# How Pure Are The Arts?



## MJS (Jan 19, 2012)

Twin Fist started an interesting thread over in the TKD section.  He asked if someone were to take something, call it something else, would that make that person a thief?  EX: I take kicks from TKD, locks from Aikido, punches from boxing, mix it all together, and call it something else, am I guilty of stealing?

While that thread was, at least IMO, geared mostly towards the art of TKD, it got me thinking....how many arts out there today, can we honestly say are pure or original?  Think about it...we can see a front kick in numerous arts, the difference probably only being method of execution and name.  BJJ is another example.  

So, how pure are the arts?  For the record, I'm not saying he was right/wrong with his post.  I was simply reading thru it and it sparked this thread.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 19, 2012)

Hi Mike,

as far as technique goes, on a simplistic level, probably very little is unique to one system or another. Some techniques may be found in fewer systems than others, but probably not absolutely unique.

I think the issue of what makes something THIS style vs. THAT style is not so much in the technique itself, but rather in the methodology that goes into how the technique is developed. Even there you will probably find a lot of overlap, but in some cases some systems can have some approaches that are not quite matched in any others. I'm not talking about application drills or combos. I'm talking about the fundamental concepts of how one develops the basic techniques, like a punch.

I say this with my own system as an example. We use rooting and waist turning as our primary source of power in our techniques. That concept is something that I am sure is NOT unique to Tibetan White Crane. However, the specifics of HOW we train to develop this power probably is. We use what would be seen as exaggerated movements that are designed to connect the body and develop the ability to use this rooting and rotation. People who do not understand the system see this and assume that THAT is how we would punch in a fight, and they find it odd. But that is NOT how we would actually punch in a real fight. That exaggerated movement is just a way to develop the power, and in a real fight our punch would probably look much like any other, but we are able to engage the full body with that rotation and rooting because the training method taught us how to do it.

Again, I don't claim the rooting and rotation are unique to our system. Only that specifically how we train to develop it, is. I've never seen anyone else do something quite like how we do.

So it isn't the punch or the kick or the application of a movement that identifies our system. It is 1) where the power comes from, combined with 2) the methodology in how the power was trained and developed.

at least for starters, anyway.


----------



## shihansmurf (Jan 19, 2012)

I seem to recall a quote from Ed Parker about pure knuckles meeting pure flesh being pure karate.

I don't think that there is any "pure" systems out there. Punches are punches, kicks are kicks. I view the various systems as nothing more than teaching models to impart certain skills into the martial artist. Nothing more. 

More to the point, as we develop, we get exposed to other methods of training and the way other people perfom various kicks, strikes, blocks, combos, etc and we absorb a bit from here and there. Well, if we can look past our egos enough to recognize when someone has a more efficient way to perform a given movement, and we adopt it. Or we don't as the case may be. I think that this is a natural progression as we train. Eventually we stray a bit from our initial art's method and any illusion of purity is lost.

In any event, if you are a thief so is everyone of the folks who put together the various systems. Ya know, guys like Parker, Emperado, Choi, Lee, and so on. Pretty good company to be in.

Just my view, 
Mark


----------



## Big Don (Jan 19, 2012)

MJS said:


> Twin Fist started an interesting thread over in the TKD section.  He asked if someone were to take something, call it something else, would that make that person a thief?  EX: I take kicks from TKD, locks from Aikido, punches from boxing, mix it all together, and call it something else, am I guilty of stealing?


You're not a thief, you're a researcher:


> If you steal from one author it's plagiarism; if you steal from many it's research.


 Wilson Mizner  
How pure are the arts? As pure as mud.
​


----------



## MJS (Jan 19, 2012)

Thats pretty much what I was thinking.  There are things that will be unique, such as FC said, using his art as an example.  But just like shihansmurf said, its unlikely there are any 'pure' arts out there, and Kajukenbo is a perfect example of that.  5 founders, 5 different arts, training together, taking the best of each, and blending them into 1 new art.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 19, 2012)

its theft when you dont credit the source. 

Kajukenbo for example, the name itself credits the source arts


----------



## MJS (Jan 19, 2012)

Twin Fist said:


> its theft when you dont credit the source.
> 
> Kajukenbo for example, the name itself credits the source arts



Exactly!  There were times when I'd teach a Kenpo club or knife technique.  Sometimes, I'd show something from Arnis, so the students could see differences and similarities.  However, I'd always make it known that what I was teaching was Arnis, not Kenpo.  

Give credit, where credit is due.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 19, 2012)

MJS said:


> Thats pretty much what I was thinking. There are things that will be unique, such as FC said, using his art as an example. But just like shihansmurf said, its unlikely there are any 'pure' arts out there, and Kajukenbo is a perfect example of that. 5 founders, 5 different arts, training together, taking the best of each, and blending them into 1 new art.



There is some material in our system that was adopted from elsewhere by prior generations, some of it is stuff my sifu brought in from his early studies, as his first sifu was accomplished in another system and my sifu learned some of that from him.  Sifu acknowledges where it came from, and certain things were adjusted to make it fit appropriately within how things are done in my system.  

There are some things that didn't really get entirely adjusted properly to follow our sysetematic methods.  This is material that my sifu has stated he doesn't really like very well.  He does't like it because it doesn't fit the way our system as a whole functions.  The material has other benefits and that's why it is kept, but it's just not a favorite because it sort of goes against the grain.

Things do get adopted, traded, shared, etc. from one system to another.  This happens, always has and always will.  Sometimes this leads to the splintering and development of a "new" system or lineage or spin-off, and sometimes it's just new material that gets absorbed.  I think it is very important to ask, "does this material fit within how our system works?".  If the answer is "no" then you are actually better off without it.  That is a question that I believe often does not get asked.  Instead, people see something that someone else is doing, and it's different and interesting, and they decide, "I need to have that, because I don't have it and it MUST be important!"  But they lack the context to make it valuable and it becomes a pointless add-on that gives little or no benefit to their training.  Sometimes you are actually better off WITHOUT something.

at any rate, sure it's pretty difficult to say that anything is actually pure, because nothing springs forth fully formed from a vacuum.


----------



## seasoned (Jan 19, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> as far as technique goes, on a simplistic level, probably very little is unique to one system or another. Some techniques may be found in fewer systems than others, but probably not absolutely unique.
> 
> ...



Very well put........

In Okinawan GoJu, big becomes small, hard becomes soft, and the principles of the essence of this art are within Sanchin. Knowing Sanchin does not give you this essence, and repetition alone will not produce it. Without the guidance needed, all you will have is one more kata to work on.............


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 19, 2012)

seasoned said:


> Very well put........
> 
> In Okinawan GoJu, *big becomes small*, hard becomes soft, and the principles of the essence of this art are within Sanchin. Knowing Sanchin does not give you this essence, and repetition alone will not produce it. Without the guidance needed, all you will have is one more kata to work on.............



another important concept in our system as well.  Exaggerated movement is big, but application is small.  Exaggerated movement teaches you how to do it properly.  Once you can do that, application can be done with small movement.  But you need the lessons that the exaggerated movement give you first.


----------



## seasoned (Jan 19, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> another important concept in our system as well.  Exaggerated movement is big, but application is small.  *Exaggerated movement teaches you how to do it properly*.  Once you can do that, application can be done with small movement.  But you need the lessons that the exaggerated movement give you first.



Not trying to steal this thread MJS but there are some points being made here that I feel have a common tread within the martial arts, known or not known.


In your above statement I assume you mean full body movement, incorporating the root and body mechanics into each movement when exaggerated, then as the movements are done smaller there is more of an internal feeling. Is this your thought process?


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 19, 2012)

seasoned said:


> Not trying to steal this thread MJS but there are some points being made here that I feel have a common tread within the martial arts, known or not known.
> 
> 
> In your above statement I assume you mean full body movement, incorporating the root and body mechanics into each movement when exaggerated, then as the movements are done smaller there is more of an internal feeling. Is this your thought process?



yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The exaggerated movements help us learn how to engage the full body from the ground up, to drive the technique with a fully integrated and focused effort.  The entire body is working together, to get full body power.  Once that is understood and the skill to do it is there, then in application the same effect can be obtained with smaller movement.  You train with the big movement to reinforce the skill, but you apply on a bad guy with the small movement, because that is all that is necessary.  But even with the smaller movement, you can get that full body engagement.


----------



## Em MacIntosh (Jan 19, 2012)

Jeet Kune Do (the principal) is one of the few ways to unmuddy the waters.  Your front kick is your front kick whether you learned it in karate, pancration or ballet.  Hope you learned it the way it works best for you.

If you take karate make it your karate.  When you throw a punch it's your punch, not "karate's punch".  

Don't limit yourself to being a proponent of the art rather than deriving a part of your arsenal from it.  

I think the arts being muddy is generally a good thing and I certainly think the arts are generally muddy.


----------



## seasoned (Jan 19, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> yes, that is exactly what I am saying. The exaggerated movements help us learn how to engage the full body from the ground up, to drive the technique with a fully integrated and focused effort.  The entire body is working together, to get full body power.  Once that is understood and the skill to do it is there, then in application the same effect can be obtained with smaller movement.  You train with the big movement to reinforce the skill, but you apply on a bad guy with the small movement, because that is all that is necessary.  But even with the smaller movement, you can get that full body engagement.



Full agreement.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 20, 2012)

MJS said:


> Twin Fist started an interesting thread over in the TKD section.  He asked if someone were to take something, call it something else, would that make that person a thief?  EX: I take kicks from TKD, locks from Aikido, punches from boxing, mix it all together, and call it something else, am I guilty of stealing?
> 
> While that thread was, at least IMO, geared mostly towards the art of TKD, it got me thinking....how many arts out there today, can we honestly say are pure or original?  Think about it...we can see a front kick in numerous arts, the difference probably only being method of execution and name.  BJJ is another example.
> 
> So, how pure are the arts?  For the record, I'm not saying he was right/wrong with his post.  I was simply reading thru it and it sparked this thread.



Right. To clear up a few things, the first thing that needs to be said is that everyone's wrong. There, I think that settles things a bit!

Okay, I'll clarify a bit.

Everyone who has said that there are no "pure" martial arts, that every art borrows from other arts, that every martial artist looks to other systems to augment, add, or influence and in other ways alter what they do, is wrong. Completely. 

That, of course though, is not an absolute either. There are certainly martial arts (and, more realistically, martial artists) that don't follow such "purity" in their training, due to their personal preference and values. Neither is better than the other, just different approaches. But let's take it back to the beginning, because I think there's a misunderstanding of what the question is actually asking in the first place... namely, I don't think the idea of what a "pure" system is, in terms of martial arts, in the first place.

The focus of the OP from MJS is centered on technical aspects, and gives the hypothetical example of someone taking disparate techniques or technical aspects of a range of different systems, and combining them. That's really not anything to do with what makes it a pure martial art or not, or even an actual one.

Now, I've said this a number of times before, but a martial art isn't it's techniques. They are simply the physical expression of what the martial art actually is. What a martial art actually is is a philosophy, a set of beliefs and values, that are then expressed in a physical way, with the physical expression having a combative element or theme. What that means, of course, is that provided the base philosophy is adhered to, the art remains "pure". It's really these differences in philosophies that separates out different arts from each other, not their techniques (that does get a little more confused in older systems... but we'll get to that). This philosophy can range wildly, with no particular approach being "normal". It might be competitive, survival, personal development, religious, political, or anything else. It may have elements of adaptation and adoption of other approaches as part of that philosophy, in which case, taking from other arts can still be "pure", for that art. The catch is, whatever the art's philosophy is, it needs to be congruent, and it needs to be adhered to. Simply using kicks from TKD, joint locks from Aikido, throws from Judo, weapon defence from Arnis, strikes from Wing Chun etc, without adaptation (in other words, transplanting them straight from the source system to the "new" one) is a deeply flawed approach, and not something I'd consider a martial art in the first place. It's just a collection of fighting techniques with no understanding.

So, in regards to the original thread (I read through that thing... the amount of incorrect understanding was rather amazing to me!), one of the big concepts was the development of a martial art. Where does something become a distinct martial system, rather than just a copy/case of "stealing" an art? Well, when there is a clear philosophical distinction between the source system and the new one. Supporters of TKD not being "stolen" cited Judo and Aikido, saying that they were the same thing as TKD's origin being from Shotokan. At this point in time, with the development of TKD itself, there's some support for that contention, however there is a huge lack of understanding as to what the development of Judo and Aikido actually was, as that was vastly different to TKD's origins and development. Namely that both Aikido and Judo were specifically developed as new arts based in a new philosophy, different and distinct from the source arts they came from. TKD, on the other hand, was an almost purely transplanted version of Shotokan (originally), with only a small amount of re-arrangement and addition of kicking methods. It was only as it developed later that it began to have it's own distinct philosophy, which was influenced greatly by the Korean government and their hand in the alterations and shaping of the art.

To go back to the OP, and take it in turn, Mike starts by asking:


MJS said:


> Twin Fist started an interesting thread over in the TKD section. He asked if someone were to take something, call it something else, would that make that person a thief? EX: I take kicks from TKD, locks from Aikido, punches from boxing, mix it all together, and call it something else, am I guilty of stealing?



That depends on your claim. If you take the individual aspects and put them together to create a new system, with a new name, that's not necessarily stealing. Especially if you state where it all came from. An argument could be made that if you claim to have invented it all yourself, that could be stealing, but honestly, if it's just physical techniques (such as individual kicks, strikes, joint locks etc), then no. You may well be less-than-honest, or lying, about your history, and where you took the techniques from, but that's not quite the same as stealing. It's not a simple distinction, really, but it's there.

The reason it's not stealing is that you're not actually taking something unique, or particular to the source school, generally speaking. I can name dozens of schools that have the same joint locks, albeit done slightly differently, or with a slight change in emphasis, or a different name, as Aikido has. What makes it Aikido isn't the joint lock, it's the overall approach, the training methodology, which are all guided by the base philosophy of Aikido. Without that crucial base philosophy, what is taken isn't Aikido, it's just techniques. If the entire training methodology is taken, the things that are uniquely Aikido, then that is where we get into "theft".

Where this is most prevalent is in Koryu. Not in actual Koryu, mind you, but in modern systems that want to be Koryu, or at least, their take on what it is. There we get groups like the "Ogawa Ryu", a modern Brazilian system who claim to be Koryu, whereas what they actually do is copy the kata of actual Koryu. Kata are far more than techniques, they are the strategies of the Ryu, a complete embodiment of the philosophy that that art has. They are "owned" by the Ryu itself, realistically, they are copyrighted actions. An individual punch, or throw might not be, but the kata, the complete strategy that uses the punch, or throw, is.

Some examples of kata theft (an unpardonable sin in the Koryu world, by the way)...





A Bujinkan split-off stealing Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu kata.





The same group stealing Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu kata. Really, they're not doing well, are they?





A Russian group known for copying Koryu kata have a go at stealing more Katori Shinto Ryu.





And another theft of Katori Shinto Ryu kata. These ones admitted to me that they basically just copied the video of Otake Sensei, and felt that made them legitimate in their practice of Katori Shinto Ryu... regardless of the fact that it shows no understanding, there are aspects missing, the kuzushi (application) is completely missing, and it's terrible. I advised them to stop claiming to teach/show/offer Katori Shinto Ryu if they really did respect it as they said, and they banned me from commenting on their you-tube page.... hmm.

The above examples are all theft, plain and simple. They are theft the same way that copying, or covering someone's song, and not paying royalties is theft. The notes aren't what you steal, it's the way they're put together.



MJS said:


> While that thread was, at least IMO, geared mostly towards the art of TKD, it got me thinking....how many arts out there today, can we honestly say are pure or original? Think about it...we can see a front kick in numerous arts, the difference probably only being method of execution and name. BJJ is another example.



Well, that's the thing, Mike, "pure" and "original" aren't the same thing. "Pure" would be "true to it's own philosophy and approach to combative problems", whereas "original" would be, in context here, uniquely developed devoid of outside influence. The argument could be made that all martial arts are "pure", and none of them are "original" in that sense.

In regards to the front kick example, there being a front kick present is really neither here nor there. The execution (and the name), though, are a reflection of the philosophy. To use a TKD front kick in, say, Wing Chun, doesn't work, as the philosophies are too different when it comes to postural concepts, power generation, angling, distancing, and so on. 



MJS said:


> So, how pure are the arts? For the record, I'm not saying he was right/wrong with his post. I was simply reading thru it and it sparked this thread.



The closer they stay to their philosophies, the more "pure" they are... and that philosophy can be one of adaptation, incorporation of new ideas, exploration, and so on (such as JKD, MMA, BJJ etc), which doesn't make them any less "pure" as a martial art. It's really only those devoid of such a philosophy that aren't "pure" (mind you, as I said, they're also not martial arts to my mind either...), or instructors/practitioners who don't understand their art and it's philosophy enough, so they bring in incongruent elements, which leads those schools to teach/practice an "impure" version of their art. Not to pick on the Akban guys again, but that's what I'm against in my comments in the "Sparring" thread (http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?21401-sparring/page12).

Now, a few things.

Mark (Shihansmurf) said:


shihansmurf said:


> I seem to recall a quote from Ed Parker about pure knuckles meeting pure flesh being pure karate.
> 
> I don't think that there is any "pure" systems out there. Punches are punches, kicks are kicks. I view the various systems as nothing more than teaching models to impart certain skills into the martial artist. Nothing more.
> 
> ...



There's a couple of things here that I'd take some issue with... firstly the comment "if we can look past our egos enough". I gotta ask, Mark, what makes it an ego thing that way? And how is it not a much bigger ego which has someone thinking they know better than an art which has existed longer than they have in most cases? That, to me, is a much more severe case of "ego" coming into play here.

Next, I feel that Ed Parker was looking for a soundbite, something that simplified things in an easily digestible mouthful. Cause, you see, he's wrong. Pure knuckles meeting pure flesh is nothing to do with Karate, pure or otherwise. It's just knuckles meeting flesh. Don't get me wrong, I get where he was going with it, the idea that the concrete reality of physical experience is required for your study of Karate to be considered "real" in any way, but the infinite number of ways knuckles can meet flesh which has nothing to do with Karate negates his statement to begin with, and the idea that that is the extent of what Karate is teaching in dealing with conflict/violence is to completely understate what Karate offers and is to the point of negating what Karate is at all.

Finally, the company of Parker, Emperado, Choi, and Lee? No, not really that impressive, honestly. Most simply repackaged things, rather than coming up with something truly new (including Bruce, by the way). There are much better cases of founders to look to for something far more impressive, but you'd need to go back a fair amount further than the last 50 years...


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 20, 2012)

Twin Fist said:


> its theft when you dont credit the source.
> 
> Kajukenbo for example, the name itself credits the source arts



I think this is the crux of the issue, particularly in the TKD section.  Some, not all Korean GM's want to portray (or have portrayed) TKD as a 2000 year old indigenous Korean martial art.  Which of course, it is not.  It is Karate with renamed or recreated forms and extra kicks.  Nothing wrong with that.  And nothing wrong with crediting the source(s).  By the way, it isn't limited to TKD, there use to be a TSD school not far from my house with a Korean GM that had the same thing on his flyer.  Again, this is some, not all.  And to be fair, there are some, not all, westerners (we call them 'Asiophiles') that do the same thing i.e. say it is something it isn't.  

As noted above, there are no pure arts.  A modern art came from something before it, which in turn came from something before it.  TKD came from Karate which came from Shuri Te which came from White Craine Gong Fu (this is a greatly simplified example).  MSK Kong Soo Do came from elements of TKD, HKD, Aikijujutsu, Chin Na, SPEAR, PCR, Boatman systems, Krav Maga, Shuri Te etc which came from Kong Soo Do & Kwan Bup which came from Shotokan, Shudokan and Shito Ryu which came from Shuri Te which came from Te which came from White Crane Gong Fu which came from something in the Middle East.  

We list it, as best as we've been able to research it, on our website because we're proud to show the lineage.

That's just the way we roll


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 20, 2012)

In regards to Chris Parker's statements, I find it very interesting.  The examples mostly given are from Japanese Koryu arts when it comes to "pure" etc.  I would agree with that, they did a very good job of not changing anything and passing on a historic system as it was originally practiced.  Now, let's apply that to the empty hand arts which is what the OP started with.

Almost every empty handed art I can think of, had it's founder cross training with other instructors or systems.  Even many of the chinese systems either took parts of a parent system and then refined it down for use (Wing Chun) or combined aspects of differing arts to form the current style (Several Preying Mantis styles).  Even the history of karate is mixed with the Okinawans taking their indiginous stuff (Te) and combining it with Chinese martial arts to form kara-te.  I don't think that the spiritual philosophy is at the core of all arts either, this was mainly added after in most except for a twisted version in Japan to get ultimate obedience from it's soliders/warriors.  

In your example, Ueshiba studied spear and swords arts along with Sumo and Daito-Ryu.  He combined these techniques to form his own martial art, it wasn't until later that he added in alot of the religious aspects from his own religious conversion.  So you have again, one person's personal journey and then looking at the final product and saying that it's the philosophy that sets it apart when it was seperate before that occured.  Same thing with Judo, that wasn't the full intention when Kano set out to create it.  Kano Jujitsu was seperate before he added in alot of the moral stuff and then renamed his own style Judo.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 20, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Finally, the company of Parker, Emperado, Choi, and Lee? No, not really that impressive, honestly. Most simply repackaged things, rather than coming up with something truly new (including Bruce, by the way). There are much better cases of founders to look to for something far more impressive, but you'd need to go back a fair amount further than the last 50 years...




I will disagree with you regarding two people

Parker took the kenpo he learned, analyzed it, stripped away what he didnt feel worked, and using a scientific method, developed a whole new art, and all new kata.

Same with Emperado and Kajukenbo. The act of taking five arts, using kenpo for the base, and taking the "puzzle pieces" if you will and creating a new whole was monumental at the time.

Choi? i agree, re-packaged

lee? did what emperado did 20 years earlier, but left his potential sources of techniques wide open. 

in fact, i would say that lee only did a half *** job compared to emperado, since lee never created a style, he copied an idea and called it good. he either didnt realize or didnt comprehend that what worked for him wouldnt work for anyone else. Thats why kajukenbo has flourished and JKD has not.


----------



## Wo Fat (Jan 20, 2012)

MJS said:


> Twin Fist started an interesting thread over in the TKD section.  He asked if someone were to take something, call it something else, would that make that person a thief?  EX: I take kicks from TKD, locks from Aikido, punches from boxing, mix it all together, and call it something else, am I guilty of stealing?
> 
> While that thread was, at least IMO, geared mostly towards the art of TKD, it got me thinking....how many arts out there today, can we honestly say are pure or original?  Think about it...we can see a front kick in numerous arts, the difference probably only being method of execution and name.  BJJ is another example.
> 
> So, how pure are the arts?  For the record, I'm not saying he was right/wrong with his post.  I was simply reading thru it and it sparked this thread.



Interesting topic.  I'd tend to agree with the underlying premise that there is little or no "purity" in that arts practiced today -- or the ones that we've learned in the last 60 to 80 years for that matter.  And that lack of purity is NOT a bad or negative thing; in fact, it's proving to be a pretty good thing in some respects.  I'm of the mind that there is no "pure" TKD or Goju or Kajukenbo or Hung Ga.  And in that respect, believe that it's fair to question the attempts to refer to one's self, one's lineage, or one's art as "pure".  I was once one of those people who professed to practice and teach an "authentic" way of my art.  But after looking into the origins, techniques and people within it, I realized that what I thought was pure and authentic was really an art that belonged to no particular person.  But that _it_ was what _it_ was and is what it is.  Had nothing to do with me.  

There's a fresh freedom that goes with knowing that few if any arts or lineages are "pure".


----------



## Black Belt Jedi (Jan 20, 2012)

I can't say how pure any Martial Art system can be. I wasn't there when such a style was created in it's pure form. I can't tell what is the real Sanseru or the real and original Kushanku kata. Karate like any other Martial Art kept on developing and evolving throughout the centuries. 

IMO, taking different techniques from various disciplines and creating you own system is not stealing. I don't consider E.W. Barton Wright to be a thief, neither is Bruce Lee a thief. They are just taking what works for them in order to develop something new. That is IMHO, a tradtional way in Martial Arts, to further upgade the training structure.


----------



## clfsean (Jan 20, 2012)

Depending on your view of things... 

Cain v Abel = Pure martial art

Monkey man with a stick v monkey man without a stick in front of the black obelisk = Pure martial art

Anything else since then... a variation.

YMMV


----------



## shihansmurf (Jan 20, 2012)

Take issue with anything you want.

First off, anyone who makes the following statements is in no position to question me in reference to any "ego" issues. Generally, its bad form to make sweeping statement like this, but I guess I don't have enough ego to assume that I know more than many of the other posters here. 



> Right. To clear up a few things, the first thing that needs to be said is that everyone's wrong. There, I think that settles things a bit!
> 
> Okay, I'll clarify a bit.
> 
> Everyone who has said that there are no "pure" martial arts, that every art borrows from other arts, that every martial artist looks to other systems to augment, add, or influence and in other ways alter what they do, is wrong. Completely.



Next. Should you take any art that you have studied and alter it, irrespective of the amount, then you are no longer pure. Assuming, that is, that you were ever that way to begin with. For all the yelping that I have heard over the years from the more traditional camp I have yet to see anything that would convince me that how you are punching and kicking and swiping a sword is the way that they did so in Japan in the 1600-s. Even if you were able to show that your methods were identical, the fact remains that the Japanese didn't invent swords nor hacking people to bits with them, therefore any of the Koryu arts are a logical extension of modifications that their founders learned before they founded their Arts. Someone taught Mushashi, after all. Unless, of course, the Art that you study was magicaly created and transmitted to the first generation of its students by the karate fairies.

Point is, purity is a myth. Iwill stand by that assertion untill I can see the solid proof of the very first martial art being transmitted intact and unchanged to a current generation of its students. Once you can provide that, I'll happily concede the point. 

Next.  My comment about "getting past our egos enough" is pretty simple. We train in an Art for several years and become emotionaly invested in it. We put it on a pedastal. The one day we run into someone from another system who shows you a way to perfom a technique in a way that is mechanically better than what you learned. Do you push aside your ego and vanity enough to embrace the more effective way or do you doggedly stick to what you have been taught? The reason I ask is because the founders of all those traditional arts certainly thought that their method was better than what they had been trained in or they wouldn't have went out on their own. I have to ask, though, does this qualify them for the following comdemnation?




> And how is it not a much bigger ego which has someone thinking they know better than an art which has existed longer than they have in most cases? That, to me, is a much more severe case of "ego" coming into play here.



Didn't Hatsumi Masaaki do much the same, or did he inherit the system from the Karate fairies? How about Stephen Hayes?  Any of the other folks running around pretending to be ninja assassins?

Itosu?

Hell, anyone after the mythical Bhoddidarma?

The martial arts is not superior to the person learning it. Everyone of the systems out there are nothing more than a set of instructions that are meaningless without someone actually performing them. Kenpo doesn't exist with out people performing it, neither does TKD, Aikido, or boxing for that matter. The only value and worth that they have is when a person follows those instructions and performs the art as filtered through them. Alone, they are non-existant. Therefore there isn't a martial art that knows more than any human being. You are anthropormorphizing an intellectual construct.

Your idea of the Art being somehow greater and more knowledgeable that the practitioners of that system is akin to saying the glass bottle that my Blue Label comes in is better than the 24 year old sctch itself. 

On that same note. Age, in and of itself, doesn't make a thing superior to another thing. People that are older than I am are demonstrateably incorrect on a lot of topics, as am I. I, for example, don't know how to change the transmission in my car. The mechanic that I take my car to is about ten years younger than I. By your reasoning, my opinion on how to perform the task at hand should be weighted more heavily as I am older, and obviously more knowledgable that he. 



> Next, I feel that Ed Parker was looking for a soundbite, something that simplified things in an easily digestible mouthful. Cause, you see, he's wrong. Pure knuckles meeting pure flesh is nothing to do with Karate, pure or otherwise. It's just knuckles meeting flesh. Don't get me wrong, I get where he was going with it, the idea that the concrete reality of physical experience is required for your study of Karate to be considered "real" in any way, but the infinite number of ways knuckles can meet flesh which has nothing to do with Karate negates his statement to begin with, and the idea that that is the extent of what Karate is teaching in dealing with conflict/violence is to completely understate what Karate offers and is to the point of negating what Karate is at all.



You could interpret it that way. I don't, but I see why you think that. I disagree, but I'm not arrogant enough to dismiss your position in a broad pronouncement from on high. 

