 2012)

i have read that genetically, the japanese people originated from Korea


----------



## Steve (Feb 21, 2012)

Twin Fist said:


> i have read that genetically, the japanese people originated from Korea


Not an expert on TKD, Japan or Korea, but wasn't there an indigenous race in Japan, as well?  I am probably wrong, but I was under the impression that the modern "Japanese" race is a thorough mix of mainland genes mixing with the indigenous races on the Japanese islands.  

Does anyone know more about this?  

As an aside, the bickering notwithstanding, I am thoroughly enjoying the history being discussed.  It's fascinating and I'm very impressed with the depth of knowledge on all sides here.


----------



## fenglong (Feb 21, 2012)

Twin Fist said:


> i have read that genetically, the japanese people originated from Korea






And Koreans originate from Siberian area. =D pretty interesting how folks moved around, and even more retarded how folks now fight who is a native what and which is only part of what culture...


----------



## fenglong (Feb 21, 2012)

@puuunui
I can't believe you are wasting your time arguing with someone who considers his own opinion to be the only and ultimate truth..
When I no longer see a chance for something useful to come out of a convo, I drop it. Of course they will whine for a couple of months when you stop replying but hey, its your own time, don't waste it on trolls.


----------



## puunui (Feb 21, 2012)

Sanke said:


> But to confirm, yes, I do have a background in WTF Taekwondo, and got to 2nd gup. I don't claim to have extensive knowledge of the system, just a fair amount of familiarity with how it works.



Who is your teacher and when did you study? I might know him/her, or his teacher. 




Sanke said:


> Really. Japan borrowed methods of swordsmithing from Korea. Then would you be so kind as to show me any evidence supporting such a claim? All swordsmithing I have seen coming from Korea have not been anything like Japanese swordsmithing, and I am also yet to see a Korean sword system that would support the idea either. So no, I don't buy it.



Do what your unauthorized study group leader does and search the internet. You can start with this page:

http://www.touken.or.jp/english/nihon_koto_shi/(4) No.550.htm

Here is a relevant passage from the first paragraph: 

Meanwhile, it is believed that fine imported swords from China and *Korea had a considerable influence on Japanese swordsmiths. There is no doubt that they inspired their forging techniques.* Susano no Miko killed a huge serpent (a monster snake with eight heads) then found a legendary sword called Ame no Murakumo no Tsurugi inside the tail of the serpent. It is said that the sword that he wore and used in fighting the serpent is so-called Orochi no Karasabi also called Orochi no Aramasa. Kara means Korea and Sabi edged tool, therefore, the sword used by Susano no Miko was made in Korea. In the reign of Emperor Ojin, a king of Paekche (a country of ancient Korea) presented the Japanese Imperial   Court with two swords called Nichigetsu Goshin Ken and Shichishi To. Also the king sent a Korean swordsmith called Takuso as well as other scholars and engineers in order that they become nationalised Japanese. *The sword forging skill of Korea appears to have been introduced to Japan in full on this occasion.* We occasionally come across the name of Takuso in old documents and he was the founder of Kara-kanuchi-be (a tribe of Korean swordsmiths nationalised as Japanese).


----------



## puunui (Feb 21, 2012)

Steve said:


> Not an expert on TKD, Japan or Korea, but wasn't there an indigenous race in Japan, as well?



I believe that you are talking about the ainu.


----------



## Instructor (Feb 21, 2012)

I believe that no martial art is 'pure'.  The Korean styles have influence from Japan and China.  The Chinese styles have influences from Japan, Korea, other Chinese styles, and India.

One exception might be the fighting styles of isolated peoples in the third world.  But if they have had trade, communication, war, or any other influence from other places they share ideas.

Arguably the oldest style is Greek Pancreation and was spread during Alexander the Greats Crusade.  

The reality is that most of this history is lost and what remains is subjective to the views of the historians.

I love Korean styles and I don't mind a bit that they are built on the shoulders of giants like the Japanese martial arts and Chinese martial arts.  The cross pollination of ideas is what makes them great!


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 21, 2012)

fenglong said:


> @puuunui
> I can't believe you are wasting your time arguing with someone who considers his own opinion to be the only and ultimate truth..
> When I no longer see a chance for something useful to come out of a convo, I drop it. Of course they will whine for a couple of months *when you stop* *replying* but hey, its your own time, don't waste it on trolls.



Now that would be a thing.


----------



## puunui (Feb 21, 2012)

I think the following was misposted to another thread: 



mastercole said:


> Taekkyon, from ancient times, still exist in  Korea today. What was left of what could be considered formalized  Taekkyon training for competitors at the Danho Festival. These skills  were passed to a few men by and elderly man named SONG Duk Ki, who as a  young man had natural Taekkyon skills, and, also trained in competitive  Taekkyon so he could fair better at Taekkyon competitions, like the one  at the Danho Festival, or, random challenges matches. SONG Duk Ki was a  common man of basic means and enjoy this rough and tumble activity. His  teacher was IM Ho and said to be the same.
> 
> These men who learned Taekkyon, supported by the Korean Government  Cultural Heritage Department and just recently, UNESCO, have been  working hard to preserve the Taekkyon as it was taught to them by SONG  Duk Ki.  One of these men, who is my teachers, GM LEE Yong Bok has made  great strides in research into Taekkyon. He recorded and documented  every skill and explanation that SONG Duk Ki gave about Taekkyon. GM Lee  has also spent several decades researching all the available records of  Korean history, and other Korean traditional practices to find any  relations between these cultural assets, so more can be learned.
> 
> ...


----------



## puunui (Feb 21, 2012)

frank raud said:


> So the appeal of earning your black belt( a historical sign of mastery of your art), the long tradition of competition effectiveness, the appeal of learning a foriegn art and some of the culture had nothing to do with you starting judo?



Not for me.


----------



## Twin Fist (Feb 21, 2012)

puunui said:


> I think the following was misposted to another thread:


and i dont believe a word of it.


----------



## mastercole (Feb 21, 2012)

puunui said:


> Originally Posted by *mastercole*
> 
> _Taekkyon, from ancient times, still exist in Korea today. What was left of what could be considered formalized Taekkyon training for competitors at the Danho Festival. These skills were passed to a few men by and elderly man named SONG Duk Ki, who as a young man had natural Taekkyon skills, and, also trained in competitive Taekkyon so he could fair better at Taekkyon competitions, like the one at the Danho Festival, or, random challenges matches. SONG Duk Ki was a common man of basic means and enjoy this rough and tumble activity. His teacher was IM Ho and said to be the same.
> 
> ...



UNESCO's decision:  http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00011&RL=00452


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 21, 2012)

Steve said:


> Not an expert on TKD, Japan or Korea, but wasn't there an indigenous race in Japan, as well?  I am probably wrong, but I was under the impression that the modern "Japanese" race is a thorough mix of mainland genes mixing with the indigenous races on the Japanese islands.
> 
> Does anyone know more about this?
> 
> As an aside, the bickering notwithstanding, I am thoroughly enjoying the history being discussed.  It's fascinating and I'm very impressed with the depth of knowledge on all sides here.



I would imagine the indigenous races on the Japanese islands came from SOMEWHERE, though. Korean and/or Chinese ancestry would seem the most probable.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Steve (Feb 21, 2012)

Sure, but that's analogous to saying that the Saxons were the same as the Picts were the same as the normans in Britain because they all came from somewhere else, probably mainland Europe.   




Sent using Tapatalk.  Please ignore typos.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Feb 21, 2012)

Yes and no. In Japan's case, China's influence never really stopped.

Also I am not saying that the Japanese are the same as the Chinese or Koreans, that is a different argument entirely. I was going from a strictly genetic standpoint.
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Sanke (Feb 22, 2012)

This is gonna be longer than my usual posts, so sit back and relax...



puunui said:


> Who is your teacher and when did you study? I might know him/her, or his teacher.



