# Is it appropriate to create a new martial art?



## Joe Hardwick (Feb 18, 2003)

Since this topic has been popping up in some other threads I thought I would start one about this specifically.  So here are 3 questions:

1-Is it appropriate to start a new martial art?  Please answer with a yes, no or maybe and give reasons why.  Also, if you feel that certain parameters must be required then mention them as well.  
2-Is it appropriate to make a derivative or variation of an existing martial art such as "Combat TaeKwonDo" (I don't know if this exists or not but is simply an example).  Again, please answer with a yes, no or maybe and reasons why.
3-Is it appropriate to start a reality based self-defense system?  If you do not believe that they exist and are simply martial arts in another name then please say so, otherwise please answer with yes, no or maybe and of course reasons why.

I would like this to be a thread where you can give your opinion and not a thread where we go after anothers opinion.  Obviously, if your opinion disagrees with another it will be known from your answers.  Thanks, Joe.


----------



## Master of Blades (Feb 18, 2003)

If people wish to take up their time creating there own system and give it a name and make a few people 12th Dans so they can teach then thats cool with me. As long as I dont have to learn it :asian: 

On another note.....I wonder if this threads gonna be overtaken by arguments lol :shrug:


----------



## cali_tkdbruin (Feb 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Master of Blades_
> *  On another note.....I wonder if this threads gonna be overtaken by arguments :lol *



*1-Is it appropriate to start a new martial art?* Yes sir. As long as there are martial arts and martial artists, the Arts will continue to evolve and new styles will be created. Sort of like Darwin's theory of evolution... 

*2-Is it appropriate to make a derivative or variation of an existing martial art such as "Combat TaeKwonDo" (I don't know if this exists or not but is simply an example)? * Yes, of course IMO. You can't stop change. 

*3-Is it appropriate to start a reality based self-defense system?* Again, IMHO, yes. Also, unless I am mistaken, and I'm certain someone will correct me if I'm off  ,
*Krav Maga* was created for this purpose. 

Just my take, and I agree with The *Master*, I wonder how many arguments this thread will spawn...


----------



## pesilat (Feb 18, 2003)

> 1-Is it appropriate to start a new martial art?  Please answer with a yes, no or maybe and give reasons why.  Also, if you feel that certain parameters must be required then mention them as well.



Maybe. Depends on who's starting it and why.

Everyone ends up creating their own _style_. If they build a curriculum around their style, then they've created their own _system_.

A new _art_ ... by my definition, that's pretty difficult to do. Really, there's only one _art_ -- martial art.  The term _art_ in standard MA vernacular usually refers to a set of martial arts systems from a specific country, culture, or region. Since most of the world is already covered with _arts_, then whatever system you create will generally be considered as part of:
(a) the art(s) of the region in which you reside or
(b) the art(s) that you used to create it

So, for instance, Eskrido is a system created by GM Cacoy Canete. He was among the top Eskrimadores in Doce Pares, a 3rd Dan in Kodokan Judo, and a 2nd Dan in Aikido (I belive those are the right ranks). He took the locks and throws from Aikido and Judo and blended them into his Eskrima and called it "Eskrido." It is considered a Filipino martial art because he is a Filipino, lived in the Philippines when he created it, and its primary foundation is Eskrima.

Shen Chuan is an American system because it was developed by an American in East Texas, Joe Lansdale. He had studied and had rank in quite a few different martial arts but his primary influences were American Kenpo, Hapkido, and Daito Ryu Aikijujitsu and he'd also been influenced by some Tai Chi, Chin Na, and other Chinese systems. He didn't set out to create a new system. He was teaching a group of guys and just doing it "off the cuff." One day, one of his students, Eugene Frizzell, said, "Man, Joe. This is really good stuff. You need to make a curriculum and start teaching it publicly." So he did. He used the Chinese name to give credit to the influence the Chinese martial arts have had on MA in general and, specifically, on his own development. But it is very much an American martial art.

If, however, someone is intending to create a system and they take some stuff from here and there and throw it into a salad, they don't have a _system_. They've got a bunch of disconnected elements. This is why so many new systems tend to suck.