I think that Parker meant that due to a few milenia of experimentation on the battlefield, competition ring, self devense scenarios, and in training ALL of the Arts have changed from their "original" forms. Due to this, the only test of purity that counts is efficacy. I tend to agree.

Karate, in and of itself, offers nothing at all. The teacher, training enviornment, and process of learning is what assists the student in gaining anything from training. This include, but isn't limited to, being able to fight. 




> Finally, the company of Parker, Emperado, Choi, and Lee? No, not really that impressive, honestly. Most simply repackaged things, rather than coming up with something truly new (including Bruce, by the way).



Every teacher is re-packaging things. Except, of course, for that first caveman that figured out how to whack someone with a stick then taught his buddy. After that, though, all are imitators and repackagers to various degrees. 




> There are much better cases of founders to look to for something far more impressive, but you'd need to go back a fair amount further than the last 50 years



Like whom?

Kano? Is Judo as practiced today the same as when he "originated" the art? 

Chow? Kara Ho is certainly not the same today as the material he taught Emperado and Parker. 

Anko Itosu? No, as he created the Pinans out of Kanku, obviously not. 

I wonder who could possibly meet your criteria.


Understand, though, that all of the above is simply my view on things. Insert IMO as needed. See, I fully realize that I could be wrong. I am very solidly convinced of my positions in this matter, though. 

Just a thought,

Mark


----------



## shihansmurf (Jan 20, 2012)

Chris,

I suck at the quote thing.

I accidentaly deleted the opening quote.

Apologies.

Mark


----------



## shihansmurf (Jan 20, 2012)

I would think that there are a lot of JKD schools and practitioners out there that would disagree with the notion that JKD hasn't flourished. 

In all fairness though, JKD is a broad spectrum ranging from those that think that only what Lee taught while he is really JKD to the other end that feels that following the traininng concepts laid out by Lee are JKD as well.

I tend to agree with the latter camp so my perception of how well the JKD movement has thrived could be a bit skewed.

Mark


----------



## Buka (Jan 20, 2012)

"Pure" is an interesting term. It probably means different things to different people. If "pure" means the way an art was originally put together.....then does that mean that hundreds of years of practice and combat can't offer some improvement in that original art by the very practitioners who spent their lives studying it? I don't mean wide, sweeping changes, I mean small subtle ones. I'm not sure that any traditional art is done exactly the way it was done hundreds of years ago. I really have no way of knowing that. I'd like to think that the famous Masters taught their students with all their heart and soul. And I'd like to think that a great deal of the art dealt with self defense. *IF* that is so - 

Times have changed. As have societies and people. I'd like to think that if the Masters of the past were suddenly transported to the "here and now" and they had at their disposal all the knowledge that we have at our disposal today, they would create, or recreate, their original art in slightly different ways.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 21, 2012)

punisher73 said:


> In regards to Chris Parker's statements, I find it very interesting.  The examples mostly given are from Japanese Koryu arts when it comes to "pure" etc.  I would agree with that, they did a very good job of not changing anything and passing on a historic system as it was originally practiced.  Now, let's apply that to the empty hand arts which is what the OP started with.



Hmm, I'm not sure you read it properly. I don't use Koryu until the 11th paragraph, and even then, only as an example of what would be considered "stealing" in martial arts. Then I don't discuss them again. Yes, the videos were Koryu (well, no, they weren't, they were thefts from Koryu), but that was to make that point. The main arts I dealt with were TKD, Aikido etc, sticking with Mike's original post.



punisher73 said:


> Almost every empty handed art I can think of, had it's founder cross training with other instructors or systems.  Even many of the chinese systems either took parts of a parent system and then refined it down for use (Wing Chun) or combined aspects of differing arts to form the current style (Several Preying Mantis styles).  Even the history of karate is mixed with the Okinawans taking their indiginous stuff (Te) and combining it with Chinese martial arts to form kara-te.  I don't think that the spiritual philosophy is at the core of all arts either, this was mainly added after in most except for a twisted version in Japan to get ultimate obedience from it's soliders/warriors.


 
Again, I don't think you've read it properly. There was no mention of a "spiritual philosophy" being at the core of all arts, but there was mention of a base philosophy being the core of all arts (a different one for each art, obviously), as that is the reality. A philosophy is by no means necessarily "spiritual", it's simply a coherent and congruent collection of beliefs and values, which might be based around a series of beliefs about methods of training to generate success in MMA competition, and values that state that success in MMA competition is the aim. And there's no problem with the idea of founders of systems cross-training first, that's pretty much to be expected. But it in no way makes the resultant system "less pure", if the new art has it's own congruent and coherent philosophy, which distinguishes it from other arts, and the source arts themselves. 



punisher73 said:


> In your example, Ueshiba studied spear and swords arts along with Sumo and Daito-Ryu.



Yep, including Yagyu Shinkage and Kukishin Ryu.



punisher73 said:


> He combined these techniques to form his own martial art, it wasn't until later that he added in alot of the religious aspects from his own religious conversion.



The religious aspect wasn't what made it a separate martial art, it was the base philosophies that separated it from Daito Ryu. That was to do with the structure and methodology that Ueshiba employed, which itself developed as time went on, including the later addition of the Buddhism (Omoto Kyo sect) aspects. Although I might add that the Kukishin Ryu, who Ueshiba was associated with, already had their religious aspects very well integrated into their teachings, including the martial ones, and Ueshiba had already been exploring such a melding, including entering into such an idea with the Kuki family. They were instrumental in the formation of Takemusu Aikido (the organisation).



punisher73 said:


> So you have again, one person's personal journey and then looking at the final product and saying that it's the philosophy that sets it apart when it was seperate before that occured.



No, I'm looking at what martial arts are, and recognizing that. You missed what I said, so I'd suggest going back and re-reading it. I never said that philosophies are static either, I must say. Particularly in their early development, such things tend to change, however they change in a natural fashion, organically, not by just lumping techniques from different incongruent systems, which would not be following the philosophy.



punisher73 said:


> Same thing with Judo, that wasn't the full intention when Kano set out to create it.  Kano Jujitsu was seperate before he added in alot of the moral stuff and then renamed his own style Judo.



We could have a long discussion as to what Kano was doing when he developed what would later be known as Kodokan Judo, but again you've missed the point. He was developing his own expression and take on what he thought was the most important, for a range of reasons, which reflected his beliefs and values.... you know, his philosophy.



shihansmurf said:


> Take issue with anything you want.



Ha, nothing to take issue with, Mark. I do love a good informed argument.



shihansmurf said:


> First off, anyone who makes the following statements is in no position to question me in reference to any "ego" issues. Generally, its bad form to make sweeping statement like this, but I guess I don't have enough ego to assume that I know more than many of the other posters here.



Yeah, I saw how that could read, and, honestly, kept it in that way deliberately. Mainly because I enjoyed the contrast. Then again, I still feel that everyone is wrong in that regard, and it's continued since.  And, for the record, I wasn't wanting to infer anything about your particular ego, more about your comment about ego stopping people from cross-training, as that can be far from the reality in a large number of situations.



shihansmurf said:


> Next. Should you take any art that you have studied and alter it, irrespective of the amount, then you are no longer pure. Assuming, that is, that you were ever that way to begin with. For all the yelping that I have heard over the years from the more traditional camp I have yet to see anything that would convince me that how you are punching and kicking and swiping a sword is the way that they did so in Japan in the 1600-s. Even if you were able to show that your methods were identical, the fact remains that the Japanese didn't invent swords nor hacking people to bits with them, therefore any of the Koryu arts are a logical extension of modifications that their founders learned before they founded their Arts. Someone taught Mushashi, after all. Unless, of course, the Art that you study was magicaly created and transmitted to the first generation of its students by the karate fairies.



Right. Lots of misunderstandings and errors in this, as well as completely irrefutable statements. Let's start, shall we?

A martial art is it's philosophy. That philosophy forms the approach of the art, including it's techniques and training methods. Provided an art stays within that philosophy, it remains pure. Some philosophies will include the idea of not changing things at all, others will have a philosophy of constant adaptation and evolution. Seriously, I said that already, you guys did read before arguing, didn't you? The point is that altering it doesn't stop it being "pure", if that's what the art has as part of it's entire concept in the first place.

Next, the "yelping". Hate to tell you, but there's quite a lot of evidence that classical Ryu are still using the exact same training methods and kata that they were in the beginning. It's an unavoidable part of the teachings of a number of them, including Musashi's Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, by the way. So yes, the way a sword is swung in Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, or Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, is the same way that it was done hundreds of years ago. All this is very well documented within the Ryu themselves.

When it comes to the idea that "the Japanese didn't invent swords", who on earth said they did?!? And that's completely irrelevant as well, frankly. We're not talking about who invented a sword, we're talking about purity in martial systems, which in swordsmanship would refer to approaches of using the sword, not who used it first. As I said, "pure" and "original" aren't the same thing.

When it comes to your comments about "Someone taught Musashi, after all" and "unless the art was magically created and transmitted to the first generation".... uh, Musashi was well known to have minimalist training, and quite a number of systems do claim to be divinely given to the founders. So you're out on both counts, there.



shihansmurf said:


> Point is, purity is a myth. Iwill stand by that assertion untill I can see the solid proof of the very first martial art being transmitted intact and unchanged to a current generation of its students. Once you can provide that, I'll happily concede the point.



To be frank here, Mark, you seem to have a rather odd idea of what "purity" means. Again, I suggest reading through my post a little more closely. When discussing "purity" in the martial arts "pure" doesn't mean that it is the original, first martial art, and nothing else fits the description. It means that the art remains true to what the art is, so the first thing to realize is what makes a martial art, then look at what it would mean to be true to that.

But in terms of an art being transmitted intact and unchanged from it's founding to a current generation? The two I just mentioned would pass muster there, I feel. Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu was passed on on the condition that it remain unchanged. Part of the philosophy of Katori Shinto Ryu includes the belief that it was divinely transmitted from the Deity of Katori Shrine, so to change it would be considered sacriligeous, and is not done. Those arts date from the early 17th Century and mid 15th Century respectively.



shihansmurf said:


> Next.  My comment about "getting past our egos enough" is pretty simple. We train in an Art for several years and become emotionaly invested in it. We put it on a pedastal. The one day we run into someone from another system who shows you a way to perfom a technique in a way that is mechanically better than what you learned. Do you push aside your ego and vanity enough to embrace the more effective way or do you doggedly stick to what you have been taught? The reason I ask is because the founders of all those traditional arts certainly thought that their method was better than what they had been trained in or they wouldn't have went out on their own. I have to ask, though, does this qualify them for the following comdemnation?



Your take on the traditional arts founders is a fair bit off for the most part, by the way, especially where Japanese systems are concerned (Koryu etc).

Honestly Mark, I understood that. The issue, though, is that if the other method is mechanically better, then the mechanics are different to your art. If you honestly feel that the new method is better, stop training your art and pick up the other one. There are reasons your original art does things the way they do, so you either embrace that, or you don't. There are reasons the other system does things the way it does. There are reasons they're different. Taking a different mechanical approach (for a similar technique) is honestly just going to weaken both your original art and your new expression of the technique, and the reason is to feel that you're better at it. That's an ego issue, frankly. Far more than staying true to your system and trusting what it teaches is.

If you have a complete understanding of your system (and I do mean a complete understanding here.. you'd need to be able to look at the other approach and say why your system does it the way it does, why it doesn't do it the apparently "more effective" way, and understand the implications that that has), then you might be able to look at, say, a different arts way of doing a side kick, and incorporate it, or change the way you do it, but odds are, you wouldn't. You would be able to see why it doesn't work in your system. And if it doesn't work in your system, adding it won't do a thing, as you need the entire system to be congruent, and a mechanically different approach to a single kick won't be. You'd find yourself doing it the way your original system says, or, even worse, half way between the two. Thinking you know better than the art before getting that complete understanding is absolutely ego.

If you're training in a martial art to learn that martial art, other approaches are of no real consequence, so you wouldn't be bringing them in. If you're training in a martial art to be a "fighter", and are just concerned with what you think works, that's nothing to do with being a martial artist, or even learning martial arts, but you'd also be concerned with finding a congruent training approach, so outside methods would be eschewed. They could lead to adaptation within your own art, but then again, looking for "how to fight" approaches (which are always contextually driven, by the way, what is "effective" in one area isn't necessarily in another) will include such adaptation in it's philosophy and training methodology, hence it being part of the art already, and not something that would engender such emotional investment to single ideas.



shihansmurf said:


> Didn't Hatsumi Masaaki do much the same, or did he inherit the system from the Karate fairies? How about Stephen Hayes?  Any of the other folks running around pretending to be ninja assassins?



Please. Hatsumi still states that he is teaching what he learnt from his instructor, Takamatsu, and when it comes to the traditional material, he is. But based on his understanding of each of those systems, knowing why it does what it does, he has also developed his own approach to martial arts, known as Budo Taijutsu. Steve Hayes has developed a modern approach to combat and self defence he calls Toshindo based in the strategies and some mechanical aspects of the traditional material as well, but he has not decided that the traditional systems need spinning hook kicks, or anything similar, because "they're effective". Why? Because he has enough understanding of the art in the first place.



shihansmurf said:


> Itosu?



Itosu was looking to popularise the art in Japan, and didn't add anything that went against the art he was teaching. One of his major contributions was to create a new series of kata (based on existing kata, so not drawing from anything outside of the art) specifically to increase their popularity by providing methods for kids to train in, and offering it to the Japanese government.



shihansmurf said:


> Hell, anyone after the mythical Bhoddidarma?



Seriously? I really don't think you get what I said. What I said was it was a major case of ego if you decide that you know better than the system you're training in as to what that system should do, and how it should do it. I don't even know what Bhoddidarma is doing in this conversation.... 



shihansmurf said:


> The martial arts is not superior to the person learning it. Everyone of the systems out there are nothing more than a set of instructions that are meaningless without someone actually performing them. Kenpo doesn't exist with out people performing it, neither does TKD, Aikido, or boxing for that matter. The only value and worth that they have is when a person follows those instructions and performs the art as filtered through them. Alone, they are non-existant. Therefore there isn't a martial art that knows more than any human being. You are anthropormorphizing an intellectual construct.



And you're missing the point again. Tell you what, re-read your own words there, and you may see what I'm actually saying....

Did you spot it? It was when you said "The only value and worth that they have is when a person follows those instructions and performs the art as filtered through them"... There was no attempt to anthropomorphize the martial arts, what I was saying was that the arts have been passed down based on the experience, knowledge, time, effort, and, in some cases, deaths and blood of those who have come before you. By saying "hey, you're doing it wrong, this other art does a different thing with their kicks", you're basically saying that the experience, knowledge, and understanding of those before you doesn't come into it. You know better, because you've come across something different. Well, who says you weren't just doing the kicks wrong in your own system first, and that's why the other one seems more effective? Who says that you haven't just met an insanely talented person who could make Ashida Kim's "system" work? Who says you understand the kicks in your system, and why they're done the way they are enough to say that another approach is better? Who says you have that kind of experience and understanding?

That's what I was getting at.  



shihansmurf said:


> Your idea of the Art being somehow greater and more knowledgeable that the practitioners of that system is akin to saying the glass bottle that my Blue Label comes in is better than the 24 year old sctch itself.



Not in the slightest. It's like saying that the guys who have been making and bottling that scotch for the last 250 years are going to know more than the guy who's taking a tour of the distillery. 



shihansmurf said:


> On that same note. Age, in and of itself, doesn't make a thing superior to another thing. People that are older than I am are demonstrateably incorrect on a lot of topics, as am I. I, for example, don't know how to change the transmission in my car. The mechanic that I take my car to is about ten years younger than I. By your reasoning, my opinion on how to perform the task at hand should be weighted more heavily as I am older, and obviously more knowledgable that he.



Age? No. Experience? Yep. You may be older than the mechanic, but I'm willing to be he's got far more experience at changing transmissions than you. Now, are you going to go up to him and tell him you came across a better way to do it? No, because you respect that he knows what he's doing, based on his experience. Why wouldn't you think this is the same?



shihansmurf said:


> You could interpret it that way. I don't, but I see why you think that. I disagree, but I'm not arrogant enough to dismiss your position in a broad pronouncement from on high.



What I was saying was that I feel that Ed Parker had a much deeper understanding of karate than that limited and, honestly, very lacking platitude showed. 



shihansmurf said:


> I think that Parker meant that due to a few milenia of experimentation on the battlefield, competition ring, self devense scenarios, and in training ALL of the Arts have changed from their "original" forms. Due to this, the only test of purity that counts is efficacy. I tend to agree.



When dealing in the details of martial arts, I tend not to. I actually put that on the backseat, in terms of relevance. If that was all that was important, I might as well go around hitting people in the head with a sack full of bricks, and claiming mastery of karate. Efficacy in context, however, and I'd start to agree. But that context needs to be understood first.



shihansmurf said:


> Karate, in and of itself, offers nothing at all. The teacher, training enviornment, and process of learning is what assists the student in gaining anything from training. This include, but isn't limited to, being able to fight.



Now this I'd have a large disagreement with. Mainly as I consider the teacher, the material, the training methods and environment, the learning process etc a large part of what Karate offers (or any art, really).



shihansmurf said:


> Every teacher is re-packaging things. Except, of course, for that first caveman that figured out how to whack someone with a stick then taught his buddy. After that, though, all are imitators and repackagers to various degrees.



I feel you rather missed what I was saying there, as, honestly, no. There's a world of difference between copying an idea (hitting another caveman with a stick), and repackaging (coming up with a new presentation) of a systematic approach.



shihansmurf said:


> Like whom?
> 
> Kano? Is Judo as practiced today the same as when he "originated" the art?
> 
> ...



You're still thinking too "young"...

Musashi Miyamoto Shinmen no Fujiwara.

Iizasa Choisai Ienao.

Takenouchi Hisamori.

Takagi Oriuemon.

Takagi Ummanosuke.

Bokuden Tsukahara.

Muso Gonnosuke.

But that's my background, and, believe it or not, I haven't wanted to turn this into a Koryu discussion. 



shihansmurf said:


> Understand, though, that all of the above is simply my view on things. Insert IMO as needed. See, I fully realize that I could be wrong. I am very solidly convinced of my positions in this matter, though.
> 
> Just a thought,
> 
> Mark



Understood, and I'm rather convinced of mine as well. The above is more based on observation than opinion, though (except, obviously, where I'm saying who I would look to for impressive founders).



shihansmurf said:


> Chris,
> 
> I suck at the quote thing.
> 
> ...



Ha, no problem, I could follow along fine.


----------



## kbarrett (Jan 21, 2012)

I think all the MA are prue to their nature, the comcept borrowing something from another style and adding to your own style has been around ever since martial arts have been around, it's nothing new. Ken


----------



## shihansmurf (Jan 22, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Ha, nothing to take issue with, Mark.


Chris,

I have a feeling that you and I are approaching the Arts from different enough perspectives that we aren't going to agree on this topic. Be that as it may, I'm enjoying the verbal sparring so to continue...



> A martial art is it's philosophy. That philosophy forms the approach of the art, including it's techniques and training methods. Provided an art stays within that philosophy, it remains pure. Some philosophies will include the idea of not changing things at all, others will have a philosophy of constant adaptation and evolution. Seriously, I said that already, you guys did read before arguing, didn't you? The point is that altering it doesn't stop it being "pure", if that's what the art has as part of it's entire concept in the first place.



 You, as an individual, my distinguish between "pure" and "original" but the vast majority of the martial arts worls doesn't. I don't really have a disagreement with anything that you wrote in the above, except to say that preserving anything in the martial arts merely for the sake of doing so in the face of clearly superior methods is absurd. I'll address that more as the post develops.

I did read what you wrote and I realized after rereading my post that I was riffing on the idea in general and not in specific with your posts. Apologies.



> Next, the "yelping". Hate to tell you, but there's quite a lot of evidence that classical Ryu are still using the exact same training methods and kata that they were in the beginning. It's an unavoidable part of the teachings of a number of them, including Musashi's Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, by the way. So yes, the way a sword is swung in Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, or Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, is the same way that it was done hundreds of years ago. All this is very well documented within the Ryu themselves.



I am aware of the evidence. I don't accept the objectivity of those claims as readily as the traditional schools would like, but I am aware of the claims. Even if it is true, historical recreation isn't an interest of mine, but I can see how it appeals to others. IF, however, we were to find a measurable way to improve the performance of the sword swing that was objectively better than the way that it was done 400 years ago should we cling doggedly to the old way for the sake of purity or creating a facimile of the initial way?



> When it comes to the idea that "the Japanese didn't invent swords", who on earth said they did?!? And that's completely irrelevant as well, frankly. We're not talking about who invented a sword, we're talking about purity in martial systems, which in swordsmanship would refer to approaches of using the sword, not who used it first. As I said, "pure" and "original" aren't the same thing.



You and I might agree on the "pure" and "original" dichotomy but the majority of the ma world doesn't. As to the "japanese didn't invent swords" comment I thought the meaning and implication were clear.

Given that they aren't the first culture to utilize those weapons, then any system or method that they developed for doing so was naturaly based off of an earlier school of knowledge. They took and changed the material to adapt it for their needs, as well they should. Attempting to use the Koryu arts as a model to be emmulated as a hallmark of "purity" is, at its foundation, silly. They weren't pure from the begining, being as they were distillizations of earlier knowledge.



> When it comes to your comments about "Someone taught Musashi, after all" and "unless the art was magically created and transmitted to the first generation".... uh, Musashi was well known to have minimalist training, and quite a number of systems do claim to be divinely given to the founders. So you're out on both counts, there.



Minimalist training, but training nonetheless. Point is, if he applied the "system is superior to the individual" idea then he wouldn't have developed what he did. He still didn't magically create his system out of thin air.  No one ever has.



> But in terms of an art being transmitted intact and unchanged from it's founding to a current generation? The two I just mentioned would pass muster there, I feel. Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu was passed on on the condition that it remain unchanged. Part of the philosophy of Katori Shinto Ryu includes the belief that it was divinely transmitted from the Deity of Katori Shrine, so to change it would be considered sacriligeous, and is not done. Those arts date from the early 17th Century and mid 15th Century respectively.



Superstition doesn't equate with historical fact. Simply because a Japanese guy thought that the karate fairies came down and planted the idea into his head for a super cool new way to slice people up with a sword doesn't make it factual. Hell, there are a few websites out there where they claim that Aliens taught them martial arts. Both hold the same water, as far as I am concerned.

Even with that, I don't believe that those arts have remained unchanged. Each individual that performes the movements do so slightly differently as a matter of their anatomy and psychology. Again, you and I might see the difference in the "purity" vs "oniginality" concept but most don't.



> Honestly Mark, I understood that. The issue, though, is that if the other method is mechanically better, then the mechanics are different to your art. If you honestly feel that the new method is better, stop training your art and pick up the other one. There are reasons your original art does things the way they do, so you either embrace that, or you don't. There are reasons the other system does things the way it does. There are reasons they're different. Taking a different mechanical approach (for a similar technique) is honestly just going to weaken both your original art and your new expression of the technique, and the reason is to feel that you're better at it. That's an ego issue, frankly. Far more than staying true to your system and trusting what it teaches is.
> 
> If you have a complete understanding of your system (and I do mean a complete understanding here.. you'd need to be able to look at the other approach and say why your system does it the way it does, why it doesn't do it the apparently "more effective" way, and understand the implications that that has), then you might be able to look at, say, a different arts way of doing a side kick, and incorporate it, or change the way you do it, but odds are, you wouldn't. You would be able to see why it doesn't work in your system. And if it doesn't work in your system, adding it won't do a thing, as you need the entire system to be congruent, and a mechanically different approach to a single kick won't be. You'd find yourself doing it the way your original system says, or, even worse, half way between the two. Thinking you know better than the art before getting that complete understanding is absolutely ego.



This defines the crux of our disagreement. You view the martial art systems quite differently than I do.

The way I see it, taking a martial art is like taking a math class. The textbook is really important but the ultimate aim is to develop and internalize the information contained in the book to a level that you surpass the need for the text as anythin other than a reference. The way you're describing it, the book is the important thing. 

A better way to phrase it is this.

Karate doesn't exist as a thing in and of itself. It can't know more than I do as it isn't a real thing outside of the people performing it. I have instructors that are more knowledgeable than I but even with them the fact remain that they are not all knowing. They can, in point of fact, be wrong.

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

The systems are there to teach you certain skills. They are teaching models. Intellectual constructs designed to pass on information. Many who came before me as well as many who will come after will refine those methods, as well they should. Blindly accepting that the system knows better than I is a sign of intellectual laziness. Test your methods, see if they work. If not, then figure out why.

Sometimes, as you say, you don't have a deep enough understanding of the material. Other times it is because the material itself isn't that effective. Don't be to egotistical to look at a body of information and method of execution that you are emotionaly invested in and replace it with something that works better. In order to do that you have to be humble enough to admit to yourself that what you have spent all this time learning and internalizing isn't the pinnacle of the Arts and adapting to better ways.

I would argue that we derive a greater sense of hubris from associating with schools and systems because it gives us bragging rights due to the systems age/fame of the founder/ reputation than it takes to admit that we may have invested in something that doesn't work for what we are wantint to train for.

Just a thought.



> If you're training in a martial art to learn that martial art, other approaches are of no real consequence, so you wouldn't be bringing them in. If you're training in a martial art to be a "fighter", and are just concerned with what you think works, that's nothing to do with being a martial artist, or even learning martial arts, but you'd also be concerned with finding a congruent training approach, so outside methods would be eschewed. They could lead to adaptation within your own art, but then again, looking for "how to fight" approaches (which are always contextually driven, by the way, what is "effective" in one area isn't necessarily in another) will include such adaptation in it's philosophy and training methodology, hence it being part of the art already, and not something that would engender such emotional investment to single ideas.



Yes and no. 

I don't feel that there is an inherently superior status of "martial artist" as opposed to "fighter". Terms like "purity", "original", traditional, and the like are great buzzwords that , I feel, are of little use to developing the skillset that the martial arts teaches. 

That being said(and its more of a general point in the discussion and not a specific reply to your point), knowing what you are training for and what result you are wanting to achieve for training is indispensible. Most arts can be readily adapted to competition fighting just as more "sport oriented" arts can be adapted for effetive street self defense skills. I would argue that it isn't the system but rather the individual fighter, that matters in each case given that they will have gone though the process of testing their material and adopting different methods as appropiate.

Question is, are they still doing their base art? I think so, as each of us are steadily creating our own individual martial art. I don't do Shotokan when I am throwing a reverse punch. I'm not boxing when I throw a jab. I'm not doing JKD when I do a trap/hit combo. I learned those things from those Arts, but I'm just Mark throwing a revers punch/jab/trap-hit combo.

Once I've internalized those skills they belong to me, not the people that taught me and certainly not the systems they used to train me.

That seems to be the argument here. I say the man is more important than the system, you seem to see it the other way around. Different strokes.



> Age? No. Experience? Yep. You may be older than the mechanic, but I'm willing to be he's got far more experience at changing transmissions than you. Now, are you going to go up to him and tell him you came across a better way to do it? No, because you respect that he knows what he's doing, based on his experience. Why wouldn't you think this is the same?



If I found an objectively better way to change that transmission, then yes I would. I'd be polite about cause thats just the way I am, but appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

The young man in the example isn't right because he is a mechanic, rather he is a mechanic because he is probably right more ofter than not in this subject. His experience, knowledge, and wisdom, will not refute an objectively provable fact.

The martial arts are the same way. 



> You're still thinking too "young"...
> 
> Musashi Miyamoto Shinmen no Fujiwara.
> 
> ...



Now you're the one thinking "young"

Ortugg, Neaderthall founder of mounted axe head fighting.

Glagu, Australopithicus founder of smashing people with stones.

Ook-ook-meep, Ancient chimpanzee master of poo flinging.

If there is such a thing as the original martial arts it would be them.

Everbody since then has been imitating and repackaging, or at least adapting to fit with the realities of the enviornment that they are in.



> The above is more based on observation than opinion



As was this.

We have obviously different experiences in the martial arts and it informs our world view. As I stated at the begining, we are unlikely to see eye to eye on this. No worries.

Just my view,
Mark


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 22, 2012)

You won't find any pure martial systems out there.  Over time even if an instructor who inherited a system does not make major changes you will find differences in their approach and teaching.  Though most systems go through some radical transformation over time with things being added and taken out or new perspective.  Any system that does not have addition or subtraction or difference in influence from someone teaching it is probaly not worth studying as it has more than likely degraded to theory only.  If your not advancing and improving a system then what is the point?  Things are not the same even twenty years ago in the Martial Sciences.  Let alone three or four hundred years ago.  While we as a species have remained physically the same over a long period of time the advances in science and training have improved dramatically.  Every system should take advantage of this!  Just watch sports science and one of their episodes on the Martial Sciences and you will see on many levels proven scientic examples that were not even available to us ten years ago.  