To be blunt Glenn, I don't really see the need to tell you. I don't really feel the need to potentially waste my old Sabumnim's time with you poking into my background. I'll be the first to admit my experience in KMAs is limited, but we're discussing history here. I don't need to have trained in every KMA on the face of the earth, or have been to Korea time and time again to comment on what I can see online and here. I stand by my statement, I am yet to see a KMA that could be considered a native KMA, but perhaps I'll add to that by saying one that is currently active. As for Taekkyon, I'm not seeing any evidence is it still being extant.
But enough of me being tangential...




puunui said:


> Do what your unauthorized study group leader does and search the internet. You can start with this page:





puunui said:


> http://www.touken.or.jp/english/nihon_koto_shi/(4) No.550.htmhttp://www.touken.or.jp/english/nihon_koto_shi/(4) No.550.htm





puunui said:


> Here is a relevant passage from the first paragraph:
> 
> Meanwhile, it is believed that fine imported swords from China and Korea had a considerable influence on Japanese swordsmiths. There is no doubt that they inspired their forging techniques. Susano no Miko killed a huge serpent (a monster snake with eight heads) then found a legendary sword called Ame no Murakumo no Tsurugi inside the tail of the serpent. It is said that the sword that he wore and used in fighting the serpent is so-called Orochi no Karasabi also called Orochi no Aramasa. Kara means Korea and Sabi edged tool, therefore, the sword used by Susano no Miko was made in Korea. In the reign of Emperor Ojin, a king of Paekche (a country of ancient Korea) presented the Japanese Imperial Court with two swords called Nichigetsu Goshin Ken and Shichishi To. Also the king sent a Korean swordsmith called Takuso as well as other scholars and engineers in order that they become nationalised Japanese. The sword forging skill of Korea appears to have been introduced to Japan in full on this occasion. We occasionally come across the name of Takuso in old documents and he was the founder of Kara-kanuchi-be (a tribe of Korean swordsmiths nationalised as Japanese).



To start with, I would leave the comments about my group out of this. For one, it has no relivance to the discussion, other than a cheap jab, and secondly, you really don't know as much about us as you think you do. I'd say nice try, but frankly, it wasn't.

As for the rest, the story referencing 'Orochi no Karasabi', I have my doubts about the article's logic. The tale that is based on is about a Shinto god defeating an eight headed serpent with a legendary sword. True some insight as to the influences of the legend can be gleamed, but to use it as historical fact, such as:
"Kara means Korea and Sabi edged tool, therefore, the sword used by Susano no Miko was made in Korea."
Seem like a bit of a logical leap to me. But in this case, I will say that's just my opinion, which is far from expert.

So if Korean swordsmithing influenced Japanese, we can say this was in the very early periods of Japan and Korea's history, as all examples I've seen so far seem to show Korean swords as the more Chinese-style straight sword.
Bringing this back to the original point, (Japan borrowing aspects of Korean culture) considering that the Korean style seems originated in China, which also spread to Japan, could it not be said that while Japan and Korea may have shared aspects of sword making, this is more a reflection on the Chinese method which they both borrowed from in the first place? 
Yes Japan had a lot of contact with Korea, but it had more so with China, so the Korean swords they would have been exposed to would have likely been seen as Korean versions of an already established Chinese style of forging.
On the other hand, however, more recent Korean swordsmithing seems to be quite heavily influenced by the Japanese katana, which again plays into the themes of Korean systems being quite heavily influenced by Japan.

Finally, theres the tale of Amakuni, a swordsmith in what I believe was the early Muromachi period. He was working for a lord, and found that all his swords were getting broken on the battlefield. He then went away, I believe meditating and working for some time, and created the first of what we now know as the curved Japanese sword, the Nihonto. When given to soldiers, not a single one was broken and he was hailed as a master.
Now whether or not Amakuni actually existed, or was just a kind of amalgamation of various swordsmiths coming to similar conclusions over a period of time, the fact remains that the older methods of smithing were abandoned in favor of the new ones, which were far superior in their eyes. So even if Korea did have an influence on Japans methods, it would have been relatively small and brief, as that style of sword was abandoned, and not much evidence of the straight Japanese sword, and how it was made, remains.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 24, 2012)

puunui said:


> How about answering the questions that you skipped over and/or ignored:



It didn't occur to you that the reason some smaller questions were left were that they weren't relevant once the others were answered? For example...



puunui said:


> What about taekkyon? Where was that borrowed from?


 

Taekkyon I consider completely irrelevant, as I have seen nothing that makes me (and many others) believe that it is an actual authentic historical tradition of Korea. For the modern form, it looks dominantly Chinese, equal parts Southern systems and Beijing Opera methods. Before you say anything, I'll deal with the UNESCO thing in a bit.



puunui said:


> Have you been to Korea and experienced its culture first hand?




I don't think you quite get what I see in this context, Glenn.



puunui said:


> If these experiences were in Australia, who did you study hapkido and taekwondo with? Did you obtain any rank? I ask because I have friends and juniors in these arts living in Australia and wondered if you studied with them.



So I'm supposed to give you all their names so you can check up on them? I've already given you my formal TKD experience, but over the last 25 years or so I've had a number of friends, colleagues, students etc who are experienced in other arts, including Hapkido, Tae Kwon Do, and so on, and there have been many occasions for furthering my education in a number of ways. But besides all of that, the basic feel of each system is pretty easy for me to get.


puunui said:


> You are approaching it from the wrong angle. But there are others who have a deeper and much better understanding of taekkyon than I and they can provide you with a better response.



Are you kidding? We're discussing native Korean martial arts (that currently exist and are practiced), and you think that pointing out that Taekkyon is an extinct system is approaching it from the "wrong angle"? If we're looking for arts that are native to Korea, rather than adjusted and imported systems from other cultures, then looking at what was wiped out and no longer extant is rather irrelevant.... 



puunui said:


> He can answer for himself.



Yes, he can. But I'm not fond of your demanding tone, so figured I'd jump in first.



puunui said:


> I don't need to "understand" what was being referred to. All anyone needs to know is know many things you claim to know such that you feel you can speak authoritatively about them.



That's kinda the point, Glenn, you don't get what the range of methods in the earlier list actually represented... so you have no idea how many things I "claim to know". I'll put it this way... it's like you saying that someone who specialises in French Cuisine is stretching themselves to claim to know stews, soups, desserts, snacks, and main meals.



puunui said:


> Not in korean systems. I don't think too many consider you to be "born out pretty well" about that. Least I don't.



Well, I'll just live with your disappointment then.



puunui said:


> I understood the context of the quote. I do believe that you are a "self proclaimed expert", at least with respect to korean martial arts. What I was pointing out was that there is no such "official journal" or "peer group" with respect to the korean martial arts. Personally, I don't consider what my "peers" think can establish credibility with regard to "credibility". I think what my teachers and seniors thought would carry much more weight than "peers". Even if there were such a group for korean martial arts and history, I don't think I've ever heard your name mentioned.



No, Glenn, you don't understand the context of the quote. The context of the quote was that John Edward made some very off-base claims, and got very aggressively defensive when asked about them, and tried to attack me. As far as an "official journal", you really didn't get what was being meant there either. And when it comes to there being "such a group", the practitioners of the Korean arts would be that group. I really have a hard time believing you're having this much trouble with such basic arguments and concepts, which only leaves the idea of you arguing due to some need to disagree. Hmm.



puunui said:


> Really. What years did ODA Nobunaga have his repeated korean campaigns? As for KATO Kiyomasa, he was Hideyoshi's general in Korea, not Nobunaga. Kiyomasa was born in 1562; Nobunaga died in 1582.



Yes, and Kiyomasa joined Oda Nobunaga's army (under Toyotomi, as he ended up as Oda's successor) when he was 14. And Toyotomi led the initial invasions at Oda's orders... the 7 Years War was after the initial "excursions", so to speak.



puunui said:


> Invasion of Korea was not done because of "boredom", rather it was seen as the gateway to China, due to the close proximity of Japan and Korea.