When the creator develops a cohesive whole that can be effectively taught, then it's a good system.



> 2-Is it appropriate to make a derivative or variation of an existing martial art such as "Combat TaeKwonDo" (I don't know if this exists or not but is simply an example).  Again, please answer with a yes, no or maybe and reasons why.



I think my answer to #1 applies to this one as well. And, FYI, I think "Combat TaeKwonDo" is an existing art. Or, at least, I've heard the term used by some people.



> 3-Is it appropriate to start a reality based self-defense system?  If you do not believe that they exist and are simply martial arts in another name then please say so, otherwise please answer with yes, no or maybe and of course reasons why.



I believe it's all martial arts. I think there is a finite (though large) number of ways that the human body can move, be moved, or be affected. Martial arts limits that number further by restricting it to methods that cause or prevent injury. This creates a pool of concepts and principles that are universal. All systems of martial arts draw from this same pool. The only thing that makes each system unique is its approach to the pool and which area(s) it prefers to drink from.

Different systems are geared toward different environments. But, in my estimation, any system which draws from these universal concepts and principles will be valid and applicable. Whether a specific systems "flavor" appeals to a given individual is an entirely different subject.

The bottom line is that martial arts training just improves our odds. The person who is most capable with his/her tools and can adapt them to the environment/situation will have the upper hand. This is true whether it's in a ring, on the street, or anywhere.

Further (and straying a little from the topic), I'd say that this concept can be extended into any kind of environment from verbal confrontations to office politics.

Learn the tools. Delve into the underlying concepts and principles (it's not enough to have a tool box; you have to understand _why_ the tools work and how best to make them work for you). Then apply that knowledge to the situation and environment at hand.

A lot of people get caught up at the technical level. They put together a tool box (or get a pre-packaged one) and they put it on a shelf and never explore the concepts and principles of what really makes those tools functional. When people like this create a system, they end up with a hodgepodge Frankenstein's Monster that doesn't hold together in the long run.

Personally, I have no problem with people creating their own systems. I mean, think about it, at one point or another *every* system was a new creation.

Mike


----------



## Joe Hardwick (Feb 18, 2003)

I hope this does not turn into a argument thread because so far everyone has given their opinions in a mature manner and shown respect to everyone involved.  Thanks, Joe.


----------



## KatGurl (Feb 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Joe Hardwick _
> *Since this topic has been popping up in some other threads I thought I would start one about this specifically.  So here are 3 questions:
> 
> 1-Is it appropriate to start a new martial art?  Please answer with a yes, no or maybe and give reasons why.  Also, if you feel that certain parameters must be required then mention them as well.
> ...



1. No because there is so many, one might be perfect for you, and you may be 100 when you finish (or older).
2. No (read my answer for 1.), that name has alot of copied words in it, and the name sounds bad.:shrug: 
3. No because MOST arts are ALREADY that exact topic.
4. .... oh.... there's no 4..... darn.... I like answering things :waah:


----------



## Zepp (Feb 18, 2003)

pesilat,

I agree with your reply to the point that I think I might quote you if I ever have this conversation with someone in person. :asian: 

One thing that I think should be said is that everyone should be a bit weary of someone teaching a new system, particularly if they created it.  They could be a geniune master, with years and years of experience, who just decided to break the mold and do things their way.  But he could also be a pretentious schmuck who was kicked out of his teachers' organization for running a McDojo and decided to change the sign on the building.  You should always ask about someone's "lineage" before you pay them.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Feb 18, 2003)

Do what you like with what you have. THe question is whether your new art can stand up to the test in combat.


----------



## chufeng (Feb 18, 2003)

Pesilat,

Nice post...well thought out and laid out.
I agree with your assessment.