So no there are no pure systems not even ones founded by a systems creator within a few years time.  People learn and people make changes!  That is the nature of people!  Change is hard but everyone needs to learn how to deal with it!


----------



## Cyriacus (Jan 22, 2012)

How pure are they?
Zilch.
Does it matter?
Not really.


----------



## MJS (Jan 23, 2012)

Flying Crane said:


> There is some material in our system that was adopted from elsewhere by prior generations, some of it is stuff my sifu brought in from his early studies, as his first sifu was accomplished in another system and my sifu learned some of that from him. Sifu acknowledges where it came from, and certain things were adjusted to make it fit appropriately within how things are done in my system.
> 
> There are some things that didn't really get entirely adjusted properly to follow our sysetematic methods. This is material that my sifu has stated he doesn't really like very well. He does't like it because it doesn't fit the way our system as a whole functions. The material has other benefits and that's why it is kept, but it's just not a favorite because it sort of goes against the grain.
> 
> ...



Good points!  And as long as things are acknowledged as to where they came from, I dont see anything wrong with adding them in.


----------



## MJS (Jan 23, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Right. To clear up a few things, the first thing that needs to be said is that everyone's wrong. There, I think that settles things a bit!
> 
> Okay, I'll clarify a bit.
> 
> ...



I'm going to agree/disagree with some of this Chris.  While you say that its not the techs, but instead the philosophy...well, I highly doubt that even in the same art, g that every single person is doing things the same way, despite the philosophy.  I said the same thing you just did, in my opening post, when I talked about method of execution.  I think TF was basically talking about not giving credit where its due.  It I took Kenpo techs, and Arnis locks, made up my own art, without giving the credit.....well, I believe thats what he was talking about.  

Regarding this:



> Well, that's the thing, Mike, "pure" and "original" aren't the same thing. "Pure" would be "true to it's own philosophy and approach to combative problems", whereas "original" would be, in context here, uniquely developed devoid of outside influence. The argument could be made that all martial arts are "pure", and none of them are "original" in that sense.



I suppose they can be similar.  Yeah, they're different in a sense, but the same, in a way.  Let me ask you this...when the Jinenkan and Genbukan were formed, are you saying that neither was influenced by the Bujinkan?  

As for Emperado...I think thats an insult to Kaju Chris.  But if you think about it....Hapkido and Aikido could be repacked.  Same types of locks, just different names and ways to perform them.


----------



## puunui (Jan 23, 2012)

MJS said:


> Kajukenbo is a perfect example of that.  5 founders, 5 different arts, training together, taking the best of each, and blending them into 1 new art.




Actually it wasn't five different arts and five founders in Kajukenbo. There was Peter Choo, who did american boxing ("Bo" stands for american boxing, not chinese boxing), Kodenkan jujutsu, judo and Kenpo, Joe Holck who did Judo and Kodenkan Jujutsu, Frank Ordonez who did kodenkan jujutsu and a little american boxing, and Adriano Emperado who did kenpo. George Chang (not Clarence) did not do martial arts but instead was a photographer who took the pictures of the techniques. They did blend it into a new art though.


----------



## puunui (Jan 23, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Supporters of TKD not being "stolen" cited Judo and Aikido, saying that they were the same thing as TKD's origin being from Shotokan. At this point in time, with the development of TKD itself, there's some support for that contention, however there is a huge lack of understanding as to what the development of Judo and Aikido actually was, as that was vastly different to TKD's origins and development. Namely that both Aikido and Judo were specifically developed as new arts based in a new philosophy, different and distinct from the source arts they came from. TKD, on the other hand, was an almost purely transplanted version of Shotokan (originally), with only a small amount of re-arrangement and addition of kicking methods. It was only as it developed later that it began to have it's own distinct philosophy, which was influenced greatly by the Korean government and their hand in the alterations and shaping of the art.



I don't really agree with your assessment of taekwondo's developmental path, at least when compared to Aikido, but that's ok. What I wanted to ask you is do you think taekwondo "pure" now, given its development over the last 68 years?


----------



## puunui (Jan 23, 2012)

Kong Soo Do said:


> I think this is the crux of the issue, particularly in the TKD section.  Some, not all Korean GM's want to portray (or have portrayed) TKD as a 2000 year old indigenous Korean martial art.  Which of course, it is not.  It is Karate with renamed or recreated forms and extra kicks.



Not really but that's ok. I would say that most taekwondo practitioners are unclear about the historical origin of their arts because they didn't ask their teachers and it wasn't important to them, at least when they were practicing in Korea under their Korean teachers. Back when these Korean practitioners were training, one didn't ask their teachers such questions. In many cases, they didn't even know their teacher's first names. Then when they came to the United States, they had their american students make up a school pamphlet or other school handouts, and those students in turn copied off of General Choi's books or Corcoran and Farkas' Encyclopedia and put the 2000 year old thing in, without understanding what the 2000 year thing actually was. The original instructor from Korea did not know the history and frankly didn't care, just like the Okinawan teachers did not know the history of their own art, and didn't really care either.


----------



## puunui (Jan 23, 2012)

shihansmurf said:


> Your idea of the Art being somehow greater and more knowledgeable that the practitioners of that system is akin to saying the glass bottle that my Blue Label comes in is better than the 24 year old sctch itself.



I thought blue was 60 years old. That's what leo mcgarry said on a west wing episode. I always keep at least two bottles in the house, one open, one not.


----------



## puunui (Jan 23, 2012)

MJS said:


> Good points!  And as long as things are acknowledged as to where they came from, I dont see anything wrong with adding them in.



I think it depends on what your goal is. In that I do agree with Mr. Parker that certain arts have certain philosophy or themes, which may be counter productive. For example, an MMA guy adding in hook swords to his style may not be the best fit philosophically.


----------



## puunui (Jan 23, 2012)

MJS said:


> I'm going to agree/disagree with some of this Chris.  While you say that its not the techs, but instead the philosophy...well, I highly doubt that even in the same art, g that every single person is doing things the same way, despite the philosophy.  I said the same thing you just did, in my opening post, when I talked about method of execution.  I think TF was basically talking about not giving credit where its due.  It I took Kenpo techs, and Arnis locks, made up my own art, without giving the credit.....well, I believe thats what he was talking about.



And to the topic of giving credit, in taekwondo for example, it depends on who you ask as to which answer you will get. If you ask one of the kwan founders, they will openly speak about their experiences in Japan (if you approach them in the proper way of course).


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 24, 2012)

puunui said:


> Not really but that's ok. I would say that most taekwondo practitioners are unclear about the historical origin of their arts because they didn't ask their teachers and it wasn't important to them, at least when they were practicing in Korea under their Korean teachers. Back when these Korean practitioners were training, one didn't ask their teachers such questions. In many cases, they didn't even know their teacher's first names. Then when they came to the United States, they had their american students make up a school pamphlet or other school handouts, and those students in turn copied off of General Choi's books or Corcoran and Farkas' Encyclopedia and put the 2000 year old thing in, without understanding what the 2000 year thing actually was. The original instructor from Korea did not know the history and frankly didn't care, just like the Okinawan teachers did not know the history of their own art, and didn't really care either.



With respect, yes really but that's also okay 

All I can tell you is that every time I've seen the '2000 year old indigenous Korean martial art' be it TKD or TSD, it was a Korean saying it and not an American.  But that is also okay, we all can't know everyone.  

In regards to Okinawan teachers not knowing their history, this is incorrect.  Many have written extensively on the subject and knew their lineage and history.  Uechi Ryu is a fine example.


----------



## MJS (Jan 24, 2012)

puunui said:


> Actually it wasn't five different arts and five founders in Kajukenbo. There was Peter Choo, who did american boxing ("Bo" stands for american boxing, not chinese boxing), Kodenkan jujutsu, judo and Kenpo, Joe Holck who did Judo and Kodenkan Jujutsu, Frank Ordonez who did kodenkan jujutsu and a little american boxing, and Adriano Emperado who did kenpo. George Chang (not Clarence) did not do martial arts but instead was a photographer who took the pictures of the techniques. They did blend it into a new art though.



http://www.kajukenboinfo.com/kajukenbohistory.html

Kajukenbo is a prime example of American ingenuity. It is also America's first martial art system, having been founded in 1949 in the U.S. Territory of Hawaii. One of today's foremost instructors in kajukenbo is Gary Forbach from San Clemente, California. According to him, kajukenbo's inception came about in 1947 when five Hawaiian martial arts masters calling themselves the "Black Belt Society" started on a project to develop a comprehensive self defense system. These five men of vision were Peter Choo, the Hawaii welterweight boxing champion, and a Tang Soo Do black belt. Frank Ordonez, a Sekeino Jujitsu black belt. Joe Holck, a Kodokan Judo black belt. Clarence Chang, a master of Sil-lum Pai kung fu. And Adriano D. Emperado, a Kara-Ho Kenpo black belt and Escrima master. 

I dont do Kajukenbo.  However, John Bishop, whos page I took this from, is a member here.  I'll defer any Kaju related questions to him.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 24, 2012)

i do not believe this is correct.


----------



## MJS (Jan 24, 2012)

Twin Fist said:


> i do not believe this is correct.



What?  The Kaju info. I posted?


----------



## shihansmurf (Jan 24, 2012)

puunui said:


> I thought blue was 60 years old. That's what leo mcgarry said on a west wing episode. I always keep at least two bottles in the house, one open, one not.



Blue Label Johnnie Walker is 24. I don't know if Johnnie sells anything older. I'm more of a Balvienie and McCalan fan. I much perfer single malts to blended.


Mark


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 24, 2012)

MJS said:


> What?  The Kaju info. I posted?


oh no, YOU were right


----------



## Jenna (Jan 24, 2012)

I think purity in many things implies quality or greater wholesomeness or integrity.  I think in the case of martial arts it is a squabbling point that sometimes misses the wood for the trees.  I think if it was not for all the myriad stages of plagiarism and dilution of martial material down through the aeons, none of us would be practicing and enjoying ANY of the arts we are doing.  

In answer to MJS original question, I would say that I think *purity in martial arts is overrated* and I am grateful for adulteration of martial styles


----------



## puunui (Jan 24, 2012)

MJS said:


> I dont do Kajukenbo.  However, John Bishop, whos page I took this from, is a member here.  I'll defer any Kaju related questions to him.



I went to college with Professor Peter Choo's son (also named Peter) as well as Kevin Funakoshi (son of Sensei Kenneth Funakoshi, one of the first Kajukenbo black belts). We used to play cards at lunch everyday. Then one day an article about Sijo Emperado came out in Inside Kung Fu I think. I mentioned that article, and they started ripping in about all of the inaccuracies. I later met the co-founders through Peter and also Professor Walter Godin and they confirmed what Peter and Kevin were saying that day. Professor Frank Ordonez for  example, has never heard of Sekeino Jujutsu and therefore never studied  that. He told me directly that he studied Kodenkan Jujitsu at the Kaheka Lane dojo under Professor Sam Luke. If you have any information on that art, please let me know and I will be sure to pass it on to him. Professor Choo said that he was a boxer in the US Army and studied Kodenkan Jujitsu with Professor Luke and Kenpo Karate with Professor Thomas Young, who taught a class out of the Kaheka Lane Kodenkan dojo. Professor Choo said he never studied Tang Soo Do, but did study taekwondo in the 1960s when he was stationed in Korea. He was also a big Aikido fan and studied that when he was stationed in Japan, again in the 60s. When they created the Black Belt Society, they said it was an inside joke because they were all white belts at the time, except for Professor Holck. Even Sijo Emperado was a white belt at the time, studying with Professor Chow. In fact, there is a very beautiful portrait of Sijo in his white uniform and white belt that Professor Ordonez has. Professor Holck is half japanese and had a japanese last name, but they changed it to his mother's maiden name after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. They were all friends from Farrington High School, except for Professor Holck, I think grew up in Kailua. He came in the group because he was the cousin of Professor Choo's wife. 

I believe Professor Bishop knows all of this and more, but for his own reasons has that other information on his webpage. Not for me to judge or criticize him for what he does or doesn't do. Kajukenbo is a rich and very interesting art for me, which I never studied. But I did grow up very close to both the Palama Settlement and Nuuanu YMCA as well as the original Queen Emma Street dojo of Professor Mitose, about one mile down the Pali Highway from all of that, in Puunui. 

But finding out about kajukenbo's history through the co-founders themselves was my motivation to study korean martial arts history by seeking out the founders and hearing it from their own mouths and showing me using their own photo albums and documents. So I am grateful to kajukenbo and the co-founders for steering me on the path that I follow to this day. In that way, I guess I did learn from them the key concept of getting it from the horse's mouth.


----------



## MJS (Jan 24, 2012)

Twin Fist said:


> oh no, YOU were right



No problem.   Since you're probably one of the few Kaju folks that actively post here, perhaps you could help clarify the debate.


----------



## puunui (Jan 24, 2012)

shihansmurf said:


> Blue Label Johnnie Walker is 24. I don't know if Johnnie sells anything older. I'm more of a Balvienie and McCalan fan. I much perfer single malts to blended.



Good choices. Can't go wrong with single malt.


----------



## puunui (Jan 24, 2012)

MJS said:


> Since you're probably one of the few Kaju folks that actively post here, perhaps you could help clarify the debate.



What debate? 

But in any event, that's why I don't get all excited when I read some "official" webpage about history. If you wish to get the real scoop, do what Professor Bishop and others do and get it directly from the source. Often times much different than the generic message meant for the masses. 

We can talk about GM Ed Parker too if you want, although I don't know if you are going to like what I have to say. My uncle was "locker" member of the Nuuanu YMCA and was training with Professor Chow in the 1950s when GM Parker used to infrequently come to visit for short periods and train.


----------



## MJS (Jan 24, 2012)

puunui said:


> What debate?



I don't want to speak for him, but I got the impression that Twin Fist was disputing what you said.  As I said, I'm not Kaju.  However, I figured that since Prof. Bishop had this stuff on his site, that what he listed, would be correct.  FWIW, I wasn't disputing what you were saying.  I'm just looking for facts, thats all. 




> We can talk about GM Ed Parker too if you want, although I don't know if you are going to like what I have to say. My uncle was "locker" member of the Nuuanu YMCA and was training with Professor Chow in the 1950s when GM Parker used to infrequently come to visit for short periods and train.



LOL...fire away.   Trust me sir, I doubt you'll offend me.  Why?  Because I myself, have questioned things many times, and I'm more than sure I've pissed off my fair share of Kenpoists, but thats fine.  I have my views, they have theirs.  If they dont agree with mine, I could care less....I'm more than happy with my thoughts on the art.  

Anyways, I'd be happy to hear what you have to say.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 24, 2012)

I will let Prof Bishop reply if he so chooses, but i will say that i have never heard a version of kaju history that matches puunui's post

ever


----------



## MJS (Jan 24, 2012)

Twin Fist said:


> I will let Prof Bishop reply if he so chooses, but i will say that i have never heard a version of kaju history that matches puunui's post
> 
> ever



Neither have I....and hopefully Prof. Bishop will reply.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 24, 2012)

MJS said:


> Good points! And as long as things are acknowledged as to where they came from, I dont see anything wrong with adding them in.



At some point tho, I believe it just becomes what it is, at least if it was well integrated.  I believe Choy Lay Fut was developed from a combination of things learned by the founder, including Northern Shaolin.  People recognize the history, but at this point it's just CLF.  I don't believe people distinguish what elements came from which parent art, at least not in the sense of needing to avoid plagiarism issues.  Same thing with Fut Gar, I believe was derived from a blending of Hung Gar and something else.  But at this point I doubt any Fut Gar people distinguish much, other than on an academic level.  It's now Fut Gar, and nobody's afraid to call it that for plagiarism issues.

Sometimes things are adopted into a system where it's just really coming from a different approach and (in my opinion at least) maybe those blends don't always make a lot of sense.  If someone adopts a famous kata from one system into their curriculum, for example, then I think it makes sense to recognize where it came from and that it was adopted/borrowed/cannibalised.

If someone attempted to take credit for creating such a kata tho, people would see thru it in an instant esp. if it was a famous kata.  There's enough people out there who know what they are talking about that such a deception would not get very far.


----------



## puunui (Jan 24, 2012)

MJS said:


> LOL...fire away.   Trust me sir, I doubt you'll offend me.  Why?  Because I myself, have questioned things many times, and I'm more than sure I've pissed off my fair share of Kenpoists, but thats fine.  I have my views, they have theirs.  If they dont agree with mine, I could care less....I'm more than happy with my thoughts on the art.   Anyways, I'd be happy to hear what you have to say.



Well, as I said, my uncle was a long time member of the Nuuanu YMCA, which was right down the road from our houses (we lived next door to each other). He trained with Professor Chow during the 50's and introduced Professor Chow to his wife Patsy. So Professor Chow was very grateful to my uncle. Professor Chow and his wife would always visit my uncle's house for dinner and try and get us kids to train with him. But frankly, when we were kids, Professor Chow looked kind of scary, so we weren't so interested. Besides, we were taking other martial arts as well. But anyway, when the subject of GM Ed Parker came up, it always came out that he trained very very little with Professor Chow. I think he trained a little with Professor Chow before he moved to Utah for college, was on his mormon mission and then the coast guard. So he was hardly around. I think they said that EP made it officially to blue belt under Professor Chow. In the photos that GM Parker has in his infinite insights volume 1, GM Parker is wearing his blue belt in that photo. My uncle is in the first row on the left with the widow's peak forehead. I heard that Professor Chow, after much begging, allowed GM Parker to wear a black belt on the mainland, because he had a club going in Utah at school. When he moved to Los Angeles, GM Parker did keep in touch with Professor Chow through correspondence and sent some small money to Professor Chow every now and then. Professor Chow had letters from GM Parker saved from the 50s and 60s, pleading poverty because of this or that. Those letters were stuck in between issues of old Black Belt magazines that Professor Chow had saved in beer boxes in his garage, covered with canvas. I would say Professor Chow had a love hate relationship with GM Parker, more hate than love. I think Professor Chow resented GM Parker for what he felt was using his name to legitimize what he was doing, which Professor Chow felt had almost nothing to do with his art. Professor Chow said that GM Parker's style was mostly some "chop suey" combination of kung fu that he learned when he moved to Los Angeles, and that the only thing that was his was the name. When Professor Chow passed away, GM Parker did show up to the funeral crying, so there is that. I think it was a complicated love hate relationship.


----------



## puunui (Jan 24, 2012)

Twin Fist said:


> I will let Prof Bishop reply if he so chooses, but i will say that i have never heard a version of kaju history that matches puunui's post
> 
> ever



How deeply have you researched kajukenbo's history? I don't really have any reason to fabricate this, and if you choose not to believe me, then that's cool. But that's what the co-founders said to me, confirmed with photographs. They took a lot of pictures of everything, because Mr. Chang was a photographer. He's still alive by the way, as far as I know. He didn't die in "the war", which I believe is what Sijo stated in that Inside Kung Fu interview by Professor Gary Forbach. Peter and Kevin are still my friends, if you have any questions, and I can ask them. I took shotokan from Kevin's father and Kevin and Peter went to high school together.


----------



## puunui (Jan 24, 2012)

MJS said:


> Neither have I....and hopefully Prof. Bishop will reply.



The reason why it doesn't match is because all the histories of kajukenbo all revolve around the same stuff repeated over and over. But think about it. "Walter" Choo could not have learned "Korean Tang Soo Do" in 1947 when the Black Belt Society was created, because he was born in the United States, did not speak Korean, and was living in Hawaii. When did he get the chance to go to Korea, 1946? I don't think so. Professor Choo is Korean through his parents, his father Peter YY Choo the first was on the ship of first to come to Hawaii to work on the plantations, in 1905 I want to say, but does that make what he learned from Professor Young "Korean Karate" such that we can claim the addition of kicks in Kajukenbo? Ka and Ken are from the same arts, Kenpo Karate, which makes sense when you think about it. And what is Sekeino Jujitsu? Anyone have any information on that? Things like that.


----------



## John Bishop (Jan 25, 2012)

puunui said:


> I went to college with Professor Peter Choo's son (also named Peter) as well as Kevin Funakoshi (son of Sensei Kenneth Funakoshi, one of the first Kajukenbo black belts). We used to play cards at lunch everyday. Then one day an article about Sijo Emperado came out in Inside Kung Fu I think. I mentioned that article, and they started ripping in about all of the inaccuracies. I later met the co-founders through Peter and also Professor Walter Godin and they confirmed what Peter and Kevin were saying that day. Professor Frank Ordonez for  example, has never heard of Sekeino Jujutsu and therefore never studied  that. He told me directly that he studied Kodenkan Jujitsu at the Kaheka Lane dojo under Professor Sam Luke. If you have any information on that art, please let me know and I will be sure to pass it on to him. Professor Choo said that he was a boxer in the US Army and studied Kodenkan Jujitsu with Professor Luke and Kenpo Karate with Professor Thomas Young, who taught a class out of the Kaheka Lane Kodenkan dojo. Professor Choo said he never studied Tang Soo Do, but did study taekwondo in the 1960s when he was stationed in Korea. He was also a big Aikido fan and studied that when he was stationed in Japan, again in the 60s. When they created the Black Belt Society, they said it was an inside joke because they were all white belts at the time, except for Professor Holck. Even Sijo Emperado was a white belt at the time, studying with Professor Chow. In fact, there is a very beautiful portrait of Sijo in his white uniform and white belt that Professor Ordonez has. Professor Holck is half japanese and had a japanese last name, but they changed it to his mother's maiden name after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. They were all friends from Farrington High School, except for Professor Holck, I think grew up in Kailua. He came in the group because he was the cousin of Professor Choo's wife.
> 
> I believe Professor Bishop knows all of this and more, but for his own reasons has that other information on his webpage. Not for me to judge or criticize him for what he does or doesn't do. Kajukenbo is a rich and very interesting art for me, which I never studied. But I did grow up very close to both the Palama Settlement and Nuuanu YMCA as well as the original Queen Emma Street dojo of Professor Mitose, about one mile down the Pali Highway from all of that, in Puunui.
> 
> But finding out about kajukenbo's history through the co-founders themselves was my motivation to study korean martial arts history by seeking out the founders and hearing it from their own mouths and showing me using their own photo albums and documents. So I am grateful to kajukenbo and the co-founders for steering me on the path that I follow to this day. In that way, I guess I did learn from them the key concept of getting it from the horse's mouth.



I agree with probably 80% of what you have written.  Over the last 60+ years there have been a number of inaccuracies concerning the history of Kajukenbo that have been handed down from generation to generation.  
As stories get told over and over, some things get changed, exaggerated, left out, forgotten, or added in.   Most are just minor honest mistakes and misunderstandings.  Some were innocent exaggerations to make the Kajukenbo legend seem bigger then it really was.  And a few were exaggerations to make a individual's legend bigger then it really was.  Often times by others after that person had passed.  And a very few were just plain malicious lies.
In researching my first book, and several magazine articles over the years, I spent a lot of one on one time discussing Kajukenbo history with Sijo Emperado.  In person, and in letters and phone calls.  In the last years of his life, he was spending several months a year in Hawaii visiting friends and relatives.  So a lot of my last discussions with Sijo were by letters.  Because I was writing a book that would take a long time to compile, I started attaching questionnaires to my letters, so my questions were clear, and Sijo could easily answer them in his own words.  These questionnaires also provided me a record of history written in Sijo's own hand.
In addition, I have 4 video taped interviews of Sijo.  Two of those interviews also include one or 2 of the other founders.  Sijo did 3 in the 1980's.  One for Panther Productions.  Another with Sijo, Peter Choo, and Joe Holck in Hawaii.  And another with Sijo, and Joe Holck in Arizona.  Also, in the 1990's, there's the one I personally did with Sijo.
From interviews and statements from Sijo, Peter Choo, and Joe Holck, here are their answers on the following topics.   


*The "karate" in Kajukenbo is Tang Soo Do. 

Yes and no.  Peter Choo said that he had some training from his father in Korean martial arts.  This was prior to the official founding of Tang **Soo Do in 1945.  Many say Tang Soo Do is just renamed Shotokan, since Korea was a Japanese Colony from around 1905-1945.  In reality many Korean martial arts were combined with other arts, refined, and renamed.  Tang Soo Do-So Bak Do was a early name used by several Korean Kwans.  It is unknown if the Korean art Peter Choo had learned from his father was one of the one's that was later united under the "Tang Soo Do" banner.**
I asked Sijo how Peter Choo could be a tang soo do practitioner, since Tang Soo Do was not founded until 1945.  His response was: "Peter Choo knew Korean karate, everybody called Korean karate Tang Soo Do."  Which makes sense, since Tang Soo Do had been the official name for the Korean striking and kicking arts at the time.  The names "Tae Kwon Do", "Hapkido", "Kuk Soo Won" were not commonly used until the 60's.    


The five founders (Black Belt Society) of Kajukenbo were black belts. 

During the time of 1947 thru 1949, the only founders who were black belts were Sijo in Kenpo, and Joe Holck in Danzan Ryu Jujitsu. 
Around 1952, Joe Holck also received his black belt in Kodokan Judo.
George Chang had some kung fu training, but kung fu did not have belt ranks at the time.  And from some accounts, George Chang did not continue with martial arts training after the Korean War.  
Peter Choo had some Korean martial arts training as a child from his father.  He was also a proficient boxer, and had some training in both Kenpo, and Danzan Ryu jujitsu.  After the Korean War, Choo was stationed in Korea, Okinawa, and Japan during his military career.  He continued with his martial arts training, and earned black belts in Aikido, Tae Kwon Do, and Shorinji Ryu Karate.  His aikido black belt came from Koichi Tohei, and his Tae Kwon Do (Tang Soo Do at the time) black belt came from Joon Rhee.  
Frank Ordonez had some training in Kodokan Judo, Danzan Ryu jujitsu, and Kenpo, at the time of the founding of Kajukenbo. 


They trained together everyday for 3 years.

At first for a while, but Sijo and Joe Holck said after that they trained "whenever they could get together".  And sometimes not all of them were together.  Four of them were still in the Army in 1947-48, so they weren't able to get together "everyday".    
The main players on the mat were Emperado, Choo, and Holck.  Ordonez and Chang participated some, but spent a lot of time recording the system and techniques in writing and photos.    

The "Bo" in Kajukenbo was for Chinese Boxing (kung fu).   

Yes and no.  Four of the 5 founders (Emperado, Choo, Ordonez, Holck) were boxers (western boxing).  The 5th founder was a kung fu stylist (Sil-lum Pai).  Techniques from both Chinese Boxing and western Boxing found their way into Kajukenbo.  But since martial arts were considered "Asian" at the time, the western boxing influence and escrima influence were not emphasized at the time.  
*
*George Chang was killed in the Korean War.
*
*In 1950, the 5 founders were separated by military and work obligations.  It was rumored that George Chang had been reported "missing in action" in the Korean War.  The founders were geographically separated and not really in communication with each other for around 30 years.  The only founder who had stayed with Kajukenbo from day one, was Emperado.  Not hearing anything over the years about Chang, Emperado and others assumed that he had died in the war.  
There was a lot of shocked people when Chang showed up at Peter Choo's funeral in 1997.  After the war he returned to Hawaii, but never became involved in the martial arts again.  He died for real in 2003.*


----------



## puunui (Jan 25, 2012)

John Bishop said:


> I agree with probably 80% of what you have written.



That's more than most people who were anxiously waiting for your reply was expecting. Sometimes people have to hear it from one of their own before they accept and believe something. Thanks for your response. Some questions and comments though.





John Bishop said:


> From interviews and statements from Sijo, Peter Choo, and Joe Holck, here are their answers on the following topics.



How come you didn't interview Professor Ordonez? To me, he is the original kajukenbo historian. I would think you would want to speak to him first.




John Bishop said:


> Peter Choo said that he had some training from his father in Korean martial arts.  This was prior to the official founding of Tang Soo Do in 1945.  Many say Tang Soo Do is just renamed Shotokan, since Korea was a Japanese Colony from around 1905-1945.  In reality many Korean martial arts were combined with other arts, refined, and renamed.  Tang Soo Do-So Bak Do was a early name used by several Korean Kwans.  It is unknown if the Korean art Peter Choo had learned from his father was one of the one's that was later united under the "Tang Soo Do" banner. I asked Sijo how Peter Choo could be a tang soo do practitioner, since Tang Soo Do was not founded until 1945.  His response was: "Peter Choo knew Korean karate, everybody called Korean karate Tang Soo Do."  Which makes sense, since Tang Soo Do had been the official name for the Korean striking and kicking arts at the time.  The names "Tae Kwon Do", "Hapkido", "Kuk Soo Won" were not commonly used until the 60's.