 Sure, that makes perfect sense.... except that the invasion didn't lead to any type of connection to China, and established links and routes to China had existed for centuries. I mean, we're talking 16th Century here, and the Heian Period in Japan (10-12th Century) was based pretty much directly on the Chinese Imperial Court structure. Hmm.



puunui said:


> Wrong. Japan has borrowed many things from Korea, including such things as swordmaking, buddhism, pottery, etc. mainly from Paekje.


 
Oh dear.... 

If you're looking at very early technical developments, there is some support, but for the idea that Japanese pottery is based in Korean? Nope. Same with dress, language, food, social conventions and structure, and, well, everything else. And swordsmithing? Seriously, you have to be kidding... even that article you link doesn't really support that unless you choose to highlight individual sentence fragments out of context. You know, the way you did. Oh, and are you seriously suggesting that Buddhism is Korean initially? Please....



puunui said:


> Where does that emphasis or focus on kicks in korean martial arts come from?



A cultural preference does not make a native martial art, Glenn.



puunui said:


> No it doesn't. Which "form of Hapkido" did you study which forms the basis of your comments?



Surely you're not saying, after all the other discussions, that all Hapkido forms are the same? As for which form forms the basis of my comments, call it observation of many.



puunui said:


> I prefer reading the original posts rather than your summary, which I saw. But thanks for the offer.



Hey, I offered... mainly as you seemed determined to miss what was actually said, and continued with something that has been dismissed many times throughout the thread itself.



puunui said:


> And the basis for your conclusion that taekwondo lacks this is what?



Observation.



puunui said:


> Actually you missed the point, which I thought you might get, given your position on historical study. But that's ok.



Really? And what, pray tell, is my position on historical study?

But to the point, you quoted Tez commenting that when she started studying Tang Soo Do, she was given a book stating that TSD was centuries old, or more, although it was almost identical to the Wado Ryu she had studied previously. You then stated that the person who coined the term "Tang Soo Do" spoke about his training under Funakoshi Yoshitaka... which had little relevance other than to show that the idea of these Korean systems being centuries or millennia old is a modern idea, promoted in spite of the real history of the systems in question. So it really didn't do much, gotta say... unless you think you had a different point not found in your words themselves?



Twin Fist said:


> i have read that genetically, the japanese people originated from Korea





puunui said:


> Do what your unauthorized study group leader does and search the internet. You can start with this page:



Glenn, I'm going to suggest you lay off the cheap shots and little digs, you really don't have a clue what the study group is, or what it's authority and status really is. You just end up making yourself look petty and grasping for ways to attack and discredit when you don't have any argument.



puunui said:


> http://www.touken.or.jp/english/nihon_koto_shi/(4) No.550.htm
> 
> Here is a relevant passage from the first paragraph:
> 
> Meanwhile, it is believed that fine imported swords from China and *Korea had a considerable influence on Japanese swordsmiths. There is no doubt that they inspired their forging techniques.* Susano no Miko killed a huge serpent (a monster snake with eight heads) then found a legendary sword called &#8216;Ame no Murakumo no Tsurugi&#8217; inside the tail of the serpent. It is said that the sword that he wore and used in fighting the serpent is so-called &#8216;Orochi no Karasabi&#8217; also called &#8216;Orochi no Aramasa&#8217;. &#8216;Kara&#8217; means Korea and &#8216;Sabi&#8217; edged tool, therefore, the sword used by Susano no Miko was made in Korea. In the reign of Emperor Ojin, a king of Paekche (a country of ancient Korea) presented the Japanese Imperial   Court with two swords called &#8216;Nichigetsu Goshin Ken&#8217; and &#8216;Shichishi To&#8217;. Also the king sent a Korean swordsmith called &#8216;Takuso&#8217; as well as other scholars and engineers in order that they become nationalised Japanese. *The sword forging skill of Korea appears to have been introduced to Japan in full on this occasion.* We occasionally come across the name of Takuso in old documents and he was the founder of Kara-kanuchi-be (a tribe of Korean swordsmiths nationalised as Japanese).



Bluntly, Glenn, a couple of bolded, out of context comments don't make an argument... and going through the whole page there shows your conclusions to be rather lacking, to say the least. Did you read when it got up to the Kogarasu Maru (quite a famous blade attributed to Amakuni), and the author goes to great pains to point out the way that the Japanese smithing methods were unlike those earlier imported methods, to the degree that the newer weapons (from the Kamakura period, or a bit before, really) were definitively superior to the older ones? 

I also note that there was another response you had posted which is no longer there, but you included another website (a high school friend of yours) on Korean swords and weapons... which also was rather lacking in any real support. It had Korean forms of Chinese swords and polearms (including spears, kwan dao, and more) as well as Korean copies of Japanese swords.... including Korean copies of the Japanese form of Western military blades. Now, are you about to argue that the Western military sabre is based on Korean weapons due to the pictures on that site?



mastercole said:


> UNESCO's decision: http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00011&RL=00452



To be blunt, I'd want to know more about the lobbying group and those that awarded the title.

From the articles linked, there was a big push to get a number of Korean items given the award, including tightrope walking and Imperial cuisine (which didn't make it). Honestly, that doesn't surprise me much... although the common thing is to look to Kim Jong Il and his proclivities for self-promotion (claiming to have invented the hamburger, for example), but that does come across as just a very extreme example of a pervading aspect of Korean psychology. As so much of their culture was taken, suppressed, over-written etc, there is a kind of desperate desire to put themselves above others, claiming themselves as the source of surrounding cultures to explain the similarities, rather than the more logical (and obvious, as well as correct) idea that the reason for the similarities is that the outside cultures have shaped the Korean one.

I'd also like to know the martial arts understanding of those who acknowledged Taekkyon in UNESCO... as I don't think they'd have much understanding of what traits to look for in historical systems as opposed to modern ones. The fact that this is the only martial art in the lists, to me, speaks volumes. Particularly considering Koryu in Japan, which is far more documented and far more verifiable.


----------



## Instructor (Feb 24, 2012)

I feel on the whole that the interaction of Japan with Korea impacted the fighting arts and weaponry on both sides. Korea didn't invent martial arts, but in fairness, neither did Japan.  I am surprised by how vehemently you folks are debating this.  For my eyes it's impossible to see Tae Kwon Do and not see the threads of Japanese Karate running through it.  But conversely modern Japanese Karate has also been influenced by Tae Kwon Do.  To deny that is folly.  

Many if not most Hapkido people freely admit that it's a derivitive of Japanese Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu blended with the punching and kicking arts of Korea.  Most of us admit a common ancestry with Aikido and there is nothing wrong with that.

Korea has been the melting pot of the Asian world since the dawn of time.  They have and continue to strive to have their own identy and culture, it's important to them.  I think however, it is a mistake to characterize Korean martial arts as something wholly Korean.  The diversity that exists within Korean martial arts is what gives them strength.

If I might speak metaphorically.  Imagine a child minding his own business and a bully beats him up with a stick.  The next day when the bully goes to beat him up again he notices that this time the child has a stick of his own.

Should we think less of the child because he didn't invent the idea of the stick?  I think no.  If Korea didn't assimilate the martial arts of the other cultures they would have been overrun.  Where Korea excels is they take the ideas of other cultures and often they innovate them and make them uniquely Korean.

I have no experience with Taekyon so I will not step into that puddle.


----------



## puunui (Feb 24, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> It didn't occur to you that the reason some smaller questions were left were that they weren't relevant once the others were answered? For example...



 No. It looked like you simply ignored the question because the answer went against you. You ignored some additional questions from the post you are responding to too. I'm sure you have your reasons, including but not limited to the one above. 



Chris Parker said:


> Taekkyon I consider completely irrelevant, as I have seen nothing that makes me (and many others) believe that it is an actual authentic historical tradition of Korea. For the modern form, it looks dominantly Chinese, equal parts Southern systems and Beijing Opera methods.



oh dear. 