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## pesilat (Feb 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Zepp _
> *pesilat,
> 
> I agree with your reply to the point that I think I might quote you if I ever have this conversation with someone in person. :asian: *



LOL. Feel free  Aside from martial arts, writing is my primary passtime. Thus far, I've not made much money doing either but if I were interested in money, I'd go back to computer programming 

If you're interested, feel free to check out the articles I've got in the "Media/Photos" section of my website at http://www.impactacademy.com

Also, I had a martial arts short story called "One Ting I Know" published in the Martial Fiction section of http://www.cyberkwoon.com



> *One thing that I think should be said is that everyone should be a bit weary of someone teaching a new system, particularly if they created it.  They could be a geniune master, with years and years of experience, who just decided to break the mold and do things their way.  But he could also be a pretentious schmuck who was kicked out of his teachers' organization for running a McDojo and decided to change the sign on the building.  You should always ask about someone's "lineage" before you pay them. *



Absolutely. You should also try to find out if they are still on good terms with their instructors. This isn't always an indicator -- people sometimes have personal differences that have nothing to martial arts -- but if they're not on good terms with their instructors, then it should at least raise a caution flag. And if they have a bunch of instructors that they don't get along with, then some alarm bells should go off. Even if the person is an excellent martial artist, he may be a schmuck as a person.

There will always be people like this out there.

Here's a story I heard. I'll use fictitious names and titles. There's a guy named John Doe that I'd heard a little about. I was visiting a friend of mine, I'll call him Hank, and Hank mentioned John. 

Me: "Oh, do you know him?"

Hank: "Yeah. He trained with me fora  while."

Me: "Really? I've heard a little about him that makes me suspicious of him. Is he legit?"

Hank: (laughing) "Sure. He's legit ... on paper. He trained with me for a while. He was one of the worst students I've ever had. Then he went off to a seminar for a weekend and came back as a 'Certified Instructor'. Then he started telling me I was doing things wrong. I kicked him out. About a year later, I got a flyer for a seminar he was teaching in my area. He was billed as 'Master John Doe'. I sent him an e-mail saying, 'Wow. A 'Master' in a year. I must have totally missed your talent. I'm really impressed.' Of course, there was no reply."

Now, according to John Doe's website, he's got over 20 years of martial arts behind him, is the founder of his own system, and allegedly has Dan rankings in several other arts.

I don't know when John trained with my friend Hank, but I know it wasn't 20 years ago (Hank's only in his mid-30s). I suppose it's possible that he had training prior to Hank's school ... I don't know. But since I've heard from one good source that John has done this sort of thing, I have little doubt that he's done it more than once. He may, in fact, be perfectly legit on paper. But whether he has any skill or ability, I don't know. But I'd definitely be wary if someone asked me about him.

But this type of thing is, unfortunately, common. And I've heard even worse stories than that. People who weren't even legitimate on paper starting making claims and scamming people.

It sickens me. But as long as there are gullible suckers in the world, there will be people to take advantage of them.

Also, I firmly believe that, in the long run, people end up with the instructor they deserve. There may be some false starts. May even take years to get on track. But I believe that, in the end, everyone ends up where they deserve; even if they _claim_ they want something else.

Mike


----------



## Matt Stone (Feb 18, 2003)

*Combat* Taekwondo, as opposed to *non*-combat Taekwondo?

So what would the difference between those two be?  One fights and the other doesn't?

This is offered in jest only...    Feel free to substitute TKD for _any_ other art, and it will still sound as silly...

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## pesilat (Feb 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *Combat Taekwondo, as opposed to non-combat Taekwondo?
> 
> So what would the difference between those two be?  One fights and the other doesn't?
> ...



Yup. It does. I saw a video once for "Combat JKD" and I had the exact same thought process 

Mike


----------



## Master of Blades (Feb 19, 2003)

I dunno Combat Kali has a certain ring to it......Specially if you spell it with a "K" :asian:


----------



## Joe Hardwick (Feb 19, 2003)

The reason I included the second type is because it is becoming more and more common.  Basically, instead of a new martial art they keep the original name and put a variation on the old art.  Examples include: Combat Hapkido, Modern Hapkido and Modern Arnis.  I did not feel that it would be fair not to include these types of arts in my question.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Joe Hardwick _
> *The reason I included the second type is because it is becoming more and more common.  Basically, instead of a new martial art they keep the original name and put a variation on the old art.  Examples include: Combat Hapkido, Modern Hapkido and Modern Arnis.  I did not feel that it would be fair not to include these types of arts in my question. *



Combat Hapkido chose its name to distinguish it from traditional Hapkido. They are very different in respects to where it counts. They use what is useful and reject what is useless.