Some quick comments. Did Professor Choo specify what exactly his father taught him? It couldn't have been tang soo do because that term was not invented until 1944, when GM LEE Won Kuk created it. Also Peter Choo the first could not have taught his son Tang Soo Do, because he couldn't have learned Tangsoodo, or karate. As stated previously, Mr. Choo came on the first shipload of native Koreans to Hawaii in 1905, five years before the Japanese occupation started, in 1910. And everybody did not call korean karate "Tang Soo Do", because that term was not known in the west until 1956, when the first American, Master Dale Doulliard, began studying it at Yong San. Mr. Doullilard became the first American to receive a black belt in any korean martial art in 1957, when he received 1st Dan from the Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan. Master Droullilard is alive and still lives in Michigan. 


John Bishop said:


> George Chang had some kung fu training, but kung fu did not have belt ranks at the time.  And from some accounts, George Chang did not continue with martial arts training after the Korean War.



I was told he had zero training and in any event, he did not participate at all in the creation of kajukenbo outside of photographing the techniques for the original manual. He was a photographer in the US Army. Therefore it is misleading to include him and siulumpai as the basis for "bo", especially since there were so many others who did american or western boxing, which did play a heavy role in the creation of kajukenbo techniques. Siulumpai did not come to Hawaii until 1962, through Master Buck Sam Kong. That was and still is the name of his organization, siulumpai. So that is probably where Sijo got the term siulumpai from, from Sifu Buck Sam Kong, who was maybe the most famous kung fu practitioner in hawaii back in the 60s and 70s. 




John Bishop said:


> Peter Choo had some Korean martial arts training as a child from his father.  He was also a proficient boxer, and had some training in both Kenpo, and Danzan Ryu jujitsu.  After the Korean War, Choo was stationed in Korea, Okinawa, and Japan during his military career.  He continued with his martial arts training, and earned black belts in Aikido, Tae Kwon Do, and Shorinji Ryu Karate.  His aikido black belt came from Koichi Tohei, and his Tae Kwon Do (Tang Soo Do at the time) black belt came from Joon Rhee.



Professor Choo was NOT a black belt in Taekwondo, and did NOT study under GM Jhoon Rhee. In fact, Professor Choo showed me his taekwondo rank card, 1st guep (1st kyu in japanese) from a taekwondo kwan whose name I did not recognize. I remember the card was dated in the 1960s and Professor Choo said he received that when he was stationed in Korea.




John Bishop said:


> Frank Ordonez had some training in Kodokan Judo, Danzan Ryu jujitsu, and Kenpo, at the time of the founding of Kajukenbo.



Professor Ordonez said that he had some boxing training as well, but was not as accomplished at Professor Choo, who was the best boxer of the group. 




John Bishop said:


> In 1950, the 5 founders were separated by military and work obligations.  It was rumored that George Chang had been reported "missing in action" in the Korean War.  The founders were geographically separated and not really in communication with each other for around 30 years.  The only founder who had stayed with Kajukenbo from day one, was Emperado.  Not hearing anything over the years about Chang, Emperado and others assumed that he had died in the war.  There was a lot of shocked people when Chang showed up at Peter Choo's funeral in 1997.  After the war he returned to Hawaii, but never became involved in the martial arts again.  He died for real in 2003.



I attended Professor Choo's funeral and no one was in shock when Mr. Chang showed up. My understanding was the Professor Choo and Mr. Chang kept in touch over the years. Professor Choo's son told me that Mr. Chang was alive back when we were in college in the early 80s. Also, I have seen photos of Professors Choo and Ordonez wearing uniforms at the Palama Settlement school in the 60s for sure, so the statement about everyone losing touch for 30 years is incorrect.


----------



## John Bishop (Jan 25, 2012)

puunui said:


> That's more than most people who were anxiously waiting for your reply was expecting. Sometimes people have to hear it from one of their own before they accept and believe something. Thanks for your response. Some questions and comments though.
> 
> 
> How come you didn't interview Professor Ordonez? To me, he is the original kajukenbo historian. I would think you would want to speak to him first.



I wrote to him several times in the 80's early 90's (pre-internet), but he never returned any of my letters.  I don't really know how much of a historian he could be, since he was not actively involved in Kajukenbo from around 1958 to the 90's.  He may have visited people or communicated with people during that time, but he or any of the other founders (besides Emperado) did not have a active part in Kajukenbo after the 50's.  You also have to remember that after 1960, most of the activity and seniors in Kajukenbo moved to the mainland.  
When my first book came out in 2006, he did write to me a couple times, and verified the information that I had written.  One of his letters is in the 3rd edition.
Now that Emperado has died, he has taken a more active role with his own organization.



puunui said:


> Some quick comments. Did Professor Choo specify what exactly his father taught him? It couldn't have been tang soo do because that term was not invented until 1944, when GM LEE Won Kuk created it. Also Peter Choo the first could not have taught his son Tang Soo Do, because he couldn't have learned Tangsoodo, or karate. As stated previously, Mr. Choo came on the first shipload of native Koreans to Hawaii in 1905, five years before the Japanese occupation started, in 1910. And everybody did not call korean karate "Tang Soo Do", because that term was not known in the west until 1956, when the first American, Master Dale Doulliard, began studying it at Yong San. Mr. Doullilard became the first American to receive a black belt in any korean martial art in 1957, when he received 1st Dan from the Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan. Master Droullilard is alive and still lives in Michigan.



Like I said, he did not train in Tang Soo Do prior to his military service in Korea.  It was just Korean martial arts, and they used the name Tang Soo Do, for lack of a better description.  
I'm sure you know that many parts of the Asian culture arrived in Hawaii long before making it to the mainland.  I'm not saying the actual art of Tang Soo Do was being taught in Hawaii in 1950, but it's very possible that the Korean community in Hawaii knew of the name and art.  On at least 2 occasions I heard Joe Holck say that Choo was "Korean Karate-Tang Soo Do".  And Holck was the one who came up with the "Kajukenbo" name.  He was also Peter Choo's cousin by marriage. 




puunui said:


> I was told he (Chang) had zero training and in any event, he did not participate at all in the creation of kajukenbo outside of photographing the techniques for the original manual. He was a photographer in the US Army. Therefore it is misleading to include him and siulumpai as the basis for "bo", especially since there were so many others who did american or western boxing, which did play a heavy role in the creation of kajukenbo techniques. Siulumpai did not come to Hawaii until 1962, through Master Buck Sam Kong. That was and still is the name of his organization, siulumpai. So that is probably where Sijo got the term siulumpai from, from Sifu Buck Sam Kong, who was maybe the most famous kung fu practitioner in hawaii back in the 60s and 70s.



This is from a biography on George Chang, which was written by Frank Ordonez:

_"He contributed the "BO" in the KaJuKenBo system known as the Chinese Boxing - Gung-Fu style.   
His family, friends, and co-founders know him as a refined individual, a outstanding martial artist and Korean War veteran.  
At the early age of twelve, George spent a few years in his father's native land, the province of Kwangtung, prior to World War II.  
While in China he got his initial start in the "hard / soft" system of Sil Lum Kung-FU (Shaolin).  
He retuned to Honolulu in 1941 when Hawaii was U.S. territory and not yet a state.  
Chang then furthered his Chinese style knowledge under the late Wong Kok Fut."  _



puunui said:


> Professor Choo was NOT a black belt in Taekwondo, and did NOT study under GM Jhoon Rhee. In fact, Professor Choo showed me his taekwondo rank card, 1st guep (1st kyu in japanese) from a taekwondo kwan whose name I did not recognize. I remember the card was dated in the 1960s and Professor Choo said he received that when he was stationed in Korea.



He stated in a video taped interview at Turtle Bay (Hi) in the early 90's, that he trained with Jhoon Rhee when he was in the Army stationed in Korea, (1953-55).  He said that Jhoon Rhee was a Korean Army Officer at the time.  He did not say if Rhee was his primary instructor, but he did say that he trained with him.  And he said that he received black belts in Tae Kwon Do, (in Korea), Aikido (in Japan), and Shorinji Ryu Karate (in Okinawa).  He may have told you different, but that's what I have on tape.        




puunui said:


> Professor Ordonez said that he had some boxing training as well, but was not as accomplished at Professor Choo, who was the best boxer of the group.



Correct.  Emperado and Holck (aka: Joichi Matsuno) had boxed as teenagers.  Peter Choo and Frank Ordonez both boxed on the same Army boxing team in Hawaii, that was coached by Thomas Toyama.  Toyama has been called by some the "unofficial 6th founder".  



puunui said:


> I attended Professor Choo's funeral and no one was in shock when Mr. Chang showed up. My understanding was the Professor Choo and Mr. Chang kept in touch over the years. Professor Choo's son told me that Mr. Chang was alive back when we were in college in the early 80s. Also, I have seen photos of Professors Choo and Ordonez wearing uniforms at the Palama Settlement school in the 60s for sure, so the statement about everyone losing touch for 30 years is incorrect.



The pictures that I have seen were from the late 50's at a belt test.  If they are the pictures that Walter Godin had, one in particular is misidentified.  The man that is said to be Choo, is actually Paul Yamaguichi.  And Godin is receiving his blue belt, not black belt.  
It's very well known that after the 50's, the only founder that was actively involved in Kajukenbo was Emperado.  Emperado always referred to Chang as "Frank Ordonez's friend".  He did not know him very well, and had no communication with him after 1950.  Since the other founders were also gone, he only heard rumors about Chang.  First that he was "missing in action".  Then that he had died.    
Between 1956 (after Woodrow McCandless died) and 1958, Ordonez did help on occasion at the Palama Settlement school.  But mostly Joe Emperado, Sijo Emperado, and Pauly Soronio taught there.  Choo, Chang, and Holck were in the service at various locations.  
After getting out of the service, Joe Holck settled in Tucson, Arizona.  He had a very illustrious career in jujitsu and judo.  Emperado moved permanently to California in around 1980-81.  After 1950, the 5 founders were never together as a whole group again.  And after 1958, Emperado was the only founder who actively taught and propagated Kajukenbo.  
Around 1988, Emperado was at a event in Tucson, Az., hosted by Vince Black.  Joe Holck was also invited.  In a video taped interview at the event, Holck and Emperado said that it was the first time they had seen each other in over 30 years.  
Around 1990, Emperado, Holck, and Choo, were brought together for a Kajukenbo event at Turtle Bay, Hawaii.  Vince Black also video taped a interview with them on that occasion.  
And in June of 1996, Emperado, Choo, Holck, and Ordonez, were brought together for the annual KSDI Tournament that was held in San Jose, Ca.  After that, Ordonez and Holck (Choo passed away in 97) would occasionally attend the Las Vegas KSDI tournament.


----------



## puunui (Jan 25, 2012)

John Bishop said:


> I wrote to him several times in the 80's early 90's (pre-internet), but he never returned any of my letters.  I don't really know how much of a historian he could be, since he was not actively involved in Kajukenbo from around 1958 to the 90's.  He may have visited people or communicated with people during that time, but he or any of the other founders (besides Emperado) did not have a active part in Kajukenbo after the 50's.  You also have to remember that after 1960, most of the activity and seniors in Kajukenbo moved to the mainland.



It is true that Sijo and his brother were the main ones who carried on with Kajukenbo. All the co-founders acknowledge that. And I don't know how active Professor Ordonez was in Kajukenbo past the 60's. I think when Joe Emperado passed away, Professor Ordonez lost some interest in Kajukenbo. I would disagree though that "most of the activity and seniors moved to the mainland. Many did not. Sid Ascuncion, Marino Tiwanak, etc. stayed. Kajukenbo has always had a large presence here, and still does. But Professor Ordonez and a lot of documentation in the form of photos, papers, letters, etc. all neatly kept in an album which he shows to the public, and more stuff that is more private. If I were you, I would keep trying to build a relationship with him while maintaining a respectful attitude towards him. He might end up giving you the keys to the kingdom. 




John Bishop said:


> When my first book came out in 2006, he did write to me a couple times, and verified the information that I had written.  One ofIt his letters is in the 3rd edition. Now that Emperado has died, he has taken a more active role with his own organization.



I would keep trying to build something with him. I think it is worth it, given your interest in kajukenbo history. Go see for yourself and use your own judgment, which seems to be your approach so far. There might be a natural hesitation because you are from the mainland, and there have been a lot of people who some feel took advantage of Sijo and other kenpo pioneers over the years. But maintain your sincerity and things may happen. I sent GM LEE Won Kuk a christmas card for five or ten years before he sent me one back with his business card in it, asking me to contact him.  




John Bishop said:


> Like I said, he did not train in Tang Soo Do prior to his military service in Korea.  It was just Korean martial arts, and they used the name Tang Soo Do, for lack of a better description.  I'm sure you know that many parts of the Asian culture arrived in Hawaii long before making it to the mainland.  I'm not saying the actual art of Tang Soo Do was being taught in Hawaii in 1950, but it's very possible that the Korean community in Hawaii knew of the name and art.  On at least 2 occasions I heard Joe Holck say that Choo was "Korean Karate-Tang Soo Do".  And Holck was the one who came up with the "Kajukenbo" name.  He was also Peter Choo's cousin by marriage.



I was told Peter Choo came up with the name. Professor Holck just might be passing along that often repeated "tang soo do korean karate" thing that is out there. From my understanding, there wasn't any free flow of travel between Korea and Hawaii among korean citizens, at least not during the period from 1945-50. I will try and look into it if you want. 




John Bishop said:


> _"He contributed the "BO" in the KaJuKenBo system known as the Chinese Boxing - Gung-Fu style.
> His family, friends, and co-founders know him as a refined individual, a outstanding martial artist and Korean War veteran.
> At the early age of twelve, George spent a few years in his father's native land, the province of Kwangtung, prior to World War II.
> While in China he got his initial start in the "hard / soft" system of Sil Lum Kung-FU (Shaolin).
> ...



I think he might have been just being nice, regarding that kung fu experience. But even if Mr. Chang had kung fu knowledge, the fact remains that kung fu, while big in some branches of kajukenbo now, played a very small, if any, part in the development of original kajukenbo. You admitted that in your earlier post. 





John Bishop said:


> He stated in a video taped interview at Turtle Bay (Hi) in the early 90's, that he trained with Jhoon Rhee when he was in the Army stationed in Korea, (1953-55).  He said that Jhoon Rhee was a Korean Army Officer at the time.  He did not say if Rhee was his primary instructor, but he did say that he trained with him.  And he said that he received black belts in Tae Kwon Do, (in Korea), Aikido (in Japan), and Shorinji Ryu Karate (in Okinawa).  He may have told you different, but that's what I have on tape.



He told me that the card he had was a 1st degree, but it said guep on it, which is a kyu or color belt rank, and not black belt. I was thinking of giving him a kukkiwon dan certificate or a higher honorary degree, so he could have an official one, to tell you the truth. 




John Bishop said:


> The pictures that I have seen were from the late 50's at a belt test.  If they are the pictures that Walter Godin had, one in particular is misidentified.  The man that is said to be Choo, is actually Paul Yamaguichi.  And Godin is receiving his blue belt, not black belt.



It was part of that photo album that Professor Ordonez has. 




John Bishop said:


> It's very well known that after the 50's, the only founder that was actively involved in Kajukenbo was Emperado.  Emperado always referred to Chang as "Frank Ordonez's friend".  He did not know him very well, and had no communication with him after 1950.  Since the other founders were also gone, he only heard rumors about Chang.  First that he was "missing in action".  Then that he had died.



ok. Perhaps the reason why Sijo referred to him as Clarence instead of George is because he didn't know him so well. Clarence is his step son's name, not Mr. Chang's. 



John Bishop said:


> Around 1988, Emperado was at a event in Tucson, Az., hosted by Vince Black.  Joe Holck was also invited.  In a video taped interview at the event, Holck and Emperado said that it was the first time they had seen each other in over 30 years.



Is that the context of the 30 years comment? If so, that clarifies things.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 25, 2012)

Twin Fist said:


> its theft when you dont credit the source.
> 
> Kajukenbo for example, the name itself credits the source arts


I am quoting you because I know exactly what you are referring to and because your comments are the impetus for this thread.

If I learn how to perform a rotating punch in Shotokan and how to perform turning kicks from taekwondo, and the various blocks from either/or, and some locks and throws from hapkido, put them together in a coherent way and call it "Dankenpo," I am not stealing, even if I do not say where I learnt the individual techniques from.  So while not theft, it is disingenuous on certain level.

Now, if I throw in Taegeuk pumse and Heian kata, *then* it is stealing.  If I claim that I made up the forms or create a bogus history for my art and claim that a bogus founder created the forms, then I am lying and stealing.

Generally, I find that when you say that the TKD pioneers 'stole' from other arts, that you are not correct in this.  In the transition from whatever the original kwans called what they were doing (Tang Su Do, Kong Su Do, and Kwon Beop if I remember correctly) to Taekwondo, the pioneers created the Palgwe forms from scratch, then replaced those forms with the Taegeuk Pumse a few years later.  

The kicks and punches are just kicks and punches, and I suspect that punches with a rotating fist and high kicking were all in Korea before the establishment of Shotokan and the Japanese occupation.  The sparring rules in WTF, like them or not, are unique to taekwondo and cannot be said to have been stolen from karate.  Since they created their own forms, those aren't stolen.

As far as the history is concerned, reading it carefully, it is apparent that they are retrofitting the term 'taekwondo' to to include *all *Korean striking arts so as to tie modern taekwondo to pre-occupation striking arts in Korea.  

This is no different than if I were to call all European striking arts, regardless of the time period, kickboxing even though the term did not exist until the 1970's. 

Really, Shotokan's biggest contribution to taekwondo that *could not have come from techniques that were already known in Korea *was the kyu/dan system and rank belts.  Which of course were culled from Judo by Funakoshi.

The Japanese occupation did play a large role in the formation of the kwans and the introduction of the arts of judo and kendo to Korea, and aside from a brief reference to it happening prior to the establishment of modern taekwondo, that role is not discussed in the official KKW history.  Nor would I expect it to be.

There are many things that I agree with you about but your assessment of taekwondo in this regard is one place where I will have to agree to disagree.  I will leave it to you, Glenn, and those interested to hash out how much of taekwondo is actually based on Shotokan over in the TKD section where there are no less than five threads at any given time that touch on the subject.

Now, if you bring up the Haidong Gumdo historical accounts of the Samurang, I will definitely agree that they are fabrications.  

Kumdo schools that claim that kendo with Korean terms came out of Korean sword work prior to Kendo's introduction to Korea by Japan are also either lying or passing on a lie that they believe to be true, though the Korean Kumdo Association website makes no such claims.  

I am not familiar enough with other KMA histories to even attempt to pick them apart and will refrain from commenting on them.

Regarding the question posed in the OP, and regarding your comment about crediting sources, influences, and such, I think that it is best to be honest about and up front.


----------



## puunui (Jan 25, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> As far as the history is concerned, reading it carefully, it is apparent that they are retrofitting the term 'taekwondo' to to include *all *Korean striking arts so as to tie modern taekwondo to pre-occupation striking arts in Korea.



It goes a little further than that. When President Rhee saw GM NAM Tae Hi break those 13 roofing tiles, President Rhee exclaimed "That's Taekkyon!" General Choi picked up on it, which lead to the effort to find the chinese han moon characters for taekkyon. Back then, unlike today, han moon or hanja (kanji in japanese) was the predominant way people wrote in korea. Today it is hangul the simplified character set that is uniquely korean, but back then hanja/hanmoon was the way to go. The problem was that there were no hanja for taekkyon, so they settled for the next closest thing, which was taekwondo or taekwon for which there was hanja for. So the name really was supposed to be taekkyon or taekkyondo, not taekwondo. In that sense, taekkyon was ancient. whether it was 2000 or 1300 or 5000 years old is anyone's guess. no one really knows.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 25, 2012)

I would say the biggest was the katas, which were stolen pretty much verbatim and renamed.

also, we DO NOT KNOW what techniques were already known in korea since there was NO surviving masters of any native arts left alive after WW2

the only possible exception is the one guy claiming to have been a taekkyon master, but that story cannot be verified

so we really do not know if the koreans already knew how to throw a side kick or not, much less anything else prior to being exposed to japanese shotokan

we cant prove they did, and we cant prove they didnt,


----------



## puunui (Jan 25, 2012)

Twin Fist said:


> I would say the biggest was the katas, which were stolen pretty much verbatim and renamed.



They weren't renamed. The Japanese and/or Okinawan names, written in chinese characters, were pronounced in the korean language. For example, Pyongahn is the korean pronounciation for Pinan, Naebojin is Korean for Naihanchi, and so forth. 




Twin Fist said:


> also, we DO NOT KNOW what techniques were already known in korea since there was NO surviving masters of any native arts left alive after WW2
> the only possible exception is the one guy claiming to have been a taekkyon master, but that story cannot be verified



No, there were others. For example, Sinmoo Hapkido GM JI Han Jae learned Taekkyon kicking from a taoist monk which were incorporated into Hapkido. If you don't believe that, what is your explanation of where the kicks in the Korean martial arts came from? Stolen from Shotokan? 




Twin Fist said:


> so we really do not know if the koreans already knew how to throw a side kick or not, much less anything else prior to being exposed to japanese shotokan
> 
> we cant prove they did, and we cant prove they didnt,



No, you can't prove it, that's all. By the way, what do you think about the kajukenbo history discussion Professor Bishop and I are having? Learning anything new? Think anyone lied about the history? If so, who lied and why? You have a lot of theories on korean martial arts lying, I was wondering if you had any theories on kajukenbo lying.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 25, 2012)

the chong hon forms, were all renamed.

chunji
dan gun
to san
won hyo
yul guk

those are all japanese forms, renamed after people from korean history, with no nod to the source of those forms, japan

thats theft.

i have no doubt there is a cultural affinity from kicking with koreans. just like american kids wrestle around

that wrestling isnt a style, it is a cultural practice

same with the koreans i imagine. thier cultural affinity to kicking doesnt make that kicking a "style" or a "system" hell i watched ROK marines play volleyball with their feet one of the times i was there in the 80's but those were not martial arts kicks.

and sorry, every time i hear 'they learned it from a monk who's name we dont know" i just assume it is BS. From wiki:

The art copied from Dait&#333;-ry&#363; Aiki-j&#363;jutsu (&#22823;&#26481;&#27969;&#21512;&#27671;&#26580;&#34899 or a closely related jujutsu system taught by Choi Yong-Sool (Hangul: &#52572;&#50857;&#49696;) who returned to Korea after World War II, having lived in Japan for 30 years. This system was later combined with kicking and striking techniques of indigenous and contemporary arts such as taekkyeon and tang soo do. Its history is obscured by the historical animosity between the Korean and Japanese people following the Second World War.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4]
[/SUP]
daito ryu aikijujitsu with shotokan kicking modified to korean cultural norms

sounds more likely than 

"some unknown monk taught me"
*
what do you think about the kajukenbo history discussion Professor Bishop and I are having? Learning anything new? Think anyone lied about the history? If so, who lied and why? You have a lot of theories on korean martial arts lying, I was wondering if you had any theories on kajukenbo lying.*

there are many differences in the versions put out by the two of you.

I think there is a lot of mis-information out there, but i have no way of knowing if it is lies or simply not knowing any better. I will say that i will be passing this information along to my Sigung so that he will know this.


----------



## puunui (Jan 25, 2012)

Twin Fist said:


> the chong hon forms, were all renamed.
> 
> chunji
> dan gun
> ...



Sorry, but no, they are not japanese forms renamed. 




Twin Fist said:


> i have no doubt there is a cultural affinity from kicking with koreans. just like american kids wrestle around
> that wrestling isnt a style, it is a cultural practice
> same with the koreans i imagine. thier cultural affinity to kicking doesnt make that kicking a "style" or a "system" hell i watched ROK marines play volleyball with their feet one of the times i was there in the 80's but those were not martial arts kicks.
> and sorry, every time i hear 'they learned it from a monk who's name we dont know" i just assume it is BS.



We know the monk's name -- LEE Dosa. 




Twin Fist said:


> From wiki:
> 
> The art copied from Dait&#333;-ry&#363; Aiki-j&#363;jutsu (&#22823;&#26481;&#27969;&#21512;&#27671;&#26580;&#34899 or a closely related jujutsu system taught by Choi Yong-Sool (Hangul: &#52572;&#50857;&#49696;) who returned to Korea after World War II, having lived inJapan for 30 years. This system was later combined with kicking and striking techniques of indigenous and contemporary arts such as taekkyeon and tang soo do. Its history is obscured by the historical animosity between the Korean and Japanese people following the Second World War.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4]
> [/SUP]
> ...



GM Ji never learned shotokan, tangsoodo, kongsoodo, kwonbup or taekwondo.



Twin Fist said:


> there are many differences in the versions put out by the two of you.
> I think there is a lot of mis-information out there, but i have no way of knowing if it is lies or simply not knowing any better. I will say that i will be passing this information along to my Sigung so that he will know this.




I think it is interesting that you are so sure that the taekwondo pioneers are "lying" but not for kajukenbo, which has obvious inconsistencies. 

Professor Bishop said that he agreed with 80% of what I wrote, and personally I think it is higher than that. The differences are easily explainable and not on material points.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 25, 2012)

so sorry, but won hyo is outright move for move a shotokan form, and won hyo is not the korean spelling of the japanese name. Same with Dan Gun.

Elder posted the video proving it

you are simply wrong about that

i know the KKW is lying TODAY, thier official website today is still putting out the LIE that TKD is 2000 years old, and we know better.

as to kajukenbo history, i cant say if people are lying, or if they just dont know any better.


----------



## John Bishop (Jan 25, 2012)

puunui said:


> It is true that Sijo and his brother were the main ones who carried on with Kajukenbo. All the co-founders acknowledge that. And I don't know how active Professor Ordonez was in Kajukenbo past the 60's. I think when Joe Emperado passed away, Professor Ordonez lost some interest in Kajukenbo.
> I would disagree though that "most of the activity and seniors moved to the mainland. Many did not. Sid Ascuncion, Marino Tiwanak, etc. stayed. Kajukenbo has always had a large presence here, and still does.



Marino Tiwanak broke away and started "CHA-3 Kenpo".  Sid Asuncion went his own way with "Kenkabo".  Some of their students later realigned themselves with Emperado and Kajukenbo, and that's where most of the Kajukenbo in Hawaii comes from.  
Godin was in and out with Kajukenbo during his life.  Martin Buell took "Godin's Chinese Kempo" and renamed it "Universal Kempo", which he still teaches today.  In fact he doesn't even acknowledge Godin as his teacher anymore.  



puunui said:


> But Professor Ordonez and a lot of documentation in the form of photos, papers, letters, etc. all neatly kept in an album which he shows to the public, and more stuff that is more private. If I were you, I would keep trying to build a relationship with him while maintaining a respectful attitude towards him. He might end up giving you the keys to the kingdom.



Do those records include any of his promotion certificates?  The only one I've seen is the 1994 Kajukenbo 10th degree certificate that Emperado, Holck, and Choo gave him. 
But like I said, after my first book came out we have communicated, and seem to have a very cordial relationship.  I may not agree with the politics of some of the people in his organization, but our relationship is fine.



puunui said:


> I would keep trying to build something with him. I think it is worth it, given your interest in kajukenbo history. Go see for yourself and use your own judgment, which seems to be your approach so far. There might be a natural hesitation because you are from the mainland, and there have been a lot of people who some feel took advantage of Sijo and other kenpo pioneers over the years. But maintain your sincerity and things may happen. I sent GM LEE Won Kuk a christmas card for five or ten years before he sent me one back with his business card in it, asking me to contact him.



It has nothing to do with being on the mainland.  I have excellent long term relationships with most of the Kajukenbo people and many kenpo and Lua people in Hawaii.  I have been to the islands twice, and plan future visits.  Before they passed, I had also corresponded often and talked with Tiwanak, Godin, and Thomas Young.   
There are still plenty of Kajukenbo people who have been in Kajukenbo for 45-50 years who witnessed Kajukenbo history after the other 4 founders went their separate ways.  And a few were there before Joe Emperado died in 58.  



puunui said:


> I was told Peter Choo came up with the name. Professor Holck just might be passing along that often repeated "tang soo do korean karate" thing that is out there. From my understanding, there wasn't any free flow of travel between Korea and Hawaii among korean citizens, at least not during the period from 1945-50. I will try and look into it if you want.