Chris Parker said:


> I don't think you quite get what I see in this context, Glenn.



I do get the fact that you didn't answer again, which tells me that you haven't been to Korea (or Japan; you never answered that question either). But no worries. I haven't been 




Chris Parker said:


> So I'm supposed to give you all their names so you can check up on them? I've already given you my formal TKD experience, but over the last 25 years or so I've had a number of friends, colleagues, students etc who are experienced in other arts, including Hapkido, Tae Kwon Do, and so on, and there have been many occasions for furthering my education in a number of ways. But besides all of that, the basic feel of each system is pretty easy for me to get.



You don't have to do anything you don't want to do. Like I said before, I have friends and juniors in Australia and wondered if you studied with any of them. That's all. But from your answer, Rhee Taekwondo up to 2nd guep but no other formal training. Got it. 




Chris Parker said:


> Are you kidding? We're discussing native Korean martial arts (that currently exist and are practiced), and you think that pointing out that Taekkyon is an extinct system is approaching it from the "wrong angle"? If we're looking for arts that are native to Korea, rather than adjusted and imported systems from other cultures, then looking at what was wiped out and no longer extant is rather irrelevant....



Like I said, you are looking at it from the wrong angle. taekkyon is not extinct. soo bahk, yes. hwa rang, yes. taekkyon, no.




Chris Parker said:


> Yes, he can. But I'm not fond of your demanding tone, so figured I'd jump in first.



This is sanke's comment: 

_ I agree with Chris, I've seen quite a lot of the MAs that come out of Korea, and not one is what I would call a native one.


_

To which I asked: Which martial arts have you seen that have come out of Korea? Have you studied any? 

There was no "demanding". I think it is reasonable to ask which martial arts he has "seen", given his statement that there are "quite a lot" and that his observations is the basis of his opinion. He never answered by the way, which is ok. 




Chris Parker said:


> That's kinda the point, Glenn, you don't get what the range of methods in the earlier list actually represented... so you have no idea how many things I "claim to know". I'll put it this way... it's like you saying that someone who specialises in French Cuisine is stretching themselves to claim to know stews, soups, desserts, snacks, and main meals.



Whatever. I think for purposes of this discussion, the fact that you have a 2nd guep in Rhee Taekwondo but no other formal training in the korean martial arts, have never been to korea, and yet you feel that you can authoritatively speak about the korean martial arts, is the real point here. 




Chris Parker said:


> Well, I'll just live with your disappointment then.



I don't think "disappointment" is the correct word.  




Chris Parker said:


> No, Glenn, you don't understand the context of the quote. The context of the quote was that John Edward made some very off-base claims, and got very aggressively defensive when asked about them, and tried to attack me.



Sort of what you like to do to me when I ask you about things. Hmm.




Chris Parker said:


> As far as an "official journal", you really didn't get what was being meant there either.



I don't know what you mean, at least with respect to the korean martial arts. There is no "official journal". And that you don't know that? Hmm. 




Chris Parker said:


> And when it comes to there being "such a group", the practitioners of the Korean arts would be that group.



Well, as far as that "group", your name never gets mentioned as any sort of expert or authority on the "korean arts". So that doesn't help establish your credibility in that regard, at least with respect to the korean martial arts. Hmm.




Chris Parker said:


> I really have a hard time believing you're having this much trouble with such basic arguments and concepts, which only leaves the idea of you arguing due to some need to disagree. Hmm.



A better way to state it is that you are having a hard time getting me to swallow what you are shoveling. Maybe your "peer group", composed of other Rhee Taekwondo 2nd guep students who stopped training twenty years ago, might agree with you. There is that. About your 2nd guep, have you taken steps to maintain that level of skill? If not, there are those out there who feel that you may no longer be worthy of such rank, that rank is something that has to be maintained through training, or lost. Hmm.




Chris Parker said:


> Yes, and Kiyomasa joined Oda Nobunaga's army (under Toyotomi, as he ended up as Oda's successor) when he was 14. And Toyotomi led the initial invasions at Oda's orders... the 7 Years War was after the initial "excursions", so to speak.



That is different from what you earlier wrote:



Chris Parker said:


> Well, there were also repeated Korean Campaigns by people such as Oda Nobunaga during this time as well. Kato Kiyomasa, one of Oda's generals, was famous for hunting tigers with his kamayari, for one thing.



So Kato Kiyomasa was a general under Oda Nobunaga when he was how old? And when exactly were these "repeated Korean Campaigns by Oda Nobunaga and one of his general, Kato Kiyomasa? 

And on focusing in on the above, I see you failed to address the point, which was how korean martial arts were influenced by japanese martial arts after these "repeated Korean Campaigns". But that's ok. 




Chris Parker said:


> Sure, that makes perfect sense.... except that the invasion didn't lead to any type of connection to China, and established links and routes to China had existed for centuries. I mean, we're talking 16th Century here, and the Heian Period in Japan (10-12th Century) was based pretty much directly on the Chinese Imperial Court structure. Hmm.



Your tendency towards piling on irrelevant information is showing again. The idea of Oda Nobunaga was the conquest of China going through the korean pennisula. Korea wasn't the goal, china was. Japan was not interested in attacking the korean pennisula because they were "bored", like you said earlier. 




Chris Parker said:


> If you're looking at very early technical developments, there is some support, but for the idea that Japanese pottery is based in Korean? Nope. Same with dress, language, food, social conventions and structure, and, well, everything else.



I don't think it is disputed or can be disputed that Japan's culture has been greatly influenced by paekje. Again, the japanese emperor has admitted that he has korean blood in him. 


[/QUOTE]And swordsmithing? Seriously, you have to be kidding... even that article you link doesn't really support that unless you choose to highlight individual sentence fragments out of context. You know, the way you did. [/QUOTE]

I quoted the link so that people can read the entire article for themselves. Here it is again: http://www.touken.or.jp/english/nihon_koto_shi/(4)%20No.550.htm

Here are some more highlights from that article: 

"I suppose that swordsmiths of Japan had belonged to the Imperial Court until the Nara Period and Yamato-kanuchi-be, of which founder was Amatsu Mara, is the oldest lineage and the main current of Japanese swordsmiths. Since then, sword forging techniques were introduced from Korea and China and Yamato-kaji (native swordsmiths) absorbed their techniques and came to have the same level of sword forging skill as the Chinese and Koreans. As mentioned before, the origin of Yamato swords and the Naminohira school is found in the extant swords of the Shoso-in Depository. I presume that Yamato and old Kyushu swords have traces of the workmanship of Chinese and Korean swords."


[/QUOTE]Oh, and are you seriously suggesting that Buddhism is Korean initially? [/QUOTE]

You know I am not suggesting that. That is more of your attempts to bring in irrelevant points. What is not in dispute is that buddhism came to japan from and through korea. 





Chris Parker said:


> A cultural preference does not make a native martial art, Glenn.



 Where did that "cultural preference" come from? 




Chris Parker said:


> Surely you're not saying, after all the other discussions, that all Hapkido forms are the same? As for which form forms the basis of my comments, call it observation of many.



Not all hapkido "forms" are the same, but we can trace hapkido kicking techniques and concepts to three people, none of whom took taekwondo. There are a lot of people who have chosen to blend in taekwondo kicks and call it hapkido, but that doesn't mean that those are hapkido kicks. 




Chris Parker said:


> Hey, I offered... mainly as you seemed determined to miss what was actually said, and continued with something that has been dismissed many times throughout the thread itself.



A more accurate statement is that I prefer not to read a summary colored by your perspective and point of view. 





Chris Parker said:


> Observation.



That explains it. 





Chris Parker said:


> Really? And what, pray tell, is my position on historical study?



Go read what you wrote earlier in the thread. 