Since the topic touched on the use of the word Combat with a martial art name I thought that I would add there are many reasons to change a system or a name of a system. It can imply the original system was lacking although it does not have to mean that at all.
Here is a brief decription of Combat Hapkido from the arts founder.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TRADITIONAL HAPKIDO...
... AND COMBAT HAPKIDO

    Combat Hapkido is a new, modern style of Hapkido developed by Grandmaster John Pellegrini. Combat Hapkido differs from other Hapkido styles philosophically as well as technically.
Following are a few examples: 
·	Combat Hapkido is 100% Self Defense. There are no forms (Kata/Hyungs).
·	All Combat Hapkido kicks are directed to the lower part of the body.
·	Combat Hapkido does not teach "acrobatic" kicks.
·	Combat Hapkido employs breakfalls and throws in a very limited manner.
·	Combat Hapkido has no hard blocks or stances.
·	Combat Hapkido does not teach "Traditional" weapons like joot-do (bamboo sword) or fan. We teach cane, belt and other Self Defense tools.
·	Combat Hapkido teaches special firearms disarming techniques.
·	Combat Hapkido contains a complete Ground Grappling program.
·	Combat Hapkido, because it is flexible, dynamic and eclectic, continues to evolve.
·	Combat Hapkido is not a sport and cannot be modified nor regulated to be one. There are no competitions, tournaments or championship.

"COMBAT HAPKIDO"    In 1990 Grandmaster Pellegrini officially named his style of Hapkido "Combat Hapkido". The name clearly identifies it and sets it apart from other "traditional" styles of Hapkido. It is also referred to as the "Science of Self Defense". In 1999 the Combat Hapkido System was officially recognized and accredited as a legitimate "Kwan" of HapKiDo by the WKF/KKA (Kido-Hae). The Korean name of Combat Hapkido is "Chon-Tu Kwan HapKiDo" 

 Combat Hapkido is an extremely realistic and versatile discipline of self protection that includes an extensive variety of strikes, kicks, joint locks, pressure points, grappling and disarming techniques. The result is a practical, comprehensive Self Defense system that is enjoyable to learn and that produces effective results in realistic situations.
    Combat Hapkidos dynamic concepts are based on scientific principles of anatomy and biokinetics as well as psychology and strategy. It is well suited for men and women of all sizes because physical strength and athletic abilities are not essential. The emphasis is on redirecting the assailants aggression and power back toward them with little effort and minimum force on your part.  
    Founding this system did not involve "inventing" the techniques. It was a matter of selecting the most realistic, effective and practical ones, modifying others and then combining and arranging these techniques in a structured system of instruction designed for individuals of all physical abilities living in a modern society.

    The essence of Combat Hapkido is pure Self Defense. It is the synthesis of dynamic concepts, scientific principles, realistic applications and plain common sense.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 19, 2003)

I felt this woulf help understand it better from the founders words:

WHAT COMBAT HAPKIDO IS NOT:

A new Martial Art
Traditional Hapkido with a different name
A "Free-Style" type of Martial Art
A Martial Sport
An amateurish mix of random techniques from different Martial Arts
  WHAT COMBAT HAPKIDO IS:

A new, modern style of Hapkido
A totally scientific approach to Self Defense
A realistic and effective discipline of personal protection
A dynamic and flexible program of learning and teaching
the science of Self Defense
The result of over 35 years of Martial Arts study, research, 
application and synthesis


----------



## Zepp (Feb 19, 2003)

akja, 
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I've heard and read pretty much the description you just gave in regards many other "modernized" styles of many different arts.

The only significance of calling his style "Combat" Hapkido is that it signifies that this is GM Pellegrini's own personal spin on Hapkido.  The same goes for any other style that has the word 'Combat' added in front of it.  In and of themselves, the extra words added to the name don't tell you anything.

Sounds like a cool style though. :asian:


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 19, 2003)

What extra words?

My only real point was that he made sinificant changes so he "chose" to keep the original name but added the word combat to it to signify the changes.