In the Turtle Bay interview, both Emperado and Choo said Holck came up with the name.  Then Holck pointed to Choo and said, "Peter did Korean karate-tang soo do, and boxing.  Frank Ordonez did judo.  I did jujitsu and judo. Sonny (Emperado) did kenpo.  And Chang did Chinese boxing.  So I said, why don't we call it Ka-ju-ken-bo." 
Choo and Holck were relatives, and very close.  So one would think they knew which one of them did what.




puunui said:


> I think he might have been just being nice, regarding that kung fu experience. But even if Mr. Chang had kung fu knowledge, the fact remains that kung fu, while big in some branches of kajukenbo now, played a very small, if any, part in the development of original kajukenbo. You admitted that in your earlier post.



We weren't there, so we have to take their word for it.  From what I've heard in their interviews, Choo, Holck, and Emperado agreed that Chang had some kung fu training.  Ordonez wrote the biography of Chang that I quoted from, for the program for the 1996 KSDI tournament that he, Choo, Holck, and Emperado were being reunited at.  
It's obvious that Kajukenbo's strongest influence is kenpo & karate, then jujitsu & judo, and western boxing.  Escrima and kung fu play a lesser role in the original method of Kajukenbo.  Mainly because Emperado was the main designer, who was mostly helped by Holck and Choo in the beginning.  And the fact that Emperado was the one founder who would propagate Kajukenbo from 1950 to the day he died.     



puunui said:


> He (Choo) told me that the card he had was a 1st degree, but it said guep on it, which is a kyu or color belt rank, and not black belt. I was thinking of giving him a kukkiwon dan certificate or a higher honorary degree, so he could have an official one, to tell you the truth.



I'm sure Peter Choo had accomplished many notable things in his lifetime.  And he was revered and respected by Kajukenbo stylists around the world as a 10th degree co-founder of our system.  I don't think he needed a honorary tae kwon do black belt.   




puunui said:


> Is that the context of the 30 years comment? If so, that clarifies things.



Not entirely. Chang, Choo, and Holck did not know Emperado until Ordonez got them together in 1947.  Like I said in the timeline, the 5 went their separate ways in 1950.  None of them taught Kajukenbo after that, except Emperado.  Ordonez returned to help Emperado at his school around 1956 for a short time (2-3 years).  
From about 1958 till the late 80's they were no longer together, and Emperado lost touch with Choo, Holck,and Chang.  Choo and Holck were relatives, and friends with Ordonez and Chang, so they kept in touch with each other.  But they were not active in Kajukenbo anymore.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 25, 2012)

puunui said:


> It goes a little further than that. When President Rhee saw GM NAM Tae Hi break those 13 roofing tiles, President Rhee exclaimed "That's Taekkyon!" General Choi picked up on it, which lead to the effort to find the chinese han moon characters for taekkyon. Back then, unlike today, han moon or hanja (kanji in japanese) was the predominant way people wrote in korea. Today it is hangul the simplified character set that is uniquely korean, but back then hanja/hanmoon was the way to go. The problem was that there were no hanja for taekkyon, so they settled for the next closest thing, which was taekwondo or taekwon for which there was hanja for. So the name really was supposed to be taekkyon or taekkyondo, not taekwondo. In that sense, taekkyon was ancient. whether it was 2000 or 1300 or 5000 years old is anyone's guess. no one really knows.


I am aware of this, though the way that I had heard it was that President Rhee asked what the art was, to which Choi replied taekkyeon.  Either way, I heard the rest pretty much the way that you have related it.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 25, 2012)

Twin Fist said:


> the chong hon forms, were all renamed.
> 
> chunji
> dan gun
> ...



These are Chang Hon tuls.  None of these are Kukkiwon pumse.  And it is generally the Kukkiwon and the WTF that you are critical of.  

It has been many years since I practiced Shotokan, but the taegeuk pumse are definitely not reworked Heian kata.  What I recall of the Palgwe pumse (I've only seen them; I never learned them), which were only practiced for a very short time, they were not reworked Heian either.


----------



## dancingalone (Jan 25, 2012)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> What I recall of the Palgwe pumse (I've only seen them; I never learned them), which were only practiced for a very short time, they were not reworked Heian either.


The discrete techniques within the 8 Palgwe forms are exactly the same as those found in Heian 1-5, though scrambled and moved around.  Palgwe #4 probably resembles a Shotokan form directly the most - it's almost like if Heian Nidan and Heian Sandan got together and had a baby. They seem 'weird' to me in that there's really not a clear progression of difficulty after the first 3 Palgwe.  The last 5 all have the same level of technical demand IMO.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 25, 2012)

Daniel,
the Chong Hon were the copies of japanese foprms

the palqwe came next, and were original korean forms, if badly designed and not really tkd-ish but they were the first complete set of original korean forms

the taegueks came about later, I even remember the first time i saw them, the book was taeguek: the new TKD forms. This was....1984-ish?

but the first forms used for TKD were the Chong Hon, and they were all renamed for figures from korean history.

now, Earl W did produce a quote from Choi from the mid 70's admitting the japanese irigins of the forms and of TKD itself. so the choi ITF was eventually honest.

the KKW is still telling the lie



Daniel Sullivan said:


> These are Chang Hon tuls.  None of these are Kukkiwon pumse.  And it is generally the Kukkiwon and the WTF that you are critical of.
> 
> It has been many years since I practiced Shotokan, but the taegeuk pumse are definitely not reworked Heian kata.  What I recall of the Palgwe pumse (I've only seen them; I never learned them), which were only practiced for a very short time, they were not reworked Heian either.


----------



## puunui (Jan 25, 2012)

Twin Fist said:


> so sorry, but won hyo is outright move for move a shotokan form, and won hyo is not the korean spelling of the japanese name. Same with Dan Gun.
> 
> Elder posted the video proving it
> 
> you are simply wrong about that



Which shotokan form is won hyo and which shotokan form is dan gun? 




Twin Fist said:


> i know the KKW is lying TODAY, thier official website today is still putting out the LIE that TKD is 2000 years old, and we know better.
> 
> as to kajukenbo history, i cant say if people are lying, or if they just dont know any better.



How convenient. Even Professor Bishop said there was some straight up lies in Kajukenbo history stuff.


----------



## puunui (Jan 25, 2012)

John Bishop said:


> Marino Tiwanak broke away and started "CHA-3 Kenpo".  Sid Asuncion went his own way with "Kenkabo".  Some of their students later realigned themselves with Emperado and Kajukenbo, and that's where most of the Kajukenbo in Hawaii comes from.
> Godin was in and out with Kajukenbo during his life.  Martin Buell took "Godin's Chinese Kempo" and renamed it "Universal Kempo", which he still teaches today.  In fact he doesn't even acknowledge Godin as his teacher anymore.



I still think of them as kajukenbo though, just like Sifu Dacascos is kajukenbo, even though he changed the name to won hop kuen do. Professor Buell changed it for personal reasons having to do with Professor Godin's legal troubles in the early 1980s. 




John Bishop said:


> Do those records include any of his promotion certificates?  The only one I've seen is the 1994 Kajukenbo 10th degree certificate that Emperado, Holck, and Choo gave him. But like I said, after my first book came out we have communicated, and seem to have a very cordial relationship.  I may not agree with the politics of some of the people in his organization, but our relationship is fine.



Ok, good then. Don't worry about it. 





John Bishop said:


> It has nothing to do with being on the mainland.  I have excellent long term relationships with most of the Kajukenbo people and many kenpo and Lua people in Hawaii.  I have been to the islands twice, and plan future visits.  Before they passed, I had also corresponded often and talked with Tiwanak, Godin, and Thomas Young.
> There are still plenty of Kajukenbo people who have been in Kajukenbo for 45-50 years who witnessed Kajukenbo history after the other 4 founders went their separate ways.  And a few were there before Joe Emperado died in 58.



ok then, you don't have anything to worry about. I'm just saying sometimes local people here are wary about people from the mainland and what their intentions are. Given what you have said and implied about Professor Ordonez, perhaps he has a reason for doing what he's doing. But again, don't worry about it.




John Bishop said:


> In the Turtle Bay interview, both Emperado and Choo said Holck came up with the name.  Then Holck pointed to Choo and said, "Peter did Korean karate-tang soo do, and boxing.  Frank Ordonez did judo.  I did jujitsu and judo. Sonny (Emperado) did kenpo.  And Chang did Chinese boxing.  So I said, why don't we call it Ka-ju-ken-bo." Choo and Holck were relatives, and very close.  So one would think they knew which one of them did what.



I think it was Professor Choo's son who told me his father invented the name. But even the quote above is incorrect about who did what. But that's ok. It's not life or death for me. 




John Bishop said:


> We weren't there, so we have to take their word for it.  From what I've heard in their interviews, Choo, Holck, and Emperado agreed that Chang had some kung fu training.  Ordonez wrote the biography of Chang that I quoted from, for the program for the 1996 KSDI tournament that he, Choo, Holck, and Emperado were being reunited at.



Ok, let me ask it this way then: How much of George Chang's kung fu was in the original kajukenbo? Do you know specifically what techniques are included?




John Bishop said:


> I'm sure Peter Choo had accomplished many notable things in his lifetime.  And he was revered and respected by Kajukenbo stylists around the world as a 10th degree co-founder of our system.  I don't think he needed a honorary tae kwon do black belt.



taekwondo is one word, no spaces. And he may have not "needed" it, but I think it would have been something that he desired. He was carrying around that taekwondo guep card in his wallet for over thirty years. It was falling apart. 



John Bishop said:


> Not entirely. Chang, Choo, and Holck did not know Emperado until Ordonez got them together in 1947.  Like I said in the timeline, the 5 went their separate ways in 1950.  None of them taught Kajukenbo after that, except Emperado.  Ordonez returned to help Emperado at his school around 1956 for a short time (2-3 years).From about 1958 till the late 80's they were no longer together, and Emperado lost touch with Choo, Holck,and Chang.  Choo and Holck were relatives, and friends with Ordonez and Chang, so they kept in touch with each other.  But they were not active in Kajukenbo anymore.



Ok, so when you are talking about the 30 years, you are talking about sijo's separation from the rest of the co-founders, which isn't really correct either, since at least Professor Ordonez was there in the 1950s and maybe Professor Choo too.


----------



## puunui (Jan 25, 2012)

dancingalone said:


> The discrete techniques within the 8 Palgwe forms are exactly the same as those found in Heian 1-5, though scrambled and moved around.  Palgwe #4 probably resembles a Shotokan form directly the most - it's almost like if Heian Nidan and Heian Sandan got together and had a baby. They seem 'weird' to me in that there's really not a clear progression of difficulty after the first 3 Palgwe.  The last 5 all have the same level of technical demand IMO.



The Palgwae poomsae and yudanja poomsae creation process was that each committee members was to create two to four forms and the committee would come back, talk about it, and choose the best ones. The taeguek poomsae on the other hand, were created by the committee jointly, at least the rough outline, and that GM PARK Hae Man and GM LIM Chang Soo finalized them. So that might explain what you are seeing.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 25, 2012)

Twin Fist said:


> Daniel,
> the Chong Hon were the copies of japanese foprms
> 
> the palqwe came next, and were original korean forms, if badly designed and not really tkd-ish but they were the first complete set of original korean forms
> ...


What lie?  I thought you acknowledged that the Palgwe and Taegeuk forms are original forms.  Not challenging you, but I'm not following where you're going with it.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 25, 2012)

puunui said:


> Which shotokan form is won hyo and which shotokan form is dan gun?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




won hyo is almost move for move heian nidan.

your theory that "the korean names are just korean versions of the japanese names, no renaming here" is false in the case of form Dan Gun

there is no JAPANESE form named after the legendary founder of korea......

which proves that they took existing japanese forms and gave them culturally important korean names. at this point, it's a given


I am quite sure there are inaccurate things out there about kajukenbo history.

Prof bishop is qualified to say what is what. I am not. I have the time in TKD to have earned my opinions, and i am new student of Kaju. It isnt my place to judge in that arena. So i defere to the Prof.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 25, 2012)

"TKD is 2000 years old"


THAT lie 

sorry for the confusion Daniel



Daniel Sullivan said:


> What lie?  I thought you acknowledged that the Palgwe and Taegeuk forms are original forms.  Not challenging you, but I'm not following where you're going with it.


----------



## John Bishop (Jan 26, 2012)

puunui said:


> I still think of them as kajukenbo though, just like Sifu Dacascos is kajukenbo, even though he changed the name to won hop kuen do. Professor Buell changed it for personal reasons having to do with Professor Godin's legal troubles in the early 1980s.



I don't know who you are, and how much you actually know about Kajukenbo, other then you claimed to have been Peter Choo III's friend in the 80's. From what I've read of yours, you seem to have some facts, and possibly filled in some blanks with your own conjecture.  Are you a Kajukenbo practitioner?  If so, for how long? And who are you?  Anyone can come on a forum and claim anything, and throw in a few facts gleaned from the internet.  It would be nice to put a name with the claims.  

Dacascos did not "change the name to Wun Hop Kuen Do".  And it is "Wun" with a U.  It is "Kajukenbo Wun Hop Kuen Do".  Wun Hop Kuen Do is one of the 4 recognized styles of the Kajukenbo system.    
I knew Godin and was aware of his incarcerations.  But Buell didn't start leaving Godin's name out of his history until many years after Godin passed.   



puunui said:


> ok then, you don't have anything to worry about. I'm just saying sometimes local people here are wary about people from the mainland and what their intentions are. Given what you have said and implied about Professor Ordonez, perhaps he has a reason for doing what he's doing. But again, don't worry about it.



Oh, the haole thing.  In the 23 years that I have been a martial arts journalist and author, I have never been treated with any suspicions by my friends and acquaintances in Hawaii.  In fact my first trip to Hawaii was at the invitation of a Hawaiian Lua group who paid all the expenses.  And in the 28 years I've been in Kajukenbo, I've never been treated like anything but a brother by my Hawaiian brothers and sisters.  
How well do you know Frank Ordonez?  I've never heard him or anyone around him refer to him as "Professor".  He's always been either "grandmaster", "Co-founder", but mostly the title he prefers is "Uncle Frank". 



puunui said:


> I think it was Professor Choo's son who told me his father invented the name. But even the quote above is incorrect about who did what. But that's ok. It's not life or death for me.



Who are you to say Holck was wrong when he made the statement with Choo and Emperado sitting in chairs next to him agreeing?



puunui said:


> Ok, let me ask it this way then: How much of George Chang's kung fu was in the original kajukenbo? Do you know specifically what techniques are included?



Well, the original method has 21 punch counters, 15 knife counters, 13 club counters, 15 grab arts, 14 katas, 26 alphabet techniques, and around 14 two and three man counters. 
Without going thru every counter or kata in my head right now, there are kung fu techniques/movements in knife counter 1, grab art 8, punch counter 8, Palama Set 9, Palama Set 3, Palama Set 12, Punch Counter 10, Alphabet B, and probably more that don't come to mind right now.    



puunui said:


> taekwondo is one word, no spaces. And he may have not "needed" it, but I think it would have been something that he desired. He was carrying around that taekwondo guep card in his wallet for over thirty years. It was falling apart.



OK, taekwondo is one word.  
I don't know why Peter Choo kept the card so long.  Possibly because it was a memento of his time in Korea.  I still have a old beat up judo rank card from 1961 that I've kept as a memento.  Doesn't mean that I have this great feeling of loss that I never became a judo black belt. 
Like I said, I don't know who you are, or your credentials.  You really think it would have been your place to promote someone who was probably a accomplished martial artist long before you were born?         



puunui said:


> Ok, so when you are talking about the 30 years, you are talking about sijo's separation from the rest of the co-founders, which isn't really correct either, since at least Professor Ordonez was there in the 1950s and maybe Professor Choo too.



Do the math.  Ordonez by his own admission left Kajukenbo in 1958, went to Johnson Atoll.  They got together again in the 1990's.  Did Choo tell you he was active in Kajukenbo in the 50's?  From what I've been told, he was in Asia from 1950 to 1956.  In Europe after that.  Did a short stint at Fort Dix, New Jersey.  And retired from the Army in 1965.      

I can see that we're probably going to have to agree to disagree.  But I'm pretty confident in the file cabinet full of notes, letters, documents, and video tapes verifying the information I've put out.  And like I said, I've been active in Kajukenbo for 28 years.  I've personally known or know many of the people involved in making Kajukenbo history.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Jan 26, 2012)

Twin Fist said:


> "TKD is 2000 years old"
> 
> 
> THAT lie
> ...


Given that they are tying modern taekwondo to to subak and taekkyeon and whatever hand to hand was in the Muyedobotongji and not saying that modern taekwondo is actually 2000 years old, I don't really consider it a lie.  My feelings on the 2000 year old history thing I expressed in my previous post:



Daniel Sullivan said:


> As far as the history is concerned, reading it carefully, it is apparent that they are retrofitting the term 'taekwondo' to to include *all *Korean striking arts so as to tie modern taekwondo to pre-occupation striking arts in Korea.
> 
> This is no different than if I were to call all European striking arts, regardless of the time period, kickboxing even though the term did not exist until the 1970's.
> 
> ...


----------



## puunui (Jan 26, 2012)

Twin Fist said:


> won hyo is almost move for move heian nidan.



The beginning section is substantially similar, but the back end not so much. I wouldn't say they are "almost move for move" the same form.




Twin Fist said:


> your theory that "the korean names are just korean versions of the japanese names, no renaming here" is false in the case of form Dan Gun
> there is no JAPANESE form named after the legendary founder of korea......



Which shotokan form is the same as dan gun? You talk about won hyo above.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 26, 2012)

i was sure you would deny they were the same even though it is pretty clear. Even the back end, where they changed the sudo blocks to the box block-upper cut-lung punch combo they kep the same angles, the same count, the...

whatever

ok never mind you go on thinking as you will.


----------



## puunui (Jan 26, 2012)

John Bishop said:


> I don't know who you are, and how much you actually know about Kajukenbo, other then you claimed to have been Peter Choo III's friend in the 80's.



He's still my friend today. Kevin too. Peter works at a furniture store here part time and I recently bought about $5000 worth of new bookshelves from him. 




John Bishop said:


> Anyone can come on a forum and claim anything, and throw in a few facts gleaned from the internet.



Is that what you really think I did? 




John Bishop said:


> Dacascos did not "change the name to Wun Hop Kuen Do".  And it is "Wun" with a U.  It is "Kajukenbo Wun Hop Kuen Do".  Wun Hop Kuen Do is one of the 4 recognized styles of the Kajukenbo system.



I hear he lives in Hawaii again. I saw him once at a blockbuster video store in kalihi a while back. His son Mark is also here at least part time working as Wo Fat on Hawaii Five O. I have students who do stunt work on the show and they all say he is a very cool guy, and easy to work with. Quick learner too. 




John Bishop said:


> I knew Godin and was aware of his incarcerations.  But Buell didn't start leaving Godin's name out of his history until many years after Godin passed.



Actually, Professor Buell started writing Professor Godin (or "Chief") out of his history 30 years ago. That was one of the main reasons why they changed the name of the school from Godin's School of Self Defense to Universal Kempo. Professor Godin was hard core, and even used to take his students to Judo tournaments to compete. 




John Bishop said:


> Oh, the haole thing.  In the 23 years that I have been a martial arts journalist and author, I have never been treated with any suspicions by my friends and acquaintances in Hawaii.



Other than perhaps this: 


John Bishop said:


> I wrote to [Professor Ordonez] several times in the 80's early 90's (pre-internet), but he never returned any of my letters.



I understand that subsequently he wrote to you a couple of times after your first book came out. But still, the above was his response to your early efforts to contact him. 



John Bishop said:


> In fact my first trip to Hawaii was at the invitation of a Hawaiian Lua group who paid all the expenses.



Was that with the Eli brothers, and maybe Kainoa Li? Little known fact: Dennis Eli (I don't know what title is used in Lua) was stationed at Osan AFB and received a Moo Duk Kwan 1st Dan in 1968. 




John Bishop said:


> And in the 28 years I've been in Kajukenbo, I've never been treated like anything but a brother by my Hawaiian brothers and sisters.



Again, other than this: 


John Bishop said:


> I wrote to [Professor Ordonez] several times in the 80's early 90's (pre-internet), but he never returned any of my letters.






John Bishop said:


> How well do you know Frank Ordonez?  I've never heard him or anyone around him refer to him as "Professor".  He's always been either "grandmaster", "Co-founder", but mostly the title he prefers is "Uncle Frank".



In Hawaii, we tend to address all Kenpo 8th Dans and higher as Professor, unless they choose a different title, such as Sijo. Or at least I do. Professor Ordonez addresses me as "Shihan" for some reason. 




John Bishop said:


> Who are you to say Holck was wrong when he made the statement with Choo and Emperado sitting in chairs next to him agreeing?



Well, let's compare what Professor Holck said at the interview "Peter did Korean karate-tang soo do, and boxing. Frank Ordonez did judo. I did jujitsu and judo. Sonny (Emperado) did kenpo. And Chang did Chinese boxing. So I said, why don't we call it Ka-ju-ken-bo." 

with what you wrote earlier: 



John Bishop said:


> *George Chang had some kung fu training, but kung fu did not have belt ranks at the time. And from some accounts, George Chang did not continue with martial arts training after the Korean War.
> Peter Choo had some Korean martial arts training as a child from his father. He was also a proficient boxer, and had some training in both Kenpo, and Danzan Ryu jujitsu. After the Korean War, Choo was stationed in Korea, Okinawa, and Japan during his military career. He continued with his martial arts training, and earned black belts in Aikido, Tae Kwon Do, and Shorinji Ryu Karate. His aikido black belt came from Koichi Tohei, and his Tae Kwon Do (Tang Soo Do at the time) black belt came from Joon Rhee.
> Frank Ordonez had some training in Kodokan Judo, Danzan Ryu jujitsu, and Kenpo, at the time of the founding of Kajukenbo. *



So to compare: 

On Peter Choo's background: 
Professor Holck:Korean  karate-tang soo do, and boxing. 
You: Boxing, some training in Kenpo and Danzan Ryu Jujitsu (no Korean Karate-tang soo do, and no jujitsu)

On Frank Ordonez' background: 
Professor Holck: judo. 
You: Boxing (in an earlier post), plus Kodokan Judo, Danzan Ryu Jujitsu and Kenpo

Who is wrong, you or Professor Holck at that interview with Sijo and Professor Choo sitting in chairs next to him agreeing?




John Bishop said:


> Without going thru every counter or kata in my head right now, there are kung fu techniques/movements in knife counter 1, grab art 8, punch counter 8, Palama Set 9, Palama Set 3, Palama Set 12, Punch Counter 10, Alphabet B, and probably more that don't come to mind right now.



That might not help those who are following along, who may not know what these techniques are. But for example, in knife counter 1 and grab art 8, are you referring to that windmill move as the technique that you state came from George Chang's kung fu? 




John Bishop said:


> I don't know why Peter Choo kept the card so long.  Possibly because it was a memento of his time in Korea.  I still have a old beat up judo rank card from 1961 that I've kept as a memento.  Doesn't mean that I have this great feeling of loss that I never became a judo black belt.



Are you japanese? and do you still have that judo card in your wallet? If so, then perhaps you can understand why a Korean American like Professor Choo would keep his taekwondo rank card in his wallet for over thirty years. Also, I think that he did believe that he earned a 1st degree black belt in korea, instead of a 1st guep red belt. That was one of the reasons why I didn't go forward with the taekwondo promotion. I didn't want to tell him that it wasn't a black belt rank indicated on the card. That was also a reason why I thought about perhaps getting him a higher rank like kwan 5th Dan or so. 




John Bishop said:


> You really think it would have been your place to promote someone who was probably a accomplished martial artist long before you were born?



Sure why not? I saw his face and could feel how much that taekwondo rank card meant to him. And if it is in my power to get him higher kwan rank with a card that he could carry around in his wallet, why shouldn't I consider it, for exactly the reasons you state above? Perhaps it wouldn't mean anything to you, from your non-korean perspective, but it did mean something to him, from his korean heritage perspective. 




John Bishop said:


> But I'm pretty confident in the file cabinet full of notes, letters, documents, and video tapes verifying the information I've put out.  And like I said, I've been active in Kajukenbo for 28 years.  I've personally known or know many of the people involved in making Kajukenbo history.



Like I said in an earlier post, don't worry about it. You have nothing to prove to me. It's all good.


----------



## puunui (Jan 26, 2012)

Twin Fist said:


> i was sure you would deny they were the same even though it is pretty clear. Even the back end, where they changed the sudo blocks to the box block-upper cut-lung punch combo they kep the same angles, the same count, the...
> 
> whatever
> 
> ok never mind you go on thinking as you will.



The two are not as you say, almost move for move the same form. From an objective standpoint, your statement is incorrect. 

Won Hyo





Heian Nidan


----------



## Twin Fist (Jan 26, 2012)

ok, night and day, whatever you say.....


----------



## John Bishop (Jan 26, 2012)

puunui said:


> Is that what you really think I did?



I have no clue.  You've never really (at least in this thread) identified yourself, or produced any evidence to back up the information your presenting.




puunui said:


> Other than perhaps this:
> 
> I understand that subsequently he wrote to you a couple of times after your first book came out. But still, the above was his response to your early efforts to contact him.



I never really worried about it.  From what I was told by Sijo and some of the seniors, Ordonez didn't really communicate with any of them anymore, and had no interest in the arts anymore.  By his own admission, he left the arts around 1958 because it was taking too much of his time away from his family and other interests.  




puunui said:


> Was that with the Eli brothers, and maybe Kainoa Li? Little known fact: Dennis Eli (I don't know what title is used in Lua) was stationed at Osan AFB and received a Moo Duk Kwan 1st Dan in 1968.



It was the Lua Halau O Kaihewalu organization. 




puunui said:


> Well, let's compare what Professor Holck said at the interview "Peter did Korean karate-tang soo do, and boxing. Frank Ordonez did judo. I did jujitsu and judo. Sonny (Emperado) did kenpo. And Chang did Chinese boxing. So I said, why don't we call it Ka-ju-ken-bo."
> 
> with what you wrote earlier:
> 
> ...



Neither.  My explanation included all the various training the founders had.  Holck was only explaining how he came up with the name, using the 5 main Asian arts, and boxing.  He didn't mention every form of training each founder had.  If he did, he would have had to mention that Emperado also had judo training, and escrima training.    



puunui said:


> That might not help those who are following along, who may not know what these techniques are. But for example, in knife counter 1 and grab art 8, are you referring to that windmill move as the technique that you state came from George Chang's kung fu?



Your expecting me to write out every movement in every technique that has a kung fu strike, kick, stance, etc?  You do realize that many kung fu techniques are not unique to kung fu and are also found in kenpo and other martial arts?  So no matter what I write, you can come back and say it didn't come from Chang. 
Without writing out step by step descriptions of each technique, I can say that there are "wind mill" strikes, "Tiger Claw" strikes, "Crane stances", soft circular blocking, palm blocking, and other techniques in Kajukenbo that can also be found in kung fu.




puunui said:


> Are you japanese? and do you still have that judo card in your wallet? If so, then perhaps you can understand why a Korean American like Professor Choo would keep his taekwondo rank card in his wallet for over thirty years. Also, I think that he did believe that he earned a 1st degree black belt in korea, instead of a 1st guep red belt. That was one of the reasons why I didn't go forward with the taekwondo promotion. I didn't want to tell him that it wasn't a black belt rank indicated on the card. That was also a reason why I thought about perhaps getting him a higher rank like kwan 5th Dan or so.



Yes, half.  I was born in Kyoto, Japan.  My mother's maiden name was Miyazaki.  My father was a U.S. Marine that was stationed in Japan after the Korean War.  
I don't carry the card in my wallet anymore, or have a deep longing to practice a art from my mother's country.  I'm pretty happy practicing a American martial art.  But I do have the card in a file with other judo mementos, shotokan mementos, aikido mementos, Kajukenbo mementos, etc.  It's just one of my good memories, like playing high school football, or college track.




puunui said:


> Sure why not? I saw his face and could feel how much that taekwondo rank card meant to him. And if it is in my power to get him higher kwan rank with a card that he could carry around in his wallet, why shouldn't I consider it, for exactly the reasons you state above? Perhaps it wouldn't mean anything to you, from your non-korean perspective, but it did mean something to him, from his korean heritage perspective.



I'm sure Peter Choo had many opportunities and time to continue his training in taekwondo if he had really wanted.  The training that he did have was probably equal to or superior to some of the modern high ranking taekwondo masters today.  Here in So. Cal there's a taikwondo school on just about every corner full of 8-9 year old black belts.  And a ton of 20 something masters, running 1-2 year black belt programs.   



puunui said:


> Like I said in an earlier post, don't worry about it. You have nothing to prove to me. It's all good.