Chris Parker said:


> But to the point, you quoted Tez commenting that when she started studying Tang Soo Do, she was given a book stating that TSD was centuries old, or more, although it was almost identical to the Wado Ryu she had studied previously. You then stated that the person who coined the term "Tang Soo Do" spoke about his training under Funakoshi Yoshitaka... which had little relevance other than to show that the idea of these Korean systems being centuries or millennia old is a modern idea, promoted in spite of the real history of the systems in question. So it really didn't do much, gotta say... unless you think you had a different point not found in your words themselves?



Yup, missing the point. oh well. 




Chris Parker said:


> Glenn, I'm going to suggest you lay off the cheap shots and little digs, you really don't have a clue what the study group is, or what it's authority and status really is. You just end up making yourself look petty and grasping for ways to attack and discredit when you don't have any argument.



try looking in the mirror. Look how many "cheap shots and little digs" you constantly take against those who have the nerve to disagree or challenge you, on anything, including arts in which you have color belt ranking, much less those you haven't even studied "formally". Really. 




Chris Parker said:


> Bluntly, Glenn, a couple of bolded, out of context comments don't make an argument... and going through the whole page there shows your conclusions to be rather lacking, to say the least. Did you read when it got up to the Kogarasu Maru (quite a famous blade attributed to Amakuni), and the author goes to great pains to point out the way that the Japanese smithing methods were unlike those earlier imported methods, to the degree that the newer weapons (from the Kamakura period, or a bit before, really) were definitively superior to the older ones?



We can let people read the article for themselves, rather than having it filtered through your rose colored glasses. Here is the link again: 

http://www.touken.or.jp/english/nihon_koto_shi/(4)%20No.550.htm

Amakuni was probably Korean. As for "superior", you mean like how the kicking techniques of korean martial arts are superior to karate such that karate is now adopting korean kicking techniques? 




Chris Parker said:


> I also note that there was another response you had posted which is no longer there, but you included another website (a high school friend of yours) on Korean swords and weapons... which also was rather lacking in any real support. It had Korean forms of Chinese swords and polearms (including spears, kwan dao, and more) as well as Korean copies of Japanese swords.... including Korean copies of the Japanese form of Western military blades. Now, are you about to argue that the Western military sabre is based on Korean weapons due to the pictures on that site?



I noticed that. What happened to that post? He wasn't my high school friend; I got to know him later, and we found out that we went to the same high school, although he is one year younger than I. We did go on a trip to Korea together though. Good guy.


----------



## puunui (Feb 24, 2012)

fenglong said:


> @puunui
> I can't believe you are wasting your time arguing with someone who considers his own opinion to be the only and ultimate truth..



I'm beginning to understand what you mean.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 25, 2012)

puunui said:


> No. It looked like you simply ignored the question because the answer went against you. You ignored some additional questions from the post you are responding to too. I'm sure you have your reasons, including but not limited to the one above.



I ignore questions if they are irrelevant or inconsequential, Glenn.



puunui said:


> oh dear.



Nice rebuttal. Allow me to counter it by asking what you see in the modern form and practice that makes you think it's actually a historical martial tradition, if you're so convinced?



puunui said:


> I do get the fact that you didn't answer again, which tells me that you haven't been to Korea (or Japan; you never answered that question either). But no worries. I haven't been



 Actually, I did answer, but I answered the relevant question underneath your overt one.



puunui said:


> You don't have to do anything you don't want to do. Like I said before, I have friends and juniors in Australia and wondered if you studied with any of them. That's all. But from your answer, Rhee Taekwondo up to 2nd guep but no other formal training. Got it.


 
Formally? Correct. Informally, however... 



puunui said:


> Like I said, you are looking at it from the wrong angle. taekkyon is not extinct. soo bahk, yes. hwa rang, yes. taekkyon, no.



 Please. Some evidence, if you would be so kind? And are you seriously bringing HwaRang into this?



puunui said:


> This is sanke's comment:
> 
> _ I agree with Chris, I've seen quite a lot of the MAs that come out of Korea, and not one is what I would call a native one.
> 
> ...



 Then let's say it's the overall approach you take.



puunui said:


> Whatever. I think for purposes of this discussion, the fact that you have a 2nd guep in Rhee Taekwondo but no other formal training in the korean martial arts, have never been to korea, and yet you feel that you can authoritatively speak about the korean martial arts, is the real point here.


 
Okay, then, how about the smaller detail that I've been researching, reading, learning about martial arts, including Korean systems, for the past 3 decades? Does that help a bit?



puunui said:


> Sort of what you like to do to me when I ask you about things. Hmm.



There hasn't been a attack yet, Glenn. You're not that much on my radar, honestly. And besides, such actions just show a lack of argument.



puunui said:


> I don't know what you mean, at least with respect to the korean martial arts. There is no "official journal". And that you don't know that? Hmm.



You know, I thought it was pretty clear myself. There is no "official journal", what there is is a community of people who form a peer group, and that is where such things are born out.



puunui said:


> Well, as far as that "group", your name never gets mentioned as any sort of expert or authority on the "korean arts". So that doesn't help establish your credibility in that regard, at least with respect to the korean martial arts. Hmm.



Well, the peer group in discussion there would more realistically be the peer group of the membership of this forum, and is in regard to general martial arts rather than necessarily Korean systems specific. 



puunui said:


> A better way to state it is that you are having a hard time getting me to swallow what you are shoveling. Maybe your "peer group", composed of other Rhee Taekwondo 2nd guep students who stopped training twenty years ago, might agree with you. There is that. About your 2nd guep, have you taken steps to maintain that level of skill? If not, there are those out there who feel that you may no longer be worthy of such rank, that rank is something that has to be maintained through training, or lost. Hmm.



 Well, that's a good way to take a sentence completely out of context... 



puunui said:


> That is different from what you earlier wrote:
> 
> So Kato Kiyomasa was a general under Oda Nobunaga when he was how old? And when exactly were these "repeated Korean Campaigns by Oda Nobunaga and one of his general, Kato Kiyomasa?
> 
> And on focusing in on the above, I see you failed to address the point, which was how korean martial arts were influenced by japanese martial arts after these "repeated Korean Campaigns". But that's ok.



 16 year old Generals (if from the right families) weren't uncommon... but if you're saying that that's the point? Wow, have you missed the actual meaning of what has been said.... the actual mention was to do with the influence of Japanese culture on Korean, mainly from a suppression of the Korean culture, and that was one time when such things occurred. Not just martial arts... and, for the record, the primary influence would be on the weaponry at the time, with any unarmed systems that might be around not surviving the later annexing of the nation. If there was really much in the way of unarmed systems that is.... but I'll save that argument for your evidence on Taekkyon.... 



puunui said:


> Your tendency towards piling on irrelevant information is showing again. The idea of Oda Nobunaga was the conquest of China going through the korean pennisula. Korea wasn't the goal, china was. Japan was not interested in attacking the korean pennisula because they were "bored", like you said earlier.



Then why was there no continuation into China? And if an invasion of China was the aim, why not just go straight there, as they had been for centuries? Why waste near onto a decade in Korea first? 



puunui said:


> I don't think it is disputed or can be disputed that Japan's culture has been greatly influenced by paekje. Again, the japanese emperor has admitted that he has korean blood in him.


 
And I have Polish and Swiss blood in me, as well as Irish. But none of that is a cultural influence, it's a genetic one. If you can't see the difference, I'd suggest getting out of the argument.



puunui said:


> I quoted the link so that people can read the entire article for themselves. Here it is again: http://www.touken.or.jp/english/nihon_koto_shi/(4) No.550.htm
> 
> Here are some more highlights from that article:
> 
> "I suppose that swordsmiths of Japan had belonged to the Imperial Court until the Nara Period and Yamato-kanuchi-be, of which founder was Amatsu Mara, is the oldest lineage and the main current of Japanese swordsmiths. Since then, sword forging techniques were introduced from Korea and China and Yamato-kaji (native swordsmiths) absorbed their techniques and came to have the same level of sword forging skill as the Chinese and Koreans. As mentioned before, the origin of Yamato swords and the Naminohira school is found in the extant swords of the Shoso-in Depository. I presume that Yamato and old Kyushu swords have traces of the workmanship of Chinese and Korean swords."