----------



## MartialArtist (Feb 19, 2003)

I have created the most practical style ever.  It's where you use your energy and shoot fireballs.


----------



## Zepp (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MartialArtist _
> *I have created the most practical style ever.  It's where you use your energy and shoot fireballs. *



Hey I invented that one too.  But it only works when I'm really hammered for some reason.


----------



## cali_tkdbruin (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Zepp _
> *Hey I invented that one too.  But it only works when I'm really hammered for some reason. *



I hear what you're saying... :drink2tha


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Joe Hardwick _
> *1-Is it appropriate to start a new martial art?  Please answer with a yes, no or maybe and give reasons why.  Also, if you feel that certain parameters must be required then mention them as well.  *



First off whenever I see someone claiming to have made a new martial art I always ask myself Why?
I mean really.with all the good arts around why make up another art? It take s a pretty big ego and a lot of ignorance to think they are going to make something better than what has been developed and refined over several hundred years. 

The second thing I ask myself is .  is it any different than what is already out there?
99.99% of the New arts I see are just poor imitations of previous arts..emphasis on poor imitations.

The third thing I ask myself is Who? is making up this New art and what is their background and foundation for doing so?
Again, 99.99% of the people making up some new art dont have much of a background (i.e. basic skills in one art) in training in a single to understand it, and they most often claim to have trained in multiple arts, and also claim to be street wise when it comes to fighting.




> _Originally posted by Joe Hardwick _
> *2-Is it appropriate to make a derivative or variation of an existing martial art such as "Combat TaeKwonDo" *



Anybody that calls their art Combat XXXXX is kidding not only themselves but their students.
My idea of combat is having and M-16, a Desert Eagle, and a MK19 mounted on a HUMV going into Combat.
People can and most often do make their own variations of an art by accident.
My technique is not the same as my teachers.it cant be. I do try and understand his techniques and make them my own. 




> _Originally posted by Joe Hardwick _
> *3-Is it appropriate to start a reality based self-defense system?  If you do not believe that they exist and are simply martial arts in another name then please say so, otherwise please answer with yes, no or maybe and of course reasons why. *



All REAL martial arts are reality based self-defense systems. If they arent they are just Martial Sport and nothing more.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *  WHAT COMBAT HAPKIDO IS:
> 
> A new, modern style of Hapkido
> ...




A totally scientific approach to Self Defense?
What the hell is that supposed to mean? 
How is it scientific? Do two little lab rats duke it out or something?

People like Choki Motobu used to go and test their techniques in real street fights to see if they worked.. 

A dynamic and flexible program of learning and teaching?

To me that sounds like he will jump through hoops to keep students.
Maybe I am still in the old school of thinking but to me when a student comes into the dojo to request instruction he should empty his cup and try to learn was is being offered.


The result of over 35 years of Martial Arts study, research, 
application and synthesis

35 years is about as long as a popcorn fart in terms of martial history.


----------



## Master of Blades (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MartialArtist _
> *I have created the most practical style ever.  It's where you use your energy and shoot fireballs. *



Unfortuantly it only works when I'm playing DBZ: Budokai and have a Ps2 in my hand. Hey, I'm still working on it :shrug:


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *A totally scientific approach to Self Defense?
> What the hell is that supposed to mean?
> How is it scientific? Do two little lab rats duke it out or something?
> ...




Truth be told, back in the '70s Hapkido was my second art and school to train in so when I saw what Pellegrini was doing a while back I've been a curious onlooker. The things he's done to me are a positive direction for Hapkido in these times where there is little respect for many arts.

It appears to me he did make chnages based on Jeet Kune Do concepts but was able to preserve the art enough to stay associated and somewhat true to his art.

I know there is at least one guy on this forum who is a student of this art. It would be interesting on what the actual differances are. I'm very sure that his art is effective but anything can be said and sound good but being functional and hereing from someone whos seen it and practiced it would tell the story a little better.


----------



## Nightingale (Feb 20, 2003)

if you're going to create a system, you'd better do what SGM Parker did:

(in no particular order)
1.  learn from some of the best to begin with.
2.  get a bunch of people together who are also good martial artists
3.  have very detailed sessions analysing what works and what doesn't and why.
4.  test it.
5.  develop a reliable way for those after you to teach it (written curriculum)
6.  make sure your system is filling a niche that isn't already filled by another martial art, and that you're not just creating a system because you want to be a 10th.