Not interested in proving anything to you.  Like I said, I don't even know who you are, or your connection to Kajukenbo, if any.  Just disputing some Kajukenbo information posted on the forum by a anonymous source.  Anyone can write anything anonymously on the internet.


----------



## puunui (Jan 26, 2012)

John Bishop said:


> produced any evidence to back up the information your presenting.



Technically, neither have you then, if we are held to the same standard. But that's ok. 




John Bishop said:


> From what I was told by Sijo and some of the seniors, Ordonez didn't really communicate with any of them anymore, and had no interest in the arts anymore.  By his own admission, he left the arts around 1958 because it was taking too much of his time away from his family and other interests.



I know that Professor Ordonez kept in touch with Professor Choo and other martial artists, and he did show up for at least a couple of kajukenbo reunions. You also told us that he has his own organization now. So I don't know how truthful or accurate that statement by Sijo was. I think Kajukenbo is something that is very dear to Professor Ordonez' heart and that he is glad that he was able to contribute at least a small part to its development. 




John Bishop said:


> It was the Lua Halau O Kaihewalu organization.



Ok, that's a different one. 




John Bishop said:


> Neither.  My explanation included all the various training the founders had.  Holck was only explaining how he came up with the name, using the 5 main Asian arts, and boxing.  He didn't mention every form of training each founder had.  If he did, he would have had to mention that Emperado also had judo training, and escrima training.



So you understand my perspective on Professor Holck's comments on video then, that there is no need to make accusations, especially when no harm was intended. 




John Bishop said:


> Your expecting me to write out every movement in every technique that has a kung fu strike, kick, stance, etc?  You do realize that many kung fu techniques are not unique to kung fu and are also found in kenpo and other martial arts?  So no matter what I write, you can come back and say it didn't come from Chang.



I am not expecting you to write out every movement in every technique. I am trying to understand what actual contributions, if any, George Chang made to the kajukenbo curriculum. I get how important the chinese martial arts have become to kajukenbo, with titles, with branches, etc. So I can see why a connection to chinese martial arts would be useful to explain the progression and evolution of kajukenbo to today. Still, if George Chang's only role was photographer, I do not think that diminishes kajukenbo in any way. Do you? Even you said that most of the heavy lifting in Kajukenbo's development was done by Sijo, Professor Holck and Professor Choo. 




John Bishop said:


> Without writing out step by step descriptions of each technique, I can say that there are "wind mill" strikes, "Tiger Claw" strikes, "Crane stances", soft circular blocking, palm blocking, and other techniques in Kajukenbo that can also be found in kung fu.



But did it come from George Chang? That was my question, not whether kung fu techniques were part of the original Kajukenbo. There are other sources of chinese martial arts in kajukenbo's lineage besides the Bo in Kajukenbo, especially when boxing played such a prominent role in Kajukenbo's development. For example, Sijo's teacher Professor Chow is said to have had a chinese martial arts background, which he blended with Kosho Ryu to create Karaho Kempo. Many of Professor Chow's students took that and ran with it, exploring more deeply by studying kung fu directly. GM Ed Parker is one example. Sijo Emperado is another who chose that route. Why not explain it that way, instead of going with the five guys/five arts story that really doesn't fit with what actually happened. 




John Bishop said:


> Yes, half.  I was born in Kyoto, Japan.  My mother's maiden name was Miyazaki.  My father was a U.S. Marine that was stationed in Japan after the Korean War.  I don't carry the card in my wallet anymore, or have a deep longing to practice a art from my mother's country.  I'm pretty happy practicing a American martial art.  But I do have the card in a file with other judo mementos, shotokan mementos, aikido mementos, Kajukenbo mementos, etc.  It's just one of my good memories, like playing high school football, or college track.



See? So you do understand how Professor Choo felt then. 




John Bishop said:


> I'm sure Peter Choo had many opportunities and time to continue his training in taekwondo if he had really wanted.  The training that he did have was probably equal to or superior to some of the modern high ranking taekwondo masters today.  Here in So. Cal there's a taikwondo school on just about every corner full of 8-9 year old black belts.  And a ton of 20 something masters, running 1-2 year black belt programs.



Speaking of one or two year black belt programs, have you had the opportunity to see any of Sijo's certificates? And if so, are you going to be featuring any of those in your future books? My understanding is the Sijo started training with Professor Chow in 1946, and you stated that Sijo and Professor Holck were the only ones who were black belts in 1947-49 when the Black Belt Society created Kajukenbo. Do you know when Sijo received his black belt from Professor Chow? How about his Chief Instructor 5th Degree? 




John Bishop said:


> Not interested in proving anything to you.  Like I said, I don't even know who you are, or your connection to Kajukenbo, if any.  Just disputing some Kajukenbo information posted on the forum by a anonymous source.  Anyone can write anything anonymously on the internet.



I don't know, seems through this discussion that you are doing a lot more agreeing than disputing. You started at an 80% agreement rate, but I think it is higher now. Don't you.


----------



## Wo Fat (Jan 26, 2012)

This [Kajukenbo historical] back and forth always brings to my mind the analogy of historians for Columbus who consistently ignored the obviousness of America's indigenous people -- until the obvious could no longer be ignored.  Columbus and his self-appointed historians could have been truthful and simply acknowledged reality.  Instead, they palmed off their exploits as history for all the world to learn.  And now the world knows better.

Point being, the purity of any art is going to be about history on the one hand, and "his"-story on the other hand.


----------



## puunui (Jan 26, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> This [Kajukenbo historical] back and forth always brings to my mind the analogy of historians for Columbus who consistently ignored the obviousness of America's indigenous people -- until the obvious could no longer be ignored.  Columbus and his self-appointed historians could have been truthful and simply acknowledged reality.  Instead, they palmed off their exploits as history for all the world to learn.  And now the world knows better.
> 
> Point being, the purity of any art is going to be about history on the one hand, and "his"-story on the other hand.



I think good stuff is coming out of the discussion. At some point, perhaps the discussion could be moved to the Kajukenbo forum, but I think everyone is learning. I know I am. I am not a Kajukenbo hater. I am not against Kajukenbo. I am in fact for Kajukenbo, because it is from Hawaii, where I was born and raised. If Kajukenbo does well, then it is a good and positive reflection on Hawaii as well. I am also for truth in discussions, and I think in that regard, truthful information is coming out, from both sides. I think there have been some misconceptions on Kajukenbo's roots and history, just like there are misconceptions about taekwondo's or hapkido's or any other martial arts' background. I owe Kajukenbo and its co-founders a debt of gratitude for setting me on the path of historical research. If it weren't for that article in Inside Kung Fu, maybe I would not have been motivated to go out and meet the pioneers of all these arts.


----------



## Wo Fat (Jan 26, 2012)

puunui said:


> I think good stuff is coming out of the discussion. At some point, perhaps the discussion could be moved to the Kajukenbo forum, but I think everyone is learning. I know I am. I am not a Kajukenbo hater. I am not against Kajukenbo. I am in fact for Kajukenbo, because it is from Hawaii, where I was born and raised. If Kajukenbo does well, then it is a good and positive reflection on Hawaii as well. I am also for truth in discussions, and I think in that regard, truthful information is coming out, from both sides. I think there have been some misconceptions on Kajukenbo's roots and history, just like there are misconceptions about taekwondo's or hapkido's or any other martial arts' background. I owe Kajukenbo and its co-founders a debt of gratitude for setting me on the path of historical research. If it weren't for that article in Inside Kung Fu, maybe I would not have been motivated to go out and meet the pioneers of all these arts.



No worries; you didn't come across as a hater.  At least not to me.  It looks to me like you're offering some pretty different--*and plausible*--perspective.  Perspective is good; and when it's based in truth ... it's best.


----------



## John Bishop (Jan 26, 2012)

puunui said:


> Technically, neither have you then, if we are held to the same standard. But that's ok.



Well, we don't know who you are, or your background.  Most of the people who have been in Kajukenbo for a while know who I am.  Many of the kenpo people too.  For over 20 years my research has been used in magazines, books (mine and other authors), websites, and forums.  Including this one, that I have been a member of for 10 years, and also serve as a "advisor" to.  So a lot of my research is out there in print.  There's even You Tube videos of me interviewing Sijo Emperado.  In doing research I've always tried to talk with actual participants in the events, and then verify thru another source or witness. 
So I ask again.  Who are you, and what is your background?



puunui said:


> I know that Professor Ordonez kept in touch with Professor Choo and other martial artists, and he did show up for at least a couple of kajukenbo reunions. You also told us that he has his own organization now. So I don't know how truthful or accurate that statement by Sijo was. I think Kajukenbo is something that is very dear to Professor Ordonez' heart and that he is glad that he was able to contribute at least a small part to its development.



Well, your talking about 5 different individuals and their relationships.  I know Sijo hadn't had contact with Holck, Choo, and Chang, for at least a 30 year period.  Probably 50 years in Chang's case.  Uncle Frank left the islands off and on in the 50's.  The last contact he and Emperado had concerning Kajukenbo was around 1968, when Uncle Frank helped him incorporate the KSDI.  But Uncle Frank was not named on the 1960 KSDI trademark registration Sijo did.  People who trained with Emperado in the 60's, say they never saw or met Uncle Frank.  Other's may say different. 
The first reunion Uncle Frank attended was the June 15-17 1995 KSDI annual tournament in San Jose, Ca.  His "Ordonez Kajukenbo Ohana" was started on Feb. 15, 2008.  For many of the Kajukenbo seniors, including those who were Hawaiians, the 95 event was the first time they had seen or met the other founders.  
Joe Holck moved to Tucson, Az. in 1964.  It wasn't until the 80's that some Kajukenbo student in Tucson mentioned to his instructor that his uncle was one of the Kajukenbo founders.  And then that instructor went to Holck's Jujitsu school to visit him.  That led to his being brought to Hawaii to attend the Turtle Bay reunion in the early 90's.   



puunui said:


> I am not expecting you to write out every movement in every technique. I am trying to understand what actual contributions, if any, George Chang made to the kajukenbo curriculum. I get how important the chinese martial arts have become to kajukenbo, with titles, with branches, etc. So I can see why a connection to chinese martial arts would be useful to explain the progression and evolution of kajukenbo to today. Still, if George Chang's only role was photographer, I do not think that diminishes kajukenbo in any way. Do you? Even you said that most of the heavy lifting in Kajukenbo's development was done by Sijo, Professor Holck and Professor Choo.
> 
> But did it come from George Chang? That was my question, not whether kung fu techniques were part of the original Kajukenbo. There are other sources of chinese martial arts in kajukenbo's lineage besides the Bo in Kajukenbo, especially when boxing played such a prominent role in Kajukenbo's development. For example, Sijo's teacher Professor Chow is said to have had a chinese martial arts background, which he blended with Kosho Ryu to create Karaho Kempo. Many of Professor Chow's students took that and ran with it, exploring more deeply by studying kung fu directly. GM Ed Parker is one example. Sijo Emperado is another who chose that route. Why not explain it that way, instead of going with the five guys/five arts story that really doesn't fit with what actually happened.



Most of the Chinese martial arts influence and titles didn't start coming into Kajukenbo until 1968, for the development of Chuan Fa, Wun Hop Kuen Do, and Tum Pai.  
The Original (Kenpo) Method has kung fu techniques in it that I have never seen in the Mitose/Chow schools of kenpo.  And none of the other founders had kung fu training.  
When Emperado trained with Chow they were still affliated with Mitose, and practicing "kenpo jiu jutsu", not Kara-ho.  One of the reasons he wanted to expand beyond his kenpo, was because he said it was strickly a hard style, linear, Okinawan type karate.  He also did not believe that Chow actually had any kung fu training, because he never saw Chow demonstrate or teach anything that resembled kung fu.  
And Parker got all his kung fu influence on the mainland from people like Ark Y Wong and James Wing Woo. 



puunui said:


> Speaking of one or two year black belt programs, have you had the opportunity to see any of Sijo's certificates? And if so, are you going to be featuring any of those in your future books? My understanding is the Sijo started training with Professor Chow in 1946, and you stated that Sijo and Professor Holck were the only ones who were black belts in 1947-49 when the Black Belt Society created Kajukenbo. Do you know when Sijo received his black belt from Professor Chow? How about his Chief Instructor 5th Degree?



Nope, I haven't seen his certificates.  Don't even know if Chow gave out certificates back then.  Sijo did say that he had his 5th degree certificate.  From what I remember without digging out some notes, he got his shodan around the same time Holck did, 1949.  And Chow gave him a 5th degree Chief Instructor promotion in 1955.  There was no 2nd, 3rd, 4th, degree promotions.  As Sijo described it, "Professor Chow came over and said; Mitose promoted me to 10th degree.  I'm promoting you to 5th degree."  You'd have to know some history on Mitose and Chow to understand how that went down.


----------



## MJS (Jan 26, 2012)

puunui said:


> The reason why it doesn't match is because all the histories of kajukenbo all revolve around the same stuff repeated over and over. But think about it. "Walter" Choo could not have learned "Korean Tang Soo Do" in 1947 when the Black Belt Society was created, because he was born in the United States, did not speak Korean, and was living in Hawaii. When did he get the chance to go to Korea, 1946? I don't think so. Professor Choo is Korean through his parents, his father Peter YY Choo the first was on the ship of first to come to Hawaii to work on the plantations, in 1905 I want to say, but does that make what he learned from Professor Young "Korean Karate" such that we can claim the addition of kicks in Kajukenbo? Ka and Ken are from the same arts, Kenpo Karate, which makes sense when you think about it. And what is Sekeino Jujitsu? Anyone have any information on that? Things like that.



Well, my point was simply that there are so many versions of stories out there, IMHO, I think its important to get the facts or as close to the facts as possible.  Given the fact that Prof. Bishop has been in the Kaju circles for a long time, I tend to lean more towards what he says.  This isnt to say that what you're saying is wrong.  But when you start seeing numerous versions, again, I want whats closest to the source/accuracy.


----------



## puunui (Jan 26, 2012)

John Bishop said:


> So I ask again.  Who are you, and what is your background?



Sure, you can ask. But I think there is a MT rule about demanding answers, cross examination or interrogation style questions, or things like that. If people don't answer, I don't think you can keep asking them the same question. Maybe one of your moderator friends can clarify that point. As for who I am, nobody special. If you passed me on the street, you probably wouldn't notice me at all. 




John Bishop said:


> Well, your talking about 5 different individuals and their relationships.  I know Sijo hadn't had contact with Holck, Choo, and Chang, for at least a 30 year period.  Probably 50 years in Chang's case.  Uncle Frank left the islands off and on in the 50's.  The last contact he and Emperado had concerning Kajukenbo was around 1968, when Uncle Frank helped him incorporate the KSDI.  But Uncle Frank was not named on the 1960 KSDI trademark registration Sijo did.  People who trained with Emperado in the 60's, say they never saw or met Uncle Frank.  Other's may say different.
> The first reunion Uncle Frank attended was the June 15-17 1995 KSDI annual tournament in San Jose, Ca.  His "Ordonez Kajukenbo Ohana" was started on Feb. 15, 2008.  For many of the Kajukenbo seniors, including those who were Hawaiians, the 95 event was the first time they had seen or met the other founders.
> Joe Holck moved to Tucson, Az. in 1964.  It wasn't until the 80's that some Kajukenbo student in Tucson mentioned to his instructor that his uncle was one of the Kajukenbo founders.  And then that instructor went to Holck's Jujitsu school to visit him.  That led to his being brought to Hawaii to attend the Turtle Bay reunion in the early 90's.



Ok, so the 30 year comment doesn't apply to Professor Ordonez, because Sijo did see him in 1968, which is what I believe I said, right? And because Professor Choo and Professor Holck were related by marriage, they obviously kept in contact. And I know Professor Ordonez kept in contact with Professor Choo as well. So when you were speaking about the 30 years of separation, it was more having to do with Sijo losing touch with the other co-founders, and not the co-founders amongst themselves. 




John Bishop said:


> Most of the Chinese martial arts influence and titles didn't start coming into Kajukenbo until 1968, for the development of Chuan Fa, Wun Hop Kuen Do, and Tum Pai.  The Original (Kenpo) Method has kung fu techniques in it that I have never seen in the Mitose/Chow schools of kenpo.  And none of the other founders had kung fu training.



Are you certain that the techniques that you feel belong with the Original Method was in fact the same material that was in place in 1947-49? Or had it evolved by 1968 with Sijo's own study of chinese martial arts as well as the study of the seniors on the mainland? 




John Bishop said:


> When Emperado trained with Chow they were still affliated with Mitose, and practicing "kenpo jiu jutsu", not Kara-ho.  One of the reasons he wanted to expand beyond his kenpo, was because he said it was strickly a hard style, linear, Okinawan type karate.  He also did not believe that Chow actually had any kung fu training, because he never saw Chow demonstrate or teach anything that resembled kung fu.



Professor Chow's kung fu or chinese martial arts background is an interesting topic. His style was constantly evolving and did include kung fu or chinese martial arts techniques as time went on. Where he got it, is a good question. You sometimes hear the term "Chinese Kenpo Karate", which is generally attributed to Kajukenbo lineage students (Professor Godin is one example, as is Professor Buell), but I wonder if the only "chinese" in Chinese Kenpo Karate is because Professor Chow was half Chinese, sort of like how Professor Choo's Kenpo Karate got turned into "Korean Karate" because Professor Choo is Korean. 




John Bishop said:


> And Parker got all his kung fu influence on the mainland from people like Ark Y Wong and James Wing Woo.



GM Parker does credit Professor Chow for that though. How does that work, in your mind? Also, I understand that GM Parker used to visit Palama Settlement and perhaps other branches when he was in Hawaii during the 1950's, that GM Parker was influenced as much or more by Kajukenbo than perhaps Professor Chow. Any comments on that topic? 




John Bishop said:


> Nope, I haven't seen his certificates.  Don't even know if Chow gave out certificates back then.  Sijo did say that he had his 5th degree certificate.  From what I remember without digging out some notes, he got his shodan around the same time Holck did, 1949.  And Chow gave him a 5th degree Chief Instructor promotion in 1955.  There was no 2nd, 3rd, 4th, degree promotions.  As Sijo described it, "Professor Chow came over and said; Mitose promoted me to 10th degree.  I'm promoting you to 5th degree."  You'd have to know some history on Mitose and Chow to understand how that went down.



So if Sijo was promoted to black belt in 1949, then he wasn't a black belt for most of the time period that the Black Belt Society was busy creating Kajukenbo, 1947-1949. Also, I don't think Professor Chow ever referenced Professor Mitose by his last name only. He was respectful in that way.


----------



## MJS (Jan 26, 2012)

puunui said:


> Sure, you can ask. But I think there is a MT rule about demanding answers, cross examination or interrogation style questions, or things like that. If people don't answer, I don't think you can keep asking them the same question. Maybe one of your moderator friends can clarify that point. As for who I am, nobody special. If you passed me on the street, you probably wouldn't notice me at all.



Oh good God....seriously?? LOL!  I think what Prof. is trying to say is...if someone non Kaju is going to pop on and start talking about Kaju, it'd sure be nice to know the persons creds.  Does this person really know what they're talking about or are they talking out of their ***?  Jesus he wasn't holding in the interview room, with the light over your head...he simply asked who you were.  Funny you should mention rules.  If you know them so well, then you'd also know that you've broken many yourself.  

But lets not turn this thread into a mud slinging fest.  Some good discussion going on, and I'd like to keep it that way please.


----------



## puunui (Jan 26, 2012)

MJS said:


> Well, my point was simply that there are so many versions of stories out there, IMHO, I think its important to get the facts or as close to the facts as possible.  Given the fact that Prof. Bishop has been in the Kaju circles for a long time, I tend to lean more towards what he says.  This isnt to say that what you're saying is wrong.  But when you start seeing numerous versions, again, I want whats closest to the source/accuracy.



I live in Hawaii, how much closer can you get than that?  And if you believe Professor Bishop, then I think that is saying that you also believe me, because we started off at 80% and I think it is higher at this point. But like I said, I really don't have a stake in Kajukenbo history other than it being from Hawaii and me wanting it to prosper, because it is from Hawaii.


----------



## MJS (Jan 26, 2012)

puunui said:


> I live in Hawaii, how much closer can you get than that?  And if you believe Professor Bishop, then I think that is saying that you also believe me, because we started off at 80% and I think it is higher at this point. But like I said, I really don't have a stake in Kajukenbo history other than it being from Hawaii and me wanting it to prosper, because it is from Hawaii.



OTOH, I could live in Brazil and not know a damn thing about BJJ.  Anyways....like I said, I dont believe I was disputing what you said, just that I think its normal to question something, when you're faced with multiple answers to a question.   

I think discussions and forums like this are good, especially when you get the chance to share knowledge and interact with various people.


----------



## puunui (Jan 26, 2012)

John Bishop said:


> One of the reasons he wanted to expand beyond his kenpo, was because he said it was strickly a hard style, linear, Okinawan type karate.



On this topic, what do you think about Professor Mitose and Okinawan Karate? I saw a video interview of Professor Thomas Young, who I believe basically admitted that Professor Mitose's kenpo came from Okinawa. And to me, Professor Mitose's features look Okinawan, as opposed to a mainland Japanese. I think Professor Mitose was Okinawan myself. I have a book from Mizuho Mutsu I believe and it has the some of the same photographs that Professor Mitose included in his book What is Self Defense.


----------



## puunui (Jan 26, 2012)

MJS said:


> I think discussions and forums like this are good, especially when you get the chance to share knowledge and interact with various people.



Me too. Please feel free to jump into the discussion at anytime. It doesn't have to be only Professor Bishop and myself.


----------



## Wo Fat (Jan 26, 2012)

MJS said:


> Oh good God....seriously?? LOL!  I think what Prof. is trying to say is...if someone non Kaju is going to pop on and start talking about Kaju, it'd sure be nice to know the persons creds.  Does this person really know what they're talking about or are they talking out of their ***?  Jesus he wasn't holding in the interview room, with the light over your head...he simply asked who you were.  Funny you should mention rules.  If you know them so well, then you'd also know that you've broken many yourself.
> 
> But lets not turn this thread into a mud slinging fest.  Some good discussion going on, and I'd like to keep it that way please.



I obviously don't know the poster either, but from what he's been writing, he appears to be offering at least some things that have been known--though not necessarily written as gospel--by many within Kajukenbo.  By his posts, he seems to be offering (what LOOKS like) legitimate perspective based on either first-hand communication, first-hand knowledge, inference, or a combination of those things.  Seems like a fair standard to apply.

As a Kajukenbo man--dating back to the late 1970's--and as someone who understands the occasional consequences of speaking freely, I understand to some degree why the poster chooses to remain anonymous.


----------



## puunui (Jan 26, 2012)

MJS said:


> Funny you should mention rules.  If you know them so well, then you'd also know that you've broken many yourself.



Well, what can I say, I have been a rule breaker my whole life. But on the other hand, walking one the edge is where out of the ordinary things happen. I enjoy my iphone because Steve Jobs kept pushing the envelope and wanted more. I'm glad he broke the rules. Professor Bishop just needs to get to a place where he realizes I am not an anti-kenpo or anti-kajukenbo guy and take this for what it is, which is an opportunity to show people just how special kajukenbo really is. He's getting there. Who knows, he might even sell a few more books through this discussion. I hope he does, and I hope people get more curious about kajukenbo, perhaps enough to even study the art itself. I don't know about you, but I'm getting excited about kajukenbo through these discussions, as we wait around for the USOC Hearing Panel to issue its order on remedies in the USA Taekwondo case.


----------



## puunui (Jan 26, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> I obviously don't know the poster either, but from what he's been writing, he appears to be offering at least some things that have been known--though not necessarily written as gospel--by many within Kajukenbo.  By his posts, he seems to be offering (what LOOKS like) legitimate perspective based on either first-hand communication, first-hand knowledge, inference, or a combination of those things.  Seems like a fair standard to apply.
> 
> As a Kajukenbo man--dating back to the late 1970's--and as someone who understands the occasional consequences of speaking freely, I understand to some degree why the poster chooses to remain anonymous.



Thanks, I think.


----------



## MJS (Jan 26, 2012)

puunui said:


> Me too. Please feel free to jump into the discussion at anytime. It doesn't have to be only Professor Bishop and myself.



Oh I will.  Been busy the past few but I havent forgot about this thread. 



Wo Fat said:


> I obviously don't know the poster either, but from what he's been writing, he appears to be offering at least some things that have been known--though not necessarily written as gospel--by many within Kajukenbo.  By his posts, he seems to be offering (what LOOKS like) legitimate perspective based on either first-hand communication, first-hand knowledge, inference, or a combination of those things.  Seems like a fair standard to apply.
> 
> As a Kajukenbo man--dating back to the late 1970's--and as someone who understands the occasional consequences of speaking freely, I understand to some degree why the poster chooses to remain anonymous.



Well, like I said, I'm not Kaju, so....in a nutshell, someone could say whatever they want and I may not know any better.  But yeah, he is offering up stuff. 



puunui said:


> Well, what can I say, I have been a rule breaker my whole life. But on the other hand, walking one the edge is where out of the ordinary things happen. I enjoy my iphone because Steve Jobs kept pushing the envelope and wanted more. I'm glad he broke the rules. Professor Bishop just needs to get to a place where he realizes I am not an anti-kenpo or anti-kajukenbo guy and take this for what it is, which is an opportunity to show people just how special kajukenbo really is. He's getting there. Who knows, he might even sell a few more books through this discussion. I hope he does, and I hope people get more curious about kajukenbo, perhaps enough to even study the art itself. I don't know about you, but I'm getting excited about kajukenbo through these discussions, as we wait around for the USOC Hearing Panel to issue its order on remedies in the USA Taekwondo case.



Well, I just dont want to see this thread get locked and turn into a crap fest like others have, thats all.   And yes, as I said, I enjoy threads like this....theres always alot to learn.


----------



## John Bishop (Jan 27, 2012)

puunui said:


> Sure, you can ask. But I think there is a MT rule about demanding answers, cross examination or interrogation style questions, or things like that. If people don't answer, I don't think you can keep asking them the same question. Maybe one of your moderator friends can clarify that point. As for who I am, nobody special. If you passed me on the street, you probably wouldn't notice me at all.



OK.  It just lends some credibility to a persons claims if they are known to be a person who should be in the know.  Anyone could go on a forum anonymously and say anything.  They could say they were James Mitose's illigetimate child (which suppossedly there are some) and know all his history that no one else knows.
Plus, I was mostly curious if you are someone I had heard about.  12-14 years ago Sean Springer, one of Clarence Luna's black belts, told me about a guy he talked to who was a friend of Peter Choo III.  Now if you would have told me your name, and it matched the name in my notes, I would have known that you were for real.  As it stands now, the things you have been saying have been on the internet for years.  So anyone can repeat them here. 



puunui said:


> Ok, so the 30 year comment doesn't apply to Professor Ordonez, because Sijo did see him in 1968, which is what I believe I said, right? And because Professor Choo and Professor Holck were related by marriage, they obviously kept in contact. And I know Professor Ordonez kept in contact with Professor Choo as well. So when you were speaking about the 30 years of separation, it was more having to do with Sijo losing touch with the other co-founders, and not the co-founders amongst themselves.



Agreed



puunui said:


> Are you certain that the techniques that you feel belong with the Original Method was in fact the same material that was in place in 1947-49? Or had it evolved by 1968 with Sijo's own study of chinese martial arts as well as the study of the seniors on the mainland?



They were in place long before 1968, and brought to the mainland starting in 1957 with John Leoning, 60-63 with Tony Ramos, Aleju Reyes, Charles Gaylord, and Joe Halbuna.   



puunui said:


> GM Parker does credit Professor Chow for that though. How does that work, in your mind? Also, I understand that GM Parker used to visit Palama Settlement and perhaps other branches when he was in Hawaii during the 1950's, that GM Parker was influenced as much or more by Kajukenbo than perhaps Professor Chow. Any comments on that topic?



He trained with Chow during a different time then the Emperado brothers.  He did start at the Palama Settlement school, but went to Chow's school after 2 weeks.  He did visit Sijo at times, and they were friends all their adult lives.



puunui said:


> So if Sijo was promoted to black belt in 1949, then he wasn't a black belt for most of the time period that the Black Belt Society was busy creating Kajukenbo, 1947-1949. Also, I don't think Professor Chow ever referenced Professor Mitose by his last name only. He was respectful in that way.



Pretty amazing that these 5 young men created a martial art that would last the test of time, and be practiced by tens of thousands of practitioners in 37 countries.  
I've seen or listened to hours and hours of video and audio tapes of Prof. Chow that Sam Kuoha has, and it's evident that he had very little respect for Mitose.