And again you miss the later part where it talks about the true Japanese swords being universally superior to the older Shoso-in examples? Showing that the development of swordsmithing is not an influence of Korean culture? 



puunui said:


> > Oh, and are you seriously suggesting that Buddhism is Korean initially?
> 
> 
> 
> You know I am not suggesting that. That is more of your attempts to bring in irrelevant points. What is not in dispute is that buddhism came to japan from and through korea.



 You're not suggesting it? Except where you specifically stated it? Oh, but for the record, what is not in dispute is that Buddhism came to Japan from China, not Korea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Japan Again, this is more a case of Korean culture wanting to claim things that don't have evidence to support them. Good try, though.



puunui said:


> Where did that "cultural preference" come from?



In Slavic nations there is a cultural preference for starchy foods, due to, amongst other things, the weather. But that doesn't mean that the development of the chip shows the influence of Germany.

In other words, cultural preference is no indication of native martial traditions. It's a non-argument, Glenn.



puunui said:


> Not all hapkido "forms" are the same, but we can trace hapkido kicking techniques and concepts to three people, none of whom took taekwondo. There are a lot of people who have chosen to blend in taekwondo kicks and call it hapkido, but that doesn't mean that those are hapkido kicks.



Actually, a fair amount of the material I see show a lot of similarity to TKD kicking... and there are a number of accounts of early forms of the art, such as Tang Soo Do, being instrumental in forming the kicking approach of Hapkido.



puunui said:


> A more accurate statement is that I prefer not to read a summary colored by your perspective and point of view.


 
Yet you still came back with the same misunderstanding. Hmm.



puunui said:


> That explains it.



Yes it does. But I don't think you get what I mean by that.



puunui said:


> Go read what you wrote earlier in the thread.



I'm more than aware of my own take on the place of historical study, I'm interested in what you think it might be.



puunui said:


> Yup, missing the point. oh well.



So a direct recap of exactly what was stated still "misses the point"? Really, Glenn?



puunui said:


> try looking in the mirror. Look how many "cheap shots and little digs" you constantly take against those who have the nerve to disagree or challenge you, on anything, including arts in which you have color belt ranking, much less those you haven't even studied "formally". Really.



Show me one, Glenn. Show me where I attempt to belittle someone in the same way you do.



puunui said:


> We can let people read the article for themselves, rather than having it filtered through your rose colored glasses. Here is the link again:
> 
> http://www.touken.or.jp/english/nihon_koto_shi/(4) No.550.htm
> 
> Amakuni was probably Korean. As for "superior", you mean like how the kicking techniques of korean martial arts are superior to karate such that karate is now adopting korean kicking techniques?



What possible basis do you have for saying that Amakuni was probably Korean?!?! That isn't even hinted at anywhere else, Glenn. And what do modern Korean systems approach to kicking have to do with the comments about bladed weaponry hundreds of years ago? And you accuse me of bringing in irrelevant aspects... 



puunui said:


> I noticed that. What happened to that post? He wasn't my high school friend; I got to know him later, and we found out that we went to the same high school, although he is one year younger than I. We did go on a trip to Korea together though. Good guy.



Might be a good guy, but the site wasn't what you made it out to be.



puunui said:


> I'm beginning to understand what you mean.



Before you get too chummy with Fenglong there, you may want to know why he's saying such things: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?94605-My-own-MA

If you want to have him as an ally, go ahead. But it won't really help your credibility in being able to tell who to listen to...


----------



## Sanke (Feb 27, 2012)

Ill do a bit of picking and choosing here, as Chris covered the majority of it in his post, but theres a thing or two Id like to throw my 2-cent in on.




puunui said:


> This is sanke's comment:





puunui said:


> _I agree with Chris, I've seen quite a lot of the MAs that come out of Korea, and not one is what I would call a native one._
> 
> To which I asked: Which martial arts have you seen that have come out of Korea? Have you studied any?
> 
> There was no "demanding". I think it is reasonable to ask which martial arts he has "seen", given his statement that there are "quite a lot" and that his observations is the basis of his opinion. He never answered by the way, which is ok.



Youre right, I did miss that. To be honest, after Parkers responses Id thought wed moved past it, but seeing as you mentioned it again;
Ive seen a few Korean systems, mostly either just demonstrations or videos. Taekwondo would be the main one, Hapkido, Haidong gumdo, Kumdo and Teakkyon. I might have seen some others, but probably not to be honest. While I havent trained in all of these, or talked at length with any high ranking people, that doesnt mean I cant make observations about these systems. And again, none of them seem like what I would consider a native Korean MA. The odd one out, Taekyyon comes close, but the stuff thats out there today isnt indicative of an older, traditional system when compared to others, and really seems more like a modern reproduction, heavily influenced by the other currently existing KMAs. So Im not convinced about Taekyyon in that sense. 




puunui said:


> I don't think it is disputed or can be disputed that Japan's culture has been greatly influenced by paekje. Again, the japanese emperor has admitted that he has korean blood in him.



Actually, thats not really true. Its not disputed that the Japanese people are biologically descended from Korea (to the best of my knowledge), but thats not the same thing as saying they are culturally descended. If anything, that influence came much more from China directly, than Korea. And the fact that the emperor has Korean blood has little to do with cultural development, just that hes part Korean. Go figure.




puunui said:


> Amakuni was probably Korean.


Really. And your evidence for that statement would be? Or even anything that would have lead you to that conclusion? Your friends website certainly didnt prove anything other than hes collected a lot of Korean-made versions of swords originating in other countries. 




puunui said:


> I noticed that. What happened to that post?


I reported it, and it was apparently removed. If you want more spesics, I would ask the mods.


----------



## puunui (Feb 28, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> I ignore questions if they are irrelevant or inconsequential, Glenn.



Among others. 



Chris Parker said:


> Nice rebuttal. Allow me to counter it by asking what you see in the modern form and practice that makes you think it's actually a historical martial tradition, if you're so convinced?



Sure you can ask, but I ignore questions if they are irrelevant or inconsequential. 


 Actually, I did answer, but I answered the relevant question underneath your overt one.



Chris Parker said:


> Formally? Correct. Informally, however...



Three years of Rhee Taekwondo and some "informal" studies as well. Got it. 




Chris Parker said:


> Please. Some evidence, if you would be so kind?



Go search the internet. It's all over the place. 




Chris Parker said:


> Then let's say it's the overall approach you take.



My overall approach is truth seeking and fact finding, as well as helping others who wish to be helped. 




Chris Parker said:


> Okay, then, how about the smaller detail that I've been researching, reading, learning about martial arts, including Korean systems, for the past 3 decades? Does that help a bit?



No. Your reading, etc. on koryu really doesn't help you regarding taekkyon. At all. 



Chris Parker said:


> There hasn't been a attack yet, Glenn. You're not that much on my radar, honestly. And besides, such actions just show a lack of argument.



Yet? Is that a threat? 



Chris Parker said:


> You know, I thought it was pretty clear myself. There is no "official journal", what there is is a community of people who form a peer group, and that is where such things are born out.



If that were true then you would not be a part of the one concerning korean martial arts, if there was such a group. And why would you be? You are a ninjutsu and koryu guy. 



Chris Parker said:


> Well, the peer group in discussion there would more realistically be the peer group of the membership of this forum, and is in regard to general martial arts rather than necessarily Korean systems specific.



Why would it be that? After all, we are talking about korean martial arts history, and again, if there were a "peer group" regarding that on this forum, you wouldn't be considered a part of it. In my opinion, would take more than three years in Rhee Taekwondo and a 2nd guep to be a member of that. And frankly, I don't know how anyone could consider themselves an "expert" on korean or japanese martial arts without ever having visited either country. The purest water comes closest from the source. 




Chris Parker said:


> 16 year old Generals (if from the right families) weren't uncommon...



And you are saying Kato Kiyomasa was a 16 year old general under Oda Nobunaga because he was from the right family? 