----------



## Disco (Feb 20, 2003)

In my humble opinion, almost all of the "New" styles / systems being generated are nothing more than a way to make money or bolster somebodies ego. The operative word there was "almost".
I realize, that there may be a need for a specific type of training, that would not include all the curriculum in most styles taught, ie Corrections / Law Enforcement and the like.  
In all honesty, after looking through several MA magazines, my outlook on the general overall status of the MA's is that it's all "FOR SALE". I've never seen so much,......... I can't think of a word to describe it. Everybody, and I mean everybody is selling. Buy the tapes, buy the books, study at home, study in the car. Learn from the best!!!!? I can't believe all the years I've wasted training with real instructors and training partners (Sarcasm). If you should be so fortunate as to be studying with good people and a good instructor, consider yourself lucky and take advantage of all you can learn.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by nightingale8472 _
> *if you're going to create a system, you'd better do what SGM Parker did:
> 
> (in no particular order)
> ...




Thats a good point of view. Training with my Sifu does cover 1-3 on a daily basis. Thats what their art is all about. Some people think they do this also but from what I've seen, that is seriously open to interpetation.

4 is something that needs to be done on continual and progressive basis. 

5 is also something that should always evolve and not be set in stone. Otherwise you would be committing your system to at sometime becoming stagnant.

6 is there a niche for any new system? That is arguable. A system is a reflection of ones practice and a 10th Dan shouldn't a reason for it either. Even the most of the traditional systems from way back were not different enough to to fit that description, they represented the new influences of their founders and they have served a purpose and survived for centuries, but even though they've survived, they have evolved and that I think is important and that we continue to evolve and be open minded. We don't have to or should accept anything that is not proven but just be open minded.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Disco _
> *In my humble opinion, almost all of the "New" styles / systems being generated are nothing more than a way to make money or bolster somebodies ego. The operative word there was "almost".
> I realize, that there may be a need for a specific type of training, that would not include all the curriculum in most styles taught, ie Corrections / Law Enforcement and the like.
> In all honesty, after looking through several MA magazines, my outlook on the general overall status of the MA's is that it's all "FOR SALE". I've never seen so much,......... I can't think of a word to describe it. Everybody, and I mean everybody is selling. Buy the tapes, buy the books, study at home, study in the car. Learn from the best!!!!? I can't believe all the years I've wasted training with real instructors and training partners (Sarcasm). If you should be so fortunate as to be studying with good people and a good instructor, consider yourself lucky and take advantage of all you can learn. *



The operative word is "everybody" is doing it. The big names sre behind it big. Not so much offering fake arts, but maybe false hopes and false encouragement. 

The aftermath is everybody under the sun is going to step in to be competitive and get their piece of the pie.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 20, 2003)

Personally, I think that the two most overused words in martial arts today are, "combat," and, "warrior." The first translates out roughly--I agree with a couple of the posters--as, "buy this." As for the second--sheesh. I certainly ain't a warrior in the sense that seems to be meant on this string, and I don't want to be. And, most likely, folks who throw the term around ain't warriors either. Navy SEALS, Recon Marines--the real ones, not the folks in the magazines--they're warriors. Especially the ones who've, "seen the elephant," as they used to say back in the Civil War. Me? Not in that sense, absolutely not.

As for making up your own system, well, I don't agree there either. Among other minor things, it isn't enough to be a great martial artist. You have to be in the right place at the right time. Mr. Funakoshi was. Mr. Ueshiba was. Mr. Parker was. We ain't.

Then there's the argument about what kenpo really is, which is not just another system. But I'll probably get trashed for this post, so the heck with it.

Oh...anybody out there willing to be specific aabout exactly what they do in their new system? Not generalities and platitudes...describe a technique, say?

Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *
> 
> As for making up your own system, well, I don't agree there either. Among other minor things, it isn't enough to be a great martial artist. You have to be in the right place at the right time. Mr. Funakoshi was. Mr. Ueshiba was. Mr. Parker was. We ain't.
> ...