----------



## John Bishop (Jan 27, 2012)

puunui said:


> On this topic, what do you think about Professor Mitose and Okinawan Karate? I saw a video interview of Professor Thomas Young, who I believe basically admitted that Professor Mitose's kenpo came from Okinawa. And to me, Professor Mitose's features look Okinawan, as opposed to a mainland Japanese. I think Professor Mitose was Okinawan myself. I have a book from Mizuho Mutsu I believe and it has the some of the same photographs that Professor Mitose included in his book What is Self Defense.



Well, that's another topic that comes up quite often.  My personal opinion (which I can't prove, but others can't disprove) is that Mitose either learned some Okinawan Karate or learned it from books available at the time.  There's no question that he plagiarized two Okinawan Kempo books, when he wrote his own.  
He also used Okinawan training devices like the makiwara, and taught the Naihanchi Kata.  
When I talked to Thomas Young in 1988, he told me kenpo was Okinawan, even though he couldn't explain the history of it.  Sijo told me that Mitose claimed in the 40's, that Choki Motobu was his uncle, and teacher.  But we know Mitose made a career of being a conman.  
And then there's the martial arts historian Richard Kim.  He told me in 1989, that Mitose "had lessons from Choki Motobu".  He even wrote about the connection Hawaiian Kenpo has to Okinawa in his book, "The Weaponless Warriors".


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 27, 2012)

Just to take a break from the Glenn and John (and John) show, I don't like not answering questions, but have been caught up in other arguments and other things over the last couple of days. So, my apologies for the delay.



shihansmurf said:


> Chris,
> 
> I have a feeling that you and I are approaching the Arts from different enough perspectives that we aren't going to agree on this topic. Be that as it may, I'm enjoying the verbal sparring so to continue...



Hey Mark,

Ha, yeah, we probably are. But, like you, I find the verbal interplay enjoyable.... and it's so much more fun when the other side can put an argument together!



shihansmurf said:


> You, as an individual, my distinguish between "pure" and "original" but the vast majority of the martial arts worls doesn't. I don't really have a disagreement with anything that you wrote in the above, except to say that preserving anything in the martial arts merely for the sake of doing so in the face of clearly superior methods is absurd. I'll address that more as the post develops.



Oh boy, are we coming from different places... 

When it comes to the distinction of "pure" versus "original", as I'm looking at the distinction between the words themselves, I wonder how you might know what the "vast majority of the martial arts world" thinks... After all, the Ed Parker quote earlier ("pure knuckles meeting pure flesh equals pure karate") doesn't make any demands on the meeting of these items being "original". And as far as your take on "preserving anything in the martial arts merely for the sake of doing so in the face of clearly superior methods" being absurd... well, you're fairly off the mark on the reason for not altering aspects or an entire art itself, but we'll deal with that when we get to it, yeah?



shihansmurf said:


> I did read what you wrote and I realized after rereading my post that I was riffing on the idea in general and not in specific with your posts. Apologies.



Not a problem... but, uh, you do it again, you know.



shihansmurf said:


> I am aware of the evidence. I don't accept the objectivity of those claims as readily as the traditional schools would like, but I am aware of the claims. Even if it is true, historical recreation isn't an interest of mine, but I can see how it appeals to others. IF, however, we were to find a measurable way to improve the performance of the sword swing that was objectively better than the way that it was done 400 years ago should we cling doggedly to the old way for the sake of purity or creating a facimile of the initial way?



Right. Let's clear a few things up, shall we? There is nothing remotely like a "historical recreation"  aspect involved in the arts you're referring to there. As far as you not accepting the claims as readily as the schools might like, you, uh, do realise that there are numerous physical artifacts (scrolls, training weapons etc) that demonstrate exactly what you're not wanting to accept. In quite a lot of detail. Down to the specific training that was used and is still used. Within the Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu (the school passed down from Musashi) there is, along with everything else, a bokuto (wooden sword) that was supposedly carved by Musashi himself passed down. There are some characters carved into that bokuto, which give it it's name: Jisso Enman. Roughly translated, that means "without adaptation". In other words, the passing of the system, which goes along with the bokuto, includes the very instruction to pass it without adaptation. There is also nothing even close to wanting to create a "facsimile" of the initial methods either... in fact, that's the last thing that's desired. It's considered the epitome of bad training, and a worst case scenario for the arts themselves, even worse than the art not continuing.

So is it the sake of purity? Well, kinda, but not really. It's more about valuing the art and it's history than anything else... but there's also a real appreciation for where the lessons came from. When you look at arts that were designed for, and were successful at, killing other people and keeping the practitioners alive at the same time, changing things later to an untested alternative because you think it's "better", or "superior" can be seen as a rather arrogant approach, disregarding the people who's lives allowed the information and lessons to come to you in favour of thinking "hey, I think this might be better".



shihansmurf said:


> You and I might agree on the "pure" and "original" dichotomy but the majority of the ma world doesn't. As to the "japanese didn't invent swords" comment I thought the meaning and implication were clear.



No, not really. Mainly as the basic premise was flawed, but we'll get to that.



shihansmurf said:


> Given that they aren't the first culture to utilize those weapons, then any system or method that they developed for doing so was naturaly based off of an earlier school of knowledge. They took and changed the material to adapt it for their needs, as well they should. Attempting to use the Koryu arts as a model to be emmulated as a hallmark of "purity" is, at its foundation, silly. They weren't pure from the begining, being as they were distillizations of earlier knowledge.



I'm going to be blunt here and say "garbage". Just because one culture developed swords, doesn't mean that every other culture that developed swords copied them, or their methods for their use. You're grasping at straws without any basis... and you're misrepresenting my comments again. I have not used the Koryu arts as a model for anything, much less a hallmark of purity... hell, I've said specifically that every art, following it's own philosophy, is pure, not just Koryu, much less Koryu being the hallmark for such things. 

Oh, and your Koryu history might need some work, not all were distillations of earlier knowledge... but we're getting ahead of ourselves again.



shihansmurf said:


> Minimalist training, but training nonetheless. Point is, if he applied the "system is superior to the individual" idea then he wouldn't have developed what he did. He still didn't magically create his system out of thin air.  No one ever has.[/;QUOTE]
> 
> Background on Musashi? Okay! By "minimalist training", it's not really known what actual training Musashi had. His father was a skilled martial artist, but it appears that Musashi moved away from him early on, and lived with his uncle. Living with his uncle was harsh, training, such as it was, was little more than beatings. He left his uncle by his teens, going into a local village and seeing an open challenge from one Arima Kihei of the Shinto Ryu for duels. Musashi decided to accept this open challenge, and promptly beat Arima to death with a stick. No real technique to speak of, he just kept bludgeoning him. From there, he started wandering, and accepting duels where he could. He would work on his swordsmanship by himself, but it still wasn't what would be regarded as "formal" training. This continued up until he was 29, when he had his famous duel against Sasaki Kojiro at Ganryu Island. After that, he gave up dueling, and retired to meditate on his life. He took up Zen Buddhism in a big way, and came to some realizations about his previous life. Namely that his success was not due to particular technique or superiority as a warrior, but mainly due to the attitude he had of unflinching in the face of a sword, and pure dumb luck. It was only looking back over his experience that he began to see the structure of his heiho (strategy), and began formulating his art. The techniques were taken primarily from his dueling experiences, not previous martial training, and were refined as he gathered students, eventually passing the art onto three particular students. The art is highly influenced by Buddhism, to the point where knowing the Buddhist Sutras is considered essential to understanding his art... and to understanding his writings (which also require training in Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu to be truly understood).
> 
> ...


----------



## puunui (Jan 27, 2012)

John Bishop said:


> OK.  It just lends some credibility to a persons claims if they are known to be a person who should be in the know.  Anyone could go on a forum anonymously and say anything.  They could say they were James Mitose's illigetimate child (which suppossedly there are some) and know all his history that no one else knows.



I'm not Professor Mitose's illegitimate child.




John Bishop said:


> Plus, I was mostly curious if you are someone I had heard about.  12-14 years ago Sean Springer, one of Clarence Luna's black belts, told me about a guy he talked to who was a friend of Peter Choo III.



I know Sean. Is he still a dolphin trainer? It's been a while since I have seen or spoken to him, over twenty years. I think he is hapa like you, but I never asked him about that. We may have spoken about kajukenbo, but I have no specific recollection about it. 




John Bishop said:


> Now if you would have told me your name, and it matched the name in my notes, I would have known that you were for real.  As it stands now, the things you have been saying have been on the internet for years.  So anyone can repeat them here.



I doesn't bother me if you think that what I am writing is stuff I got from the internet. 




John Bishop said:


> They were in place long before 1968, and brought to the mainland starting in 1957 with John Leoning, 60-63 with Tony Ramos, Aleju Reyes, Charles Gaylord, and Joe Halbuna.



So I guess the answer is we do not know where that kung fu came from then, because if it did come from George Chang, I think you would have said so, and I don't believe you have said that.




John Bishop said:


> He trained with Chow during a different time then the Emperado brothers.  He did start at the Palama Settlement school, but went to Chow's school after 2 weeks.  He did visit Sijo at times, and they were friends all their adult lives.



What about the Frank Chow story? Was Frank Chow a student of Sijo? GM Parker says that he first learned kenpo from him.




John Bishop said:


> Pretty amazing that these 5 young men created a martial art that would last the test of time, and be practiced by tens of thousands of practitioners in 37 countries.



I agree, kajukenbo, and the kenpo story as well is an amazing thing.




John Bishop said:


> I've seen or listened to hours and hours of video and audio tapes of Prof. Chow that Sam Kuoha has, and it's evident that he had very little respect for Mitose.



On those tapes, did you hear Professor Chow refer to Professor Mitose by his last name only?


----------



## puunui (Jan 27, 2012)

I thought I wrote long posts. You beat me. 



Chris Parker said:


> Within the Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu (the school passed down from Musashi) there is, along with everything else, a bokuto (wooden sword) that was supposedly carved by Musashi himself passed down. There are some characters carved into that bokuto, which give it it's name: Jisso Enman. Roughly translated, that means "without adaptation".



Maybe he was saying pass this bokuto down "without adaptation" or alteration. 




Chris Parker said:


> In other words, the passing of the system, which goes along with the bokuto, includes the very instruction to pass it without adaptation. There is also nothing even close to wanting to create a "facsimile" of the initial methods either... in fact, that's the last thing that's desired. It's considered the epitome of bad training, and a worst case scenario for the arts themselves, even worse than the art not continuing.
> 
> So is it the sake of purity? Well, kinda, but not really. It's more about valuing the art and it's history than anything else... but there's also a real appreciation for where the lessons came from. When you look at arts that were designed for, and were successful at, killing other people and keeping the practitioners alive at the same time, changing things later to an untested alternative because you think it's "better", or "superior" can be seen as a rather arrogant approach, disregarding the people who's lives allowed the information and lessons to come to you in favour of thinking "hey, I think this might be better".



Contrast that thought from a quote from YAMAMOTO Kansuke which is in the Samurai Aikijutsu book:


"We can separate Samurai teachers of strategy (heiho) into three separate classes.  A 'Heiho-Sha' is a Samurai who has studied deeply from many masters and added the results of his own research to his fighting method.  This allows him to be ever-victorious; a virtuoso in the art of war.  A 'Heiho-Jin' is a person who has not studied the martial arts so deeply, but has picked up some good points and specialised in certain techniques which he applies at an opportune time so as to win (he picks the right time to fight). He will sometimes, but not always win.  A 'Heiho-Tsukai' copies only the example of his master and passes on the techniques as he himself learned them, without adding his own experience.  As a result the techniques decline as time passes."


----------



## puunui (Jan 27, 2012)

John Bishop said:


> Well, that's another topic that comes up quite often.  My personal opinion (which I can't prove, but others can't disprove) is that Mitose either learned some Okinawan Karate or learned it from books available at the time.  There's no question that he plagiarized two Okinawan Kempo books, when he wrote his own.



Who would he have learned from? And where, in Hawaii or Okinawa or Japan? 




John Bishop said:


> He also used Okinawan training devices like the makiwara, and taught the Naihanchi Kata.



You don't see him striking it hard though, if at all. 



John Bishop said:


> When I talked to Thomas Young in 1988, he told me kenpo was Okinawan, even though he couldn't explain the history of it.  Sijo told me that Mitose claimed in the 40's, that Choki Motobu was his uncle, and teacher.  But we know Mitose made a career of being a conman.



If his uncle was Motobu Sensei, then that would mean he was okinawan, or at least half. My father said that back in those days, the Okinawan and Japanese communities were separate, with little or no mixing. Okinawan and Japanese were considered two different people, like how Japanese and Chinese and Korean are considered different. At one time I was interested in finding out if Mitose was an alternate pronounciation of Motobu, but never followed up on that. Sometimes okinawan names translate differently into japanese. For example, one of my friends' last name is Kaneshiro, but it can be alternatively pronounced as Kinjo in Japanese. I believe he told me that in Okinawa, it would be pronounced kanegusuku. We have an okinawan cultural center here now, maybe I will go up there and ask someone.




John Bishop said:


> And then there's the martial arts historian Richard Kim.  He told me in 1989, that Mitose "had lessons from Choki Motobu".  He even wrote about the connection Hawaiian Kenpo has to Okinawa in his book, "The Weaponless Warriors".



I never met Kim Sensei, but I did write to him and he kindly wrote back. It was about the connection between Hapkido and Daito Ryu. I have a copy of Weaponless Warriors. I'll go look through it tonight.


----------



## John Bishop (Jan 27, 2012)

puunui said:


> So I guess the answer is we do not know where that kung fu came from then, because if it did come from George Chang, I think you would have said so, and I don't believe you have said that.



No, the answer is I believe what Uncle Frank wrote about Chang, and what Sijo told me.  When Reyes, Leoning, Gaylord, and Ramos were training in the 50's, nobody teaching had any kung fu experience.  That's Sijo, Joe Emperado, Woodrow McCandless, Marino Tiwanak, Benny Mediro, Pauly Soronio.



puunui said:


> What about the Frank Chow story? Was Frank Chow a student of Sijo? GM Parker says that he first learned kenpo from him.



He wasn't a student of Emperado's.  From what I heard he wasn't a black belt.  They (Frank and Parker) were high school kids that met at church.  



puunui said:


> On those tapes, did you hear Professor Chow refer to Professor Mitose by his last name only?



That and a lot worse.  But he also referred to most of the people he talked about by their last name; Parker, Emperado, Mitose.


----------



## John Bishop (Jan 27, 2012)

puunui said:


> Who would he have learned from? And where, in Hawaii or Okinawa or Japan?



I don't know.  One theory is he learned in Kona, where he was born and Mutsu's family lived.  Could have easily picked it up in Japan.  I wouldn't be surprised if he learned from a book.  He only knew 1 kata, which was also the one illustrated in Motobu's book.  And he only had to know enough to impress some beginners who had never seen karate before.    
Once his students became somewhat proficient, they left him to study with others.  Bobby Lowe with Kyokushinkai, Paul Yamaguichi with Goju Ryu, Woodrow McCandless with Emperado, William Chow on his own.  



puunui said:


> If his uncle was Motobu Sensei, then that would mean he was okinawan, or at least half. My father said that back in those days, the Okinawan and Japanese communities were separate, with little or no mixing. Okinawan and Japanese were considered two different people, like how Japanese and Chinese and Korean are considered different. At one time I was interested in finding out if Mitose was an alternate pronounciation of Motobu, but never followed up on that. Sometimes okinawan names translate differently into japanese. For example, one of my friends' last name is Kaneshiro, but it can be alternatively pronounced as Kinjo in Japanese. I believe he told me that in Okinawa, it would be pronounced kanegusuku. We have an okinawan cultural center here now, maybe I will go up there and ask someone.



Richard Kim said he knew him casually, and he definetly wasn't Okinawan.  And like you said, Okinawans and Japanese are two different peoples, with Okinawans being more ethicnically tied to China than Japan.
Motobu's son said they were not related to Mitose.   



puunui said:


> I never met Kim Sensei, but I did write to him and he kindly wrote back. It was about the connection between Hapkido and Daito Ryu. I have a copy of Weaponless Warriors. I'll go look through it tonight.



page 66


On a side note, do you know the story behind these pogs, and who among us received them?


----------



## puunui (Jan 27, 2012)

John Bishop said:


> No, the answer is I believe what Uncle Frank wrote about Chang, and what Sijo told me.  When Reyes, Leoning, Gaylord, and Ramos were training in the 50's, nobody teaching had any kung fu experience.  That's Sijo, Joe Emperado, Woodrow McCandless, Marino Tiwanak, Benny Mediro, Pauly Soronio.



So Sijo, Joe Emperado, Woodrow McCandless, Marino Tiwanak, Benny Mediro, Pauly Soronio had no kung fu experience? The Joseph Emperado issue is an interesting one. I don't know if that should be discussed here. 



John Bishop said:


> That and a lot worse.  But he also referred to most of the people he talked about by their last name; Parker, Emperado, Mitose.



Ok. I never heard him speak like that, about anybody. He was kind of angry at some of those names, and said certain things which I do not know are true or not. But I remember Professor Chow being mindful about that, at least with Professor Mitose. I never met Professor Kuoha, but I saw some of the letters he wrote to Professor Chow. They reminded me of the letters that GM Parker used to write, about why he couldn't send money this month because this or that happened.


----------



## puunui (Jan 27, 2012)

John Bishop said:


> Richard Kim said he knew him casually, and he definetly wasn't Okinawan.  And like you said, Okinawans and Japanese are two different peoples, with Okinawans being more ethicnically tied to China than Japan.



The Okinawan people look different than the Japanese people. They have a more "hapa" look to them, if that makes any sense. Professor Mitose has those big eyes and short stature, that makes me think he is Okinawan. And the surname Mitose is unusual. I tried to look it up once in a Japanese surname book and couldn't find it.




John Bishop said:


> On a side note, do you know the story behind these pogs, and who among us received them?



No, not really. I'm hoping to see Peter the son this weekend. Should I get one more for you?


----------



## John Bishop (Jan 27, 2012)

puunui said:


> No, not really. I'm hoping to see Peter the son this weekend. Should I get one more for you?



No, but thanks for the offer.  I've had the one in the picture since 1997.  That might be a clue to it's sentimental value to us in Kajukenbo.


----------



## puunui (Jan 27, 2012)

John Bishop said:


> No, but thanks for the offer.  I've had the one in the picture since 1997.  That might be a clue to it's sentimental value to us in Kajukenbo.



Thanks for the clue.


----------



## puunui (Jan 27, 2012)

Here is a question: Was Sijo teaching in the 70s in Hawaii, and if so, where? I tried to contact him after I saw his entry in Bob Wall's Who's Who in the Martial Arts, but never got a hold of him.


----------



## Chris Parker (Jan 28, 2012)

puunui said:


> I thought I wrote long posts. You beat me.



Ha, you should see me when I really get going... 



puunui said:


> Maybe he was saying pass this bokuto down "without adaptation" or alteration.



Glenn, honestly, that is possibly the worst and most desperate attempt to grasp at straws with absolutely no basis in understanding or logic that I've seen here. No. Not in the slightest. And, for the record, there are few people on this forum who can speak from a more informed position on Musashi and his intentions, and they tend to frequent other places.



puunui said:


> Contrast that thought from a quote from YAMAMOTO Kansuke which is in the Samurai Aikijutsu book:
> 
> 
> "We can separate Samurai teachers of strategy (heiho) into three separate classes.  A 'Heiho-Sha' is a Samurai who has studied deeply from many masters and added the results of his own research to his fighting method.  This allows him to be ever-victorious; a virtuoso in the art of war.  A 'Heiho-Jin' is a person who has not studied the martial arts so deeply, but has picked up some good points and specialised in certain techniques which he applies at an opportune time so as to win (he picks the right time to fight). He will sometimes, but not always win.  A 'Heiho-Tsukai' copies only the example of his master and passes on the techniques as he himself learned them, without adding his own experience.  As a result the techniques decline as time passes."



Without getting into the source material (the book) itself, perhaps some context would clarify the quote.

Yamamoto Kansuke was a general of Takeda Shingen's who lived in the early 16th Century. At that point in time, the Ryu idea was very new, and yet to be widely adopted. Additionally, it was what was known as the Sengoku Jidai, the period of warring states, and Yamamoto himself was known as an unorthodox strategist, so it's not unusual that he would think in such a fashion. 

Additionally, to read Yamamoto's words, he is not talking about maintaining a system, really. He talks about personal methods, as opposed to prescribed methods, which is really just showing his personal take on things. You could just as easily look at the words of his namesake, Yamamoto Tsunetomo, as recorded in the Hagakure (about 300 years later, so in a very different context, for the record):


			
				YamamotoTsunetomo said:
			
		

> Listening to golden sayings or deeds of men of old is to learn their wisdom. This is an unselfish attitude. If you talk with others discuss these excellent well known accomplishments, dismiss your narrow minded ideas and your course of action will not be wrong.




It's also worth remembering that, at all times, this discussion has gone on. And each art answers it in their own way. Koryu that have remained have, by and large, done so by remaining true to their original methods, or as close as they can. But even there it's not a universal rule... there are arts such as Araki Ryu who have a tradition of testing their techniques over and over again, changing ones that don't pass muster, dropping ones if necessary. Other systems add to their repertoire, provided it remains true to the art itself. Even the most closely guarded and maintained do so in such a way that they don't become static museum pieces.


----------



## shihansmurf (Jan 28, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Hey Mark,Ha, yeah, we probably are. But, like you, I find the verbal interplay enjoyable.... and it's so much more fun when the other side can put an argument together!To be blunt, Mark, that to me shows a lack of martial art training, as all it is is looking at pure technical ideas, and then corrupting them by bringing in other ideas. And, to be honest, I'd be willing to bet that there is one underlying art that you use, and you've adapted the other aspects so they match the underlying one. Otherwise it's honestly just a mess you've described there... it works in movies and in books, but not in reality.


Chris,I am enjoying this debate as well and will continue it more tomorrow as I am getting a bit pressed for time.However, I am going to be very blunt here. My view on tharts are a lot different from yours. I have had a different set of experiences in the time that I have trained than you have. Due to this, I have a batch of strong opinions that clash with yours. That is just the way of things.Assuming that I disagree with you because I have a lack of training is insulting, condescending, and wrong on an epic scale.I started training in 1983 in shotokan. I was 9. I have stayed with shotokan as my base art since then.  I crossed over in the Han Foo Wa/Jeet Kune Do(Bill Shaw's interpretation of JKD with Danzan Ryu throwing techniques heavily emphasized) in 90 as I had moved and there was no shotokan where we had gone.  I boxed with significant experience in college. I have been training in American Kenpo and Chinese kenpo since 2000. I am certified to teach Army Combatives up to level 3 now.Point to the above is the I don't suffer from a lack of training. I have been fortunate enough to work with many great teachers and coaches over the years. I have been teaching, first as an assistant instructor, then with my own class since 1989 as a brown belt(I was in charge of teaching the kids classes at the school).  Hopefully, I pass your litmus test.Here is the thing, I disagree with the positions you hold. I don't, however, assume that you are ill informed, poorly trained, or unknowledgeable. You place a different value on the Arts that you train and the experience of training in an "Authentic" martial art than I do. I have been doing this long enough to realize that not every thing that my teachers said/thought/taught/wrote were objectively perfect. In point of fact, I have learned that due to the same dogmatic approac to training that you are espousing, at times they were incorrect. It doesn't make them bad people. They were just mistaken on some things. I am too. Happens. I don't, however, feel bound to continue teaching material that I KNOW to be flawed due to loyalty that blinds me to thinking intelligently and as objectively as possible about the Arts. I feel it be dishonest of me to do so.Are there things I still don't know about shotokan? Sure. Is that list pretty damn small? Without a doubt. It certainly is in comparison to what I do know about my base art. At what point in my skill development/time in training/expansion of my knowledge do I earn the right to look at my Art and say "Pushing into the floor does nothing to increase the power of my punch?" Hell, a high school level of physics will demonstrate it is impossible to push into the floor unless you have a really low ceiling to push up on.Should I continue to teach something that is incorrect to maintian the Art, or do I jettison the idea and teach my students something that is more effective and doesn't require cartoon physics to believe?As to your assertion that I have a base Art, I sure do. I work other material to fit it. I teach shotokan, basically. We don't do 3 and 5 step kumite. I start them off on ippon kumite and they stop that at 7th kyu in favor of free sparring. We don't do our stances as deeply at JKA Shotokan. My students learn a lot of kenpo techniques as I find that they work great to teach prinicples and concepts of movement. I work a lot of trapping drills at 3rd kyu and above. My guys learn quite a bit of throwing and we use JKD's 5 methods of attack model. I use a lot of boxing training drills as well ingraining as muchof that skill set as I possible can.We do a couple of the kicks differently from traditional shotokan and I disagree with method of execution in those kicks(Yoko Geri, in particular, as the knee is a hinge joing and that method forces the knee to move at an angle that it isn't really built to do. We also strike with the flat of our heel instead of the blade of the foot),  I shorten the distance that my students cove in a single stepping movement. After 7th kyu we don't do a lot of defensive work against the step through punch, opting instead to work on improving our defenses against jabs and jab/cross combos. Its much more practical.Now, I don't expect you to approve of my teaching methodology or approach to the Art. I frankly don't care if you do. However, all of the above changes to my Art and how I train my students are based on several decades of experience and not casual whim. I think I have developed enough skill, knowledge, and ability to observe, analyze, and alter as needed my Art. If you don't agree, I invite you to explain to me what benchmarks I need to hit before I am qualified.As I have stated, our views differ enough that we will not see eye to eye. Thats fine. I have enough faith in the knowledge that I have gained from my teachers, years of training, and experience that I don't need to mimic what someone who came before me did. I was taught to think about the Art and to always understand that the Art is there for me, not the other way around.If how you are training works for you(and your students if you teach) that that is outstanding. It doesn't mean that you are in any position to tell me that my approach is wrong, when in fact you have never had any direct contact with me or my students. Yes, it does make you arrogant. It demonstrates that you are rigid in your thinking and unable to accpet that there are knowledgeable people out there that hold differing position from you. The assumption that you made about me and my training speaks volumes about you.   As to your assertion that my approach looks good in movies but not in reality. I don't think that you are in any way qualified to be a arbitor of that. The ecclectic approach has worked well for the MMA movement. It worked extremely well for the JKD movement. Works well for the All of the Chow derived kenpo systems out there as they owe their existance to this same experimetation and adjusting mindset. It specifically works well for the Kajukenbo guys.  Hell, by your own depiction of Mushashi's life and the development of his Art it worked well for him.You disagree with it and don't find it palatable. I get that. Your view on this isn't objectively correct, it is subjectively so, and your assertion that it is demonstrates that you are emotionally invested in your training methodology(as are we all) and you don't seem to grasp the idea that someone who disagrees wit you can do so and it doesn't invalidate your position.Just a thought,MarkP.S. The caveman and chimpanzee reference in my last post was intended to humorously illustrate the absurdity that the age of an Art makes it superior to another Art. Times change, the way we fight changes, technology changes and impacts how we understand things like sports science and human movement, and the social/cultural impact on how we fight change. Looking to someone who taught 400 years ago without the benefit of the intervening 400 years of developments in the above mentioned things is as absurd to me as the idea that individual people can innovate in the martial arts is to you. Again, my view, but I am not vain enough to think that what I think is important enough to presume that the only way that anyone disagreeing with my is doing so out of ignorance.


----------



## shihansmurf (Jan 28, 2012)

I can't edit that last post for some reason. I didn't inted that to be a giant wall of text.Sorry about that,Mark


----------



## puunui (Jan 28, 2012)

John Bishop said:


> On a side note, do you know the story behind these pogs, and who among us received them?



So I saw Professor Choo's son today and showed him this picture. He said he never heard of pogs from his father before and doesn't know what it is for. He did say that towards the end, his father was signing all kinds of stuff or was asked to sign all kinds of stuff, but he was having a hard time holding the pen due to his illness. He said that his mother, brother and even he signed things for his father, certificates, and whatever else. He said one way to tell if his father truly signed or not is that he always signed his name "Peter Y.Y. Choo, Jr." He couldn't tell whether yours was signed by his father or not, because no "Jr.", but he said it could be. He said his mother's handwriting is messier, so you can tell when she signed on behalf of her husband. She didn't sign yours. 