Chris Parker said:


> but if you're saying that that's the point? Wow, have you missed the actual meaning of what has been said.... the actual mention was to do with the influence of Japanese culture on Korean, mainly from a suppression of the Korean culture, and that was one time when such things occurred.




How was Korean culture "suppressed" during the 16th century during those repeated Korean Campaigns by Oda Nobunaga, his 16 year old general kato kiyomasa the tiger hunter or toyotomi hideyoshi? You know what, never mind. Don't have to answer. if you had an answer we would have already received one, in the form of a super long post.



Chris Parker said:


> Then why was there no continuation into China? And if an invasion of China was the aim, why not just go straight there, as they had been for centuries? Why waste near onto a decade in Korea first?



That's all explained on the internet. You don't need me for that answer, the point being that it wasn't due to "boredom", like you said. 



Chris Parker said:


> And I have Polish and Swiss blood in me, as well as Irish. But none of that is a cultural influence, it's a genetic one. If you can't see the difference, I'd suggest getting out of the argument.



Do you have any japanese blood in you? 

What I see is you trying to somehow separate the people from their culture. When the british came to the US or to Australia for example, they didn't just bring their genes with them, but their language, their culture, their skills. Same thing with Baekjae to the Japanese islands. What you are doing essentially is trying to argue that England had little or no influence on the culture of the US or Australia, except it is korea/japan instead. To me, the US is in large part from England, I have no problem admitting that, anymore than I have a problem admitting that Japanese culture is in large part from Korea, specifically Baekjae. There are whole books written on the subject. The korean ancestor of the Japanese emperor didn't come to Japan from Korea by himself. 




Chris Parker said:


> And again you miss the later part where it talks about the true Japanese swords being universally superior to the older Shoso-in examples? Showing that the development of swordsmithing is not an influence of Korean culture?



I did read where the "superior" korean swordsmithing was brought to Japan. Those swordsmiths from korea were given japanese citizenship, so I guess in that sense, they became "japanese", but still the skills were from korea, baekjae in particular. 



Chris Parker said:


> You're not suggesting it? Except where you specifically stated it? Oh, but for the record, what is not in dispute is that Buddhism came to Japan from China, not Korea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Japan Again, this is more a case of Korean culture wanting to claim things that don't have evidence to support them. Good try, though.



Did you read the article? Here is a line from it:

"Although it is possible that Buddhism was known to the Japanese previously, the "official" introduction of Buddhism to Japan is dated to 552 in _Nihon Shoki_ (otherwise 538 according to the History of Gang&#333;ji monastery),[SUP][7][/SUP] when Seong of Baekje sent a mission to Nara including some Buddhist monks or nuns, together with an image of Buddha, and numbers of sutras to introduce Buddhism." 


 The citation for that quote comes from two sources, Bowring, Richard John (2005). _The religious traditions of Japan, 500-1600_. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1517. ISBN 0-521-85119-X.*^* Dykstra, Yoshiko Kurata; De Bary, William Theodore (2001). _Sources of Japanese tradition_. 

Neither one is Korean. 




Chris Parker said:


> In Slavic nations there is a cultural preference for starchy foods, due to, amongst other things, the weather. But that doesn't mean that the development of the chip shows the influence of Germany. In other words, cultural preference is no indication of native martial traditions. It's a non-argument, Glenn.



Non argument to you, starchy food example nonwithstanding. 



Chris Parker said:


> Actually, a fair amount of the material I see show a lot of similarity to TKD kicking... and there are a number of accounts of early forms of the art, such as Tang Soo Do, being instrumental in forming the kicking approach of Hapkido.



Perhaps if you studied hapkido "formally", then you would reach a different conclusion. And irrespective of what you have read, there is no connection between Tang Soo Do and Hapkido kicking. At all. 



Chris Parker said:


> Yet you still came back with the same misunderstanding. Hmm.



Hardly, you attempted to paint yourself as an expert in korean martial arts, which in my opinion you are not. There is no misunderstanding. 




Chris Parker said:


> Yes it does. But I don't think you get what I mean by that.



Actually I do. That is your perception and opinion, based on your three years of Rhee Taekwondo, 2nd guep rank, plus the informal studies in other korean martial arts. No problem. 



Chris Parker said:


> I'm more than aware of my own take on the place of historical study, I'm interested in what you think it might be.



Again, go read what you wrote earlier in this thread. 




Chris Parker said:


> So a direct recap of exactly what was stated still "misses the point"? Really, Glenn?



Yes, really. I do understand that your "direct recap" is your perspective on what was said, but I don't think you get what I meant by that. 



Chris Parker said:


> Show me one, Glenn. Show me where I attempt to belittle someone in the same way you do.



So are you saying your study group is authorized? 




Chris Parker said:


> What possible basis do you have for saying that Amakuni was probably Korean?!?! That isn't even hinted at anywhere else, Glenn.



If you do more research, you might find the answer to your own questions. 



Chris Parker said:


> And what do modern Korean systems approach to kicking have to do with the comments about bladed weaponry hundreds of years ago?



You brought up Amakuni, not me, probably because it is closer to your comfort zone than the present topic. 




Chris Parker said:


> Might be a good guy, but the site wasn't what you made it out to be.



I'm sure he will give your opinion all the consideration that it warrants. 




Chris Parker said:


> Before you get too chummy with Fenglong there, you may want to know why he's saying such things: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?94605-My-own-MA
> 
> If you want to have him as an ally, go ahead. But it won't really help your credibility in being able to tell who to listen to...



I don't know if he is my "ally", so much as I can appreciate his point of view. I did look over the thread, it was more of the same from you, you setting up the definition of what is the topic and then hammering away at people who your feel can't measure up to your narrow definition.  Even in this one you're trying to do that. That seems to be your thing. And on that topic above, personally, if he wants to set up his own style, then more power to him. Doesn't really affect me, so what do I care what the parameters of his new style is. People set up their own styles in the korean martial arts all the time, which may or may not be substantially similar to the style that they came from. I don't really care about those either.


----------



## puunui (Feb 28, 2012)

Sanke said:


> You&#8217;re right, I did miss that. To be honest, after Parker&#8217;s responses I&#8217;d thought we&#8217;d moved past it, but seeing as you mentioned it again; I&#8217;ve seen a few Korean systems, mostly either just demonstrations or videos. Taekwondo would be the main one, Hapkido, Haidong gumdo, Kumdo and Teakkyon. I might have seen some others, but probably not to be honest. While I haven&#8217;t trained in all of these, or talked at length with any high ranking people, that doesn&#8217;t mean I can&#8217;t make observations about these systems.



Yes you can make observations, but the weight given to your observations will be in direct proportion to your knowledge and experience, which in this case, consists of a 2nd guep ranking in kukki taekwondo, along with watching some demonstrations and video of other arts. 




Sanke said:


> And again, none of them seem like what I would consider a native Korean MA. The odd one out, Taekyyon comes close, but the stuff that&#8217;s out there today isn&#8217;t indicative of an older, traditional system when compared to others, and really seems more like a modern reproduction, heavily influenced by the other currently existing KMAs. So I&#8217;m not convinced about Taekyyon in that sense.



No problem. I'm sure the taekkyon leaders in korea will continue forward with what they are doing, irrespective of your opinion.




Sanke said:


> Actually, that&#8217;s not really true. It&#8217;s not disputed that the Japanese people are biologically descended from Korea (to the best of my knowledge), but that&#8217;s not the same thing as saying they are culturally descended. If anything, that influence came much more from China directly, than Korea. And the fact that the emperor has Korean blood has little to do with cultural development, just that he&#8217;s part Korean. Go figure.



Where do you get the "part korean"? Is that your understanding of what the emperor said? As for the rest of your post, you can try and separate the genes from the culture if you want. 




Sanke said:


> Really. And your evidence for that statement would be? Or even anything that would have lead you to that conclusion? Your friend&#8217;s website certainly didn&#8217;t prove anything other than he&#8217;s collected a lot of Korean-made versions of swords originating in other countries.