He said he met you in Benicia in 1997, when he and his brother went up for some kind of tournament and celebration, after his father passed away. He kept the belt that I believe was given to him, and his brother has the uniform. They embroidered "sijo" on it, and have it framed in some sort of glass case. I don't know if he was talking about at that 1997 tournament, a 50th anniversary of kajukenbo event I think he said. But he said he was treated well by people there and has good memories about it.

He did say that some people were shocked when George Chang showed up to the funeral because some kajukenbo members felt he had died already, a long time ago. But Mrs. Choo, Peter's mom told everyone that this is George Chang, he was a photographer and that he was her and her husband's friend. I don't remember feeling shock about it, the only thing I remember was that Peter was crying at his father's funeral and it was the first and only time I saw him cry. I still have that paper that was given out at the funeral around here somewhere. 

I told him some of the stuff that was being said here and he was getting a little disturbed about it. He said maybe he should come on here and straighten things out. He said someone tried to email him a while back and ask him some kajukenbo history questions, but he never responded. He still keeps in touch with Professor Ordonez. He did say again that Sijo Emperado did carry on with Kajukenbo and that his father was grateful about that. But, like you say, because he and others were away, they only had Sijo's recollections on the history, and perhaps he had forgotten or misremembered things. He said he and his father watched some sort of video interview (I'm think it was the panther productions one, but not sure) and they were chuckling at what was being said. They also read that Inside Kung Fu magazine interview as well -- same reaction. 

I asked him about the naming of Kajukenbo, and he did confirm that his father was the one who worked through different combinations until he came up with kajukenbo, which everyone approved. He did acknowledge that Professor Holck is usually credited with the naming, which is not true, but his father let it go and just went along with it rather than argue about it. But if you are interested in the truth, it was Peter Choo who created the name. 

He said he didn't find out about his uncle Joe Holck's death until much later, when his cousin called him. 

He also said that Bo stands for American or Western Boxing, and that George Chang was the photographer who had no kung fu experience when the Black Belt Society met in the forties. 

If you have any questions for Peter, let me know I will pass them along to him. If you want to tell me about that pog, and I can pass that along as well. He asked me to email him a copy of that photo, so he can show it to his brother and they can figure out if the signature is his father's or not.


----------



## puunui (Jan 28, 2012)

Chris Parker said:


> Glenn, honestly, that is possibly the worst and most desperate attempt to grasp at straws with absolutely no basis in understanding or logic that I've seen here. No. Not in the slightest. And, for the record, there are few people on this forum who can speak from a more informed position on Musashi and his intentions, and they tend to frequent other places.



You sure it wasn't some sort of "keep off the grass" sort of instruction?  




Chris Parker said:


> Yamamoto Kansuke was a general of Takeda Shingen's who lived in the early 16th Century. At that point in time, the Ryu idea was very new, and yet to be widely adopted. Additionally, it was what was known as the Sengoku Jidai, the period of warring states, and Yamamoto himself was known as an unorthodox strategist, so it's not unusual that he would think in such a fashion.
> 
> Additionally, to read Yamamoto's words, he is not talking about maintaining a system, really. He talks about personal methods, as opposed to prescribed methods, which is really just showing his personal take on things. You could just as easily look at the words of his namesake, Yamamoto Tsunetomo, as recorded in the Hagakure (about 300 years later, so in a very different context, for the record):



I don't know if that quote from the Hagakure helps you. I think it hurts your argument.




Chris Parker said:


> It's also worth remembering that, at all times, this discussion has gone on. And each art answers it in their own way. Koryu that have remained have, by and large, done so by remaining true to their original methods, or as close as they can. But even there it's not a universal rule... there are arts such as Araki Ryu who have a tradition of testing their techniques over and over again, changing ones that don't pass muster, dropping ones if necessary. Other systems add to their repertoire, provided it remains true to the art itself. Even the most closely guarded and maintained do so in such a way that they don't become static museum pieces.



So, if the koryu were about say, american revolutionary war techniques, the koryu would behaving people march onto the field of battle wearing bright red uniforms standing in a line with their flintlocks, firing in unison? What is the value in preserving that? 

On saturdays sometimes, this group of I think koryu practitioners work out in this park next to my church. I watch them sometimes. They wear dark hakama, blue I want to say, and practice in a very ritualized fashion that always strikes me at very impractical. I think i heard them use the term "kata", for what I would call one step sparring. One attacks, and the other defends. I makes me think of how they used to fight in the american revolution, which is why I gave the example above.


----------



## John Bishop (Jan 29, 2012)

puunui said:


> He said one way to tell if his father truly signed or not is that he always signed his name "Peter Y.Y. Choo, Jr."



Better tell Uncle Frank his certificate is a forgery.










puunui said:


> He said he met you in Benicia in 1997, when he and his brother went up for some kind of tournament and celebration, after his father passed away.



I've never heard of or been to anywhere named "Benicia".  And I'm sure if I had met one of the founders sons, I would remember it.  Only one's I've met are Vinson Holck, Alvin Emperado, and Clarence Emperado Luna.


----------



## Wo Fat (Jan 29, 2012)

John Bishop said:


> I've never heard of or been to anywhere named "Benicia".  And I'm sure if I had met one of the founders sons, I would remember it.  Only one's I've met are Vinson Holck, Alvin Emperado, and Clarence Emperado Luna.



Sounds like the tournament in Vallejo in 1997.  I still have the trophy that commemorates the "50th" anniversary of Kajukenbo.  I forgot the location, but it was close to the Vallejo/Benicia border.


----------



## John Bishop (Jan 29, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> Sounds like the tournament in Vallejo in 1997.  I still have the trophy that commemorates the "50th" anniversary of Kajukenbo.  I forgot the location, but it was close to the Vallejo/Benicia border.



That KSDI tournament was at the same place Emil Bautista always hosts events, St Patricks High School in Vallejo.  Vallejo's over 400 miles from my home, so I usually fly into Oakland, and drive into Vallejo from there.  I'm not familiar with the bay area, since I've only been there for Kajukenbo events.  But those events have been in Vallejo, San Leandro, San Jose, and Union City.  
Obviously, he could be confused about the city he was in.  But I'm positive that I would have remembered meeting one of the founders sons or daughters.


----------



## puunui (Jan 29, 2012)

John Bishop said:


> Better tell Uncle Frank his certificate is a forgery.



I didn't really say that it was a "forgery". Those are your words. What I did say was that towards the end of his life, Professor Choo, or maybe I should address him as Sijo Choo, had physical problems which made it hard for him to write or sign his name. So his family members helped him. But since we are showing off 10th dan certificates, here is Sijo Emperado's 10th Dan:

http://ordonezkajukenbo.org/documents/KSDIpaperwork.pdf

I notice that Professor Ordonez signed the certificate. Any comments on that? 



John Bishop said:


> I've never heard of or been to anywhere named "Benicia".  And I'm sure if I had met one of the founders sons, I would remember it.  Only one's I've met are Vinson Holck, Alvin Emperado, and Clarence Emperado Luna.



Ok, must have been someone else who showed Peter Choo and his brother the aloha hospitality in Benicia. Peter has fond memories about that event and liked the way his father and the other co-founders were treated with respect. Surprised that you didn't meet them though. I would have figured you would have attended that 50th Anniversary tournament and the Professor Choo's funeral.


----------



## puunui (Jan 29, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> Sounds like the tournament in Vallejo in 1997.  I still have the trophy that commemorates the "50th" anniversary of Kajukenbo.  I forgot the location, but it was close to the Vallejo/Benicia border.



Yes, Benicia and Vallejo are right next to each other. One of my direct seniors has a dojang there, GM William Kim. We went to the same high school. I've been to Vallejo and Benicia many times.


----------



## puunui (Jan 29, 2012)

John Bishop said:


> That KSDI tournament was at the same place Emil Bautista always hosts events, St Patricks High School in Vallejo.



St. Patrick's High School, is that the one off of Benicia Road?


----------



## puunui (Jan 29, 2012)

Oh, and I forgot to mention, the big seal in the middle on the bottom is lying on its side. Do you see it?


----------



## puunui (Jan 29, 2012)

John Bishop said:


> Better tell Uncle Frank his certificate is a forgery.



I sent that photo of Professor Ordonez' 10th Dan certificate to Peter. He said that 1994 was one of the years that his father "was involved in some promotions and signing certificates. He wasn't sick at that  time." So all is well, Professor Ordonez' certificate and your pog were signed by Sijo Choo, as opposed to his wife or sons.


----------



## Wo Fat (Jan 29, 2012)

puunui said:


> Yes, Benicia and Vallejo are right next to each other. One of my direct seniors has a dojang there, GM William Kim. We went to the same high school. I've been to Vallejo and Benicia many times.



Oh, man.  I hate to be "that guy", but lemme be him for a second:

As a Kaju guy from the Bay Area, it was always an added pleasure to collect trophies from William Kim's tournaments.  It was good of him, though--as TKD man--to throw a yearly to tournament in Kaju land.  I give him his props for that.


----------



## puunui (Jan 30, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> As a Kaju guy from the Bay Area, it was always an added pleasure to collect trophies from William Kim's tournaments.  It was good of him, though--as TKD man--to throw a yearly to tournament in Kaju land.  I give him his props for that.




Are you woody sims? I think that is what his name was, he used to fight at GM Kim's tournament and win every year. He used to fight off against the ATA competitors, david tsuji and the other one I forget his name. I used to help GM Kim with his tournament every year. He just had an inter school tournament his weekend.


----------



## Wo Fat (Jan 30, 2012)

puunui said:


> Are you woody sims? I think that is what his name was, he used to fight at GM Kim's tournament and win every year. He used to fight off against the ATA competitors, david tsuji and the other one I forget his name. I used to help GM Kim with his tournament every year. He just had an inter school tournament his weekend.



Nah ... I'm Ron.  Woody knows me very well.  We are the same age and from the same lineage and trained at the same time (when we were younger).  I trained in Fairfield (Ramos); Woody in Vallejo (Bautista).

The name Tsuji sounds familiar.  I think I fought a guy named _Cliff_ Tsuji once.  Are they related?  

Sorry for wandering off-topic.


----------



## puunui (Jan 30, 2012)

Wo Fat said:


> The name Tsuji sounds familiar.  I think I fought a guy named _Cliff_ Tsuji once.  Are they related?



I don't know. I just remember the name david tsuji for some reason, he was an ata guy under GM Robinson. I also remember thinking he should try and compete at USTU national events. I don't know what the ata sparring rules were at the time, but he looked like someone who would have felt at home in the ustu sparring scene.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 5, 2012)

shihansmurf said:


> Chris,I am enjoying this debate as well and will continue it more tomorrow as I am getting a bit pressed for time.However, I am going to be very blunt here. My view on tharts are a lot different from yours. I have had a different set of experiences in the time that I have trained than you have. Due to this, I have a batch of strong opinions that clash with yours. That is just the way of things.



Hi Mark,

Sorry for taking so long to get back to this one, but I figured it'd take a bit of time to go through. To be frank, it seems I've touched on a nerve here, mainly due to my choice of words, which may have not been the best, so I'm going to try to clarify what I was referring to here, as the level of attack you are perceiving isn't what was intended or stated. For the record, I'm fine with different viewpoints, but that's not what I'm dealing with primarily.



shihansmurf said:


> Assuming that I disagree with you because I have a lack of training is insulting, condescending, and wrong on an epic scale.



Perhaps my choice of exact wording wasn't the clearest, so I'll try to clarify here. What I said was that it showed a lack of "martial art" training, not a lack of training itself (physical). By that I meant that your approach, as shown in your words, is based in techniques, which you happen to have learnt while training in different systems... but that is not the same as training in the arts themselves. That's actually very common, and was intended as an observation, not an insult.



shihansmurf said:


> I started training in 1983 in shotokan. I was 9. I have stayed with shotokan as my base art since then.  I crossed over in the Han Foo Wa/Jeet Kune Do(Bill Shaw's interpretation of JKD with Danzan Ryu throwing techniques heavily emphasized) in 90 as I had moved and there was no shotokan where we had gone.  I boxed with significant experience in college. I have been training in American Kenpo and Chinese kenpo since 2000. I am certified to teach Army Combatives up to level 3 now.Point to the above is the I don't suffer from a lack of training.



I haven't doubted your experience, Mark, I have simply made an observation that your focus has been on the individual technical methods, rather than the arts themselves. And I have to say, this post of yours supports that observation.



shihansmurf said:


> I have been fortunate enough to work with many great teachers and coaches over the years. I have been teaching, first as an assistant instructor, then with my own class since 1989 as a brown belt(I was in charge of teaching the kids classes at the school).  Hopefully, I pass your litmus test.



I'd need to see you teaching, or enter into a discussion that goes beyond the techniques into the methods and approach, the distinctions of one art to another, in order to see that. As I said, I have guys that can seriously motor, I've worked with others that can as well, but that doesn't make them martial artists. It makes them fighters, or technicians. And for some, that's okay and fine, it's what they want. But if the topic is on purity of the arts themselves, personal approach is largely beside the point.



shihansmurf said:


> Here is the thing, I disagree with the positions you hold. I don't, however, assume that you are ill informed, poorly trained, or unknowledgeable. You place a different value on the Arts that you train and the experience of training in an "Authentic" martial art than I do.



No, I don't think that's quite it. I'd say more that I am looking at what makes something a martial art, and you're looking at what you can get to work for you, which is removed from being a martial art, and becomes a personal expression of fighting or technique. I haven't assumed you are poorly trained, or unknowledgable, just that this approach might not be part of your experience. Oh, but there hasn't been any focus on the idea of an "authentic" martial art, just on what a martial art actually is. It's a lot more than a collection of techniques (kicks, punches, throws, traps etc).



shihansmurf said:


> I have been doing this long enough to realize that not every thing that my teachers said/thought/taught/wrote were objectively perfect. In point of fact, I have learned that due to the same dogmatic approac to training that you are espousing, at times they were incorrect. It doesn't make them bad people. They were just mistaken on some things. I am too. Happens. I don't, however, feel bound to continue teaching material that I KNOW to be flawed due to loyalty that blinds me to thinking intelligently and as objectively as possible about the Arts. I feel it be dishonest of me to do so.



I'm not actually espousing any form of dogmatic approaches to training and learning, though, Mark. I encourage questions, I encourage making constant assessments of what you're being shown, and if the answers aren't making sense, and can't be explained in a way that does make sense, make your assessment based on that. And that assessment might lead you to a different art, a different school, or a different approach to your training in the school you're in. What I am saying is that you need to try and find the answers before making that assessment, though... it's very easy, especially when studying something new that may not have a clear "common sense" logic to it, to assume that, because you don't understand it (yet), it doesn't work, or doesn't make sense (on any level). But the reality may be that it is very powerful, or it is done as it is preparation for something later, or has any of a number of other reasons for being there. Assuming that, just because you don't get it yet it needs to be changed isn't a good approach.

The question would be, though, not how long you've been doing this, but how do you know that what you've been taught is flawed? That's something that might come up in the next little section... 



shihansmurf said:


> Are there things I still don't know about shotokan? Sure. Is that list pretty damn small? Without a doubt. It certainly is in comparison to what I do know about my base art. At what point in my skill development/time in training/expansion of my knowledge do I earn the right to look at my Art and say "Pushing into the floor does nothing to increase the power of my punch?" Hell, a high school level of physics will demonstrate it is impossible to push into the floor unless you have a really low ceiling to push up on.Should I continue to teach something that is incorrect to maintian the Art, or do I jettison the idea and teach my students something that is more effective and doesn't require cartoon physics to believe?



So, if I read this right, you're arguing against the "push into the ground for power" concept? This would be one of those things where I'd ask how you know this concept to be flawed, as, I gotta say, it ain't. Your argument about needing a low ceiling to push against is rather inaccurate as well... I mean, I'm sitting in a chair at the moment, and can push into the ground very easily. Frankly, Mark, that's a major part of power generation, as well as stability so you don't "bounce" off the person you're hitting, so by claiming that is flawed it might have me actually questioning how well you understand the physical technical aspects as well... I mean, it's how you walk. You push into the ground in order to power yourself forward.... you don't need a low ceiling to walk across a room, do you?



shihansmurf said:


> As to your assertion that I have a base Art, I sure do. I work other material to fit it. I teach shotokan, basically. We don't do 3 and 5 step kumite. I start them off on ippon kumite and they stop that at 7th kyu in favor of free sparring. We don't do our stances as deeply at JKA Shotokan. My students learn a lot of kenpo techniques as I find that they work great to teach prinicples and concepts of movement. I work a lot of trapping drills at 3rd kyu and above. My guys learn quite a bit of throwing and we use JKD's 5 methods of attack model. I use a lot of boxing training drills as well ingraining as muchof that skill set as I possible can.We do a couple of the kicks differently from traditional shotokan and I disagree with method of execution in those kicks(Yoko Geri, in particular, as the knee is a hinge joing and that method forces the knee to move at an angle that it isn't really built to do. We also strike with the flat of our heel instead of the blade of the foot),  I shorten the distance that my students cove in a single stepping movement. After 7th kyu we don't do a lot of defensive work against the step through punch, opting instead to work on improving our defenses against jabs and jab/cross combos. Its much more practical.



So, to sum up, you teach a lot of techniques from a range of sources, and some training drills from a few, and have altered the way you perform a few actions, yeah? Okay, two things leap out at me here... one is that this is the "technique only" approach that I said you were displaying, leaving each individual to find how to make them work for themselves (hence the free sparring after 7th kyu), which is what I suggested was your approach. It's martial technique training, not martial art training (sounds pedantic, I know, but it really isn't). 

The second thing that leaps out at me is that you're doing exactly what I said you'd need to do to make such an approach work. You have a particular philosophy (only wanting techniques you believe represent effectiveness, as you see it), and have that as a single guiding approach to what is included, and what isn't. You then use the physical methods of, primarily, Shotokan as a framework to build from.



shihansmurf said:


> Now, I don't expect you to approve of my teaching methodology or approach to the Art. I frankly don't care if you do. However, all of the above changes to my Art and how I train my students are based on several decades of experience and not casual whim. I think I have developed enough skill, knowledge, and ability to observe, analyze, and alter as needed my Art. If you don't agree, I invite you to explain to me what benchmarks I need to hit before I am qualified.As I have stated, our views differ enough that we will not see eye to eye. Thats fine. I have enough faith in the knowledge that I have gained from my teachers, years of training, and experience that I don't need to mimic what someone who came before me did. I was taught to think about the Art and to always understand that the Art is there for me, not the other way around.



Mark, your approach and your teaching method is yours, no problems with it at all. And realistically, you're doing exactly what I said you'd need to be doing, and doing exactly what you'd need to to make it work, fulfilling the requirements that I'd put down. You just, I'd say, have never thought of it in the terms that I've put down. That's what I find interesting, you're railing against the way you perceived my comments while at the same time demonstrating that you're doing exactly what I said was needed.



shihansmurf said:


> If how you are training works for you(and your students if you teach) that that is outstanding. It doesn't mean that you are in any position to tell me that my approach is wrong, when in fact you have never had any direct contact with me or my students. Yes, it does make you arrogant. It demonstrates that you are rigid in your thinking and unable to accpet that there are knowledgeable people out there that hold differing position from you. The assumption that you made about me and my training speaks volumes about you.


 
There are thousands of different ways to approach martial arts teaching and training, but they all follow a couple of basic, essential rules in order for them to really have any viability, which was what I was getting at. What I didn't say was that your one is wrong. What I said was that your description (saying that you're not doing Shotokan when you do a reverse punch, or JKD when trapping, or boxing when doing a jab etc) showed a lack of understanding of what makes each of those systems what they are, as it's not the individual techniques (as you listed). I said that the idea of switching from a karate stance and punch to a boxing stance and punch, and so on as you go only works in the movies... so in order to make what you listed work, there'd need to be a base art, giving fundamental principles, and aspects of the other arts would be built onto it, rather than "switching between" them.

In fact, I pointed out what would be needed for your approach to be viable, and you have indeed come back and, in order to "correct me", demonstrated that that's exactly what you do. In fact, I only said that it would "work in the movies, not real life" if you didn't do what you actually do.



shihansmurf said:


> As to your assertion that my approach looks good in movies but not in reality. I don't think that you are in any way qualified to be a arbitor of that. The ecclectic approach has worked well for the MMA movement. It worked extremely well for the JKD movement. Works well for the All of the Chow derived kenpo systems out there as they owe their existance to this same experimetation and adjusting mindset. It specifically works well for the Kajukenbo guys.  Hell, by your own depiction of Mushashi's life and the development of his Art it worked well for him.



Actually, not to toot my own horn, but I'd say I am rather qualified to speak to such things. And none of your examples are what I would class as the "mess" I was referring to. To take them in order...

MMA has taken disparate approaches in order to achieve it's primary philosophy: Train in methods that are designed to generate success in MMA competitions. The base is congruent, and all the technical methods suit each other perfectly. 

JKD is very much the same idea, but with street defence in mind. Again, there is a congruent base (which can change depending on the instructor, but is often either FMA or Wing Chun based), and everything works towards the same philosophy.

Kajukenbo does much the same thing again, with a "street fighting" mentality.

And, again, same idea for the Chow lineage Kenpo systems.

As far as Musashi is concerned, that's not quite the way it worked. I get where you're coming from, but that's a little inaccurate.



shihansmurf said:


> You disagree with it and don't find it palatable. I get that. Your view on this isn't objectively correct, it is subjectively so, and your assertion that it is demonstrates that you are emotionally invested in your training methodology(as are we all) and you don't seem to grasp the idea that someone who disagrees wit you can do so and it doesn't invalidate your position.Just a thought,Mark



No, to be frank. My observation is borne out in every single martial art I have ever come across, and is an easy way to tell those who don't have a real art quite quickly (such as the Ashida Kim's of the world, or certain members here talking about their own martial arts based on storms...). Your approach fits into it as well, so while you may not have this way of thinking about martial arts, what you do doesn't disagree with me. 



shihansmurf said:


> P.S. The caveman and chimpanzee reference in my last post was intended to humorously illustrate the absurdity that the age of an Art makes it superior to another Art. Times change, the way we fight changes, technology changes and impacts how we understand things like sports science and human movement, and the social/cultural impact on how we fight change. Looking to someone who taught 400 years ago without the benefit of the intervening 400 years of developments in the above mentioned things is as absurd to me as the idea that individual people can innovate in the martial arts is to you. Again, my view, but I am not vain enough to think that what I think is important enough to presume that the only way that anyone disagreeing with my is doing so out of ignorance.



The age was not my criteria for who I chose, though, Mark. That was really a co-incidence and an indication of my frame of reference more than anything else. And I haven't said anything against people being able to innovate martial arts, just that I didn't feel the presented ones were the best examples. Again, you seem to have read into my words what wasn't present in the first place.



shihansmurf said:


> I can't edit that last post for some reason. I didn't inted that to be a giant wall of text.Sorry about that,Mark



Not a problem, all separated now.



puunui said:


> You sure it wasn't some sort of "keep off the grass" sort of instruction?



I really hope you're kidding, Glenn, because this is again just a complete lack of understanding otherwise.



puunui said:


> I don't know if that quote from the Hagakure helps you. I think it hurts your argument.



No, I don't think so.



puunui said:


> So, if the koryu were about say, american revolutionary war techniques, the koryu would behaving people march onto the field of battle wearing bright red uniforms standing in a line with their flintlocks, firing in unison? What is the value in preserving that?



Wow, uh, no. In many, many ways, no. That is so far removed from what Koryu are about that it's utterly pointless. And, as to value? If you can't see value in something, that doesn't mean much, I gotta say.... 



puunui said:


> On saturdays sometimes, this group of I think koryu practitioners work out in this park next to my church. I watch them sometimes. They wear dark hakama, blue I want to say, and practice in a very ritualized fashion that always strikes me at very impractical. I think i heard them use the term "kata", for what I would call one step sparring. One attacks, and the other defends. I makes me think of how they used to fight in the american revolution, which is why I gave the example above.



Could be almost anything. But I will say that this shows huge misunderstandings of the training used.


----------



## shihansmurf (Feb 6, 2012)

I think you and I are talking past each other for the most part. Well, that and we have a disagreement of terminology more than in the ideas that we are espousing.



> So, if I read this right, you're arguing against the "push into the ground for power" concept? This would be one of those things where I'd ask how you know this concept to be flawed, as, I gotta say, it ain't. Your argument about needing a low ceiling to push against is rather inaccurate as well... I mean, I'm sitting in a chair at the moment, and can push into the ground very easily. Frankly, Mark, that's a major part of power generation, as well as stability so you don't "bounce" off the person you're hitting, so by claiming that is flawed it might have me actually questioning how well you understand the physical technical aspects as well... I mean, it's how you walk. You push into the ground in order to power yourself forward.... you don't need a low ceiling to walk across a room, do you?



A basic understanding of Newtonian physics will bear out that you can't push downward to create force going forward. Can't happen. Pushing downward into the ground isn't possible with out a way to brace against the equal and opposite reaction that will push upwardly in this case. 

Creating a bracing angle is a different thing. Tensing the muscles in the legs to great a stable platform is different from the classical shotokan teaching of pushing onto the ground.


We don't walk by driving with the rear foot as much as we pick up our lead foot and fall forward catching ourselves. This is one of the reasons teaching to push off with the rear foor in advancing is counter intuitive to many students. 


Just a couple of observations.



> And none of your examples are what I would class as the "mess" I was referring to.



What would you cite as an example then?

I think that you and I agree more on this particular issue than we disagree. In the kenpo world peoplconstantly tout the concept of "tailoring" but I don't think that it is a process that has any value in being undertaken by a begining or inexperienced student. There is a world of difference between somone with 20 or so years of training making an analysis of how and why a particular movement works or doesn't and a student with a year or two trying to make that same analysis. 



> There are thousands of different ways to approach martial arts teaching and training, but they all follow a couple of basic, essential rules in order for them to really have any viability, which was what I was getting at. What I didn't say was that your one is wrong. What I said was that your description (saying that you're not doing Shotokan when you do a reverse punch, or JKD when trapping, or boxing when doing a jab etc) showed a lack of understanding of what makes each of those systems what they are, as it's not the individual techniques (as you listed). I said that the idea of switching from a karate stance and punch to a boxing stance and punch, and so on as you go only works in the movies... so in order to make what you listed work, there'd need to be a base art, giving fundamental principles, and aspects of the other arts would be built onto it, rather than "switching between" them.




I get what you are saying but I don't switch between a karate stance to a boxing stance. I have internalized the stancework to the point that it isn't a karate stance or a boxing stance. It is my stance. Similarly the punches, kicks, throws, locks, and so on. I think that the ecclectic approach, if approached from the idea of a slow development of an individual martial artist utilizing material that is consistant with correct principles of movement, kinesthetics, and sports science produces a well rounded martial artist that isn't just a buffet of moves from various arts. It produces, rather, a martial artist that has individualized his skill set and internalized his art so that it is internaly consistant.



> Again, you seem to have read into my words what wasn't present in the first place.



Most likely.


Mark


----------



## islandguy (Jan 5, 2017)

Bump.  Stumbled upon this thread.   Puunui has the more raw, real account of events.     Puunui is even being "political" to not hurt feelings.  Good Job Puunui.


----------



## thanson02 (Jan 9, 2017)

Flying Crane said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> as far as technique goes, on a simplistic level, probably very little is unique to one system or another. Some techniques may be found in fewer systems than others, but probably not absolutely unique.
> 
> I think the issue of what makes something THIS style vs. THAT style is not so much in the technique itself, but rather in the methodology that goes into how the technique is developed. Even there you will probably find a lot of overlap, but in some cases some systems can have some approaches that are not quite matched in any others. I'm not talking about application drills or combos. I'm talking about the fundamental concepts of how one develops the basic techniques, like a punch.



This.

In addition to this I would also add the attitude and the purpose behind the training is key as well in what makes systems different.  If you find that working a front kick like they do in TKD for example seems to work well for you and it adds to your overall skill based on your attitude and purpose in training, then who says you would not have figured it out on your own through practice (although it probably would have taken you much longer to do so).  However if your main purpose in training is to learn how to bash people's heads in when you fight vs redirecting their energy and evade their movements, how you approach your application will be VERY different.

Body physics and mechanics are almost universal and getting uptight about performing a technique a cretin way is ridiculous.  Especially if you have training in a particular system and that is what you were taught.  Even in cases where you decide to stay loyal to a particular system, you will have to make adjustments to how things work to fit you body mechanics.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jan 9, 2017)

thanson02 said:


> performing a technique a cretin way


I spend a lot of time trying to get some students NOT to perform techniques the "cretin way".


----------



## thanson02 (Jan 9, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I spend a lot of time trying to get some students NOT to perform techniques the "cretin way".



Very true.  Oh, the stories.........


----------