Go study. It's out there. 




Sanke said:


> I reported it, and it was apparently removed. If you want more spesics, I would ask the mods.



Weren't you already warned about that, talking about stuff like the above?


----------



## Sanke (Feb 28, 2012)

puunui said:


> Yes you can make observations, but the weight given to your observations will be in direct proportion to your knowledge and experience, which in this case, consists of a 2nd guep ranking in kukki taekwondo, along with watching some demonstrations and video of other arts.



My knowledge and experience isn't limited to my TKD background just because we're discussing KMA in general. Believe it or not, you don't need to train in every system in the world to have some understanding of each one's structure. It's doubtful that I'll understand the deeper subtleties, but things like it's development, purpose, goals, etc aren't invisible to those outside of them, you know.




puunui said:


> No problem. I'm sure the taekkyon leaders in korea will continue forward with what they are doing, irrespective of your opinion.



I have no doubt that they will, nothing I've said here is anything negative towards the arts whatsoever. Just because I wouldn't consider it a native KMA doesn't mean it's any less of an art. Just that it's background is different.




puunui said:


> Where do you get the "part korean"? Is that your understanding of what the emperor said? As for the rest of your post, you can try and separate the genes from the culture if you want.



I will separate them, because that's the reality of it. Just because you have ancestry in a particular part of the world doesn't mean you're immediately going take on their cultural traits if you're raised in a completely different environment. They're simply not same.




puunui said:


> Go study. It's out there.



Not a very convincing argument, considering your original claim was 'he was probably Korean'. Not exactly showing you've done your homework either, just you putting your beliefs in there, and assuming the evidence exists. I intend to keep studying, but that's just because I'm a history buff. If I ever come across any evidence to the contrary, I'll come back here and post about it. But frankly, I doubt I will find any.




puunui said:


> Weren't you already warned about that, talking about stuff like the above?



Different context, Glenn. That was to do with rep, which is against TOS to discus in posts (as I later learned, hence the apology). Explaining that a post has been reported is (and correct me if I'm wrong on this, mods) not against the TOS from what I've read. Just thought I'd give you some idea what happened to your post, as you seemed unaware.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 28, 2012)

Folks, discussing rep *is *against the Rules.  Doing the "I'm going to tattle on you" stuff is just juvenile.  The policy here is that we only VERY rarely discuss what happens to someone publicly.  We'd kind of encourage users to follow that principle, too...

With that out of the way... I've got a TKD specific question.  A friend of mine from high school spent some time in Korea, as his father was in the military and stationed there.  He learned a form of taekwondo with some very significant differences from most of what we see here in the US.  I'm kind of hoping I can get him to chime in and share some details -- but I've always been rather curious about how what he learned fits in with "other" TKD.

And, more generally, an observation about cross cultural communication and sharing...  It's very seldom a one-way ticket.  The Bando emblem features two crossed swords; one is the kukri, symbolizing the East, and the other is the Sword of Alexander (a Greek kopis style blade, honestly, rather similar to the kukri), to symbolize the West.  The swords are crossed to show, in part, the way knowledge flows both ways.  I suspect that Japanese, Thai, Chinese, Indian, and other arts influenced native Korean fighting.  (Unless, of course, you accept Chiun's premise that everything else was copied and stolen from a certain North Korean village...)  But I'm certain there were native Korean fighting traditions, which in turn influenced others including, I suspect, Japanese and Okinawan styles.  I'm just not so certain any of the Korean traditions survived, at least in recognizable form.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Feb 28, 2012)

jks9199 said:


> With that out of the way... I've got a TKD specific question. A friend of mine from high school spent some time in Korea, as his father was in the military and stationed there. He learned a form of taekwondo with some very significant differences from most of what we see here in the US. I'm kind of hoping I can get him to chime in and share some details -- but I've always been rather curious about how what he learned fits in with "other" TKD.



I'd be interested in hearing a bit about his experience and how what he learned differs from "run of the mill" Taekwon-Do (of course, that has to be qualified quite a bit, I think; Kukkiwon TKD, ITF TKD, etc.).

Pax,

Chris


----------



## puunui (Feb 28, 2012)

jks9199 said:


> With that out of the way... I've got a TKD specific question.  A friend of mine from high school spent some time in Korea, as his father was in the military and stationed there.  He learned a form of taekwondo with some very significant differences from most of what we see here in the US.  I'm kind of hoping I can get him to chime in and share some details -- but I've always been rather curious about how what he learned fits in with "other" TKD.



More information is needed. Or better yet, video. 



jks9199 said:


> I suspect that Japanese, Thai, Chinese, Indian, and other arts  influenced native Korean fighting.



What time frame are you talking about? Recently? A long long time ago? 




jks9199 said:


> (Unless, of course, you accept  Chiun's premise that everything else was copied and stolen from a  certain North Korean village...)



Who is Chuin?




jks9199 said:


> But I'm certain there were native  Korean fighting traditions, which in turn influenced others including, I  suspect, Japanese and Okinawan styles.  I'm just not so certain any of  the Korean traditions survived, at least in recognizable form.



Why do you say that? Just a feeling you have? 

I will say this though. No matter what the origins or history of the korean martial arts, it is making an impact worldwide now, even to the point where commercial school owners from other styles have to take steps to stay in business because taekwondo schools close to them are taking a lion's share of the potential students in the surrounding area. Taekwondo is here to stay.


----------



## puunui (Feb 28, 2012)

Sanke said:


> My knowledge and experience isn't limited to my TKD background just because we're discussing KMA in general. Believe it or not, you don't need to train in every system in the world to have some understanding of each one's structure. It's doubtful that I'll understand the deeper subtleties, but things like it's development, purpose, goals, etc aren't invisible to those outside of them, you know.



That would be fine, but what some are trying to do is impose a "structure" from some place else and then make judgments based on that. 




Sanke said:


> I have no doubt that they will, nothing I've said here is anything negative towards the arts whatsoever. Just because I wouldn't consider it a native KMA doesn't mean it's any less of an art. Just that it's background is different.



Not considering taekkyon "a native KMA" is saying something negative, even if you don't think so. 




Sanke said:


> I will separate them, because that's the reality of it. Just because you have ancestry in a particular part of the world doesn't mean you're immediately going take on their cultural traits if you're raised in a completely different environment. They're simply not same.



You can only hope right? But who is talking about that? We are talking about the wholesale influence that occurred when the people of baekjae moved to the japanese islands before and after the three kingdom period on the korean pennisula. It goes to the culture, habits, everything really of the Japanese people, especially when compared to the people from baekjae, which is now known as the chollado provinces in south korea. If you have been to both japan and to chollado, like I have, then you can instantly see similarities, in much the same way that you can see instant similarities between england and the commonwealth countries. 

But on your point above, I had a student, who has korean ancestry but was adopted by a US  military family as a baby and spent her life at US bases all over the  place. She had no time in Korea or asia for that matter, but when she  started learning korean martial arts from me, her movements were she was a korean from korea. Is it in her genes? I don't know if I am explaining this  correctly but there it is. I've had other korean born students and have gotten the same result. My best student in fact was born here but took to the korean martial arts so naturally that he ended up setting records for shortest time to medaling at our nationals (18 months) in the senior black belt division (as a red belt), won gold and became a national champion the next year, and then made team the year after that, going on to being a multi time team member and medalist at WTF International Events. In fact, he holds the distinction of being the only US competitor who beat steven lopez and kept him from making team. 




Sanke said:


> Not a very convincing argument, considering your original claim was 'he was probably Korean'. Not exactly showing you've done your homework either, just you putting your beliefs in there, and assuming the evidence exists. I intend to keep studying, but that's just because I'm a history buff. If I ever come across any evidence to the contrary, I'll come back here and post about it. But frankly, I doubt I will find any.



it's all there on the internet. But keep an open mind.


----------