I'm curious why Mr. Parker was in the right place at the right time and why we are not?


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *
> 
> 
> ...



So in your opinion what is Kenpo?


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Personally, I think that the two most overused words in martial arts today are, "combat," and, "warrior." The first translates out roughly--I agree with a couple of the posters--as, "buy this." As for the second--sheesh. I certainly ain't a warrior in the sense that seems to be meant on this string, and I don't want to be. And, most likely, folks who throw the term around ain't warriors either. Navy SEALS, Recon Marines--the real ones, not the folks in the magazines--they're warriors. Especially the ones who've, "seen the elephant," as they used to say back in the Civil War. Me? Not in that sense, absolutely not.
> 
> *



Even the some of the traditional arts use the term Bujutsu whisch translated means military arts. Since when are they military arts?
Do they continue to teach these military tactics?

With that way of thinking, we could throw out many old and new systems based on their names.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *
> 
> Oh...anybody out there willing to be specific aabout exactly what they do in their new system? Not generalities and platitudes...describe a technique, say?
> ...


Trying to decribe a technique or uploading a picture will only display a one dimensional view, then it will ripped to shreds by our MT peers..

But in what I do, I teach and practice roughly about 65% standup and 35% ground grappling. I say ground grappling because some consider all grappling to be the same. I'd like to know if there are any other systems with a mix like that out there? My heart is in standup but I recognize the need to be efficient in other and all ranges. 

Also I would like to know what everybody else is doing and in what arts? And how they stay within the boundries of their original systems? 

Do they continue to evolve? If so, how? If not, why? 

Is it proper to add new techniques or training methods to a system and call it the same name, even if your instructor does not teach it that way? 

Is it still the same system? Is it still the same system if you've added "all" of the ground grappling elements and enhanced the standup as well?


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *Trying to decribe a technique or uploading a picture will only display a one dimensional view, then it will ripped to shreds by our MT peers.. *




mpegs reveal quite a bit


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 20, 2003)

I'm sorry, but these responses are mostly so generalized that I don't feel responding to them would be useful. But I'll try this:

a) Draeger offers a useful distinction between "bujutsu," and "budo."

b) Mr. Parker grew up in a pretty cross-cultural kind of place, at a time when martial arts were just starting to become visible in the US. It's like Shakespeare growing up in 16th-century England.

c) I don't know what "65% stand-up," and "35% ground," means.

d) My major point was this: martial arts studios do not, and indeed cannot, teach us to become masters of "combat," and "warriors," in the sense that seems to be indicated by these threads. 

I'm now going to bow out, since I was probably stupid to write anything here in the first place.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *mpegs reveal quite a bit *



They sure do!! You have any??


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *I'm sorry, but these responses are mostly so generalized that I don't feel responding to them would be useful. But I'll try this:
> 
> a) Draeger offers a useful distinction between "bujutsu," and "budo."
> ...



I was quoting you, but I was speaking to anyone who was willing to answer.

I understood "D" but the controversy is English terms of warrior and combat but not the Japanese counterpart. I don't know what Draeger is but Bujutsu translates to military arts.

65% standup fighting and 35% grappling on the ground. I was asking if anybody else is practicing the way I do in that respect. Everybody says that their art covers all ranges and there is no need for new systems. But yet "most" systems techniques are readily available through several mediums and it has been shown that they do not cover all ranges suffiently.

The balance of 65% and 35% is just my way that I try to round out my training and teaching. Others will say they do this too. If you do the math. I hour of class leaves approximately 20 minutes of ground grappling. Thats all my point was there.

Also I use the word Bujutsu quite a bit. For a long time I called my art Bujutsu and I told my Sifu this too. It was my interpetation of martial art but it no longer resembled any one one of my instructors teaching.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *They sure do!! You have any?? *




Yes, and I gave you the URL for them on another thread over a week ago. 
I am surprised you haven't looked at them yet.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 20, 2003)

For those who think that new systems have no place in the martial art world. I would like some one to answer logically the questions that I have presented here!


What I teach and practice is 65% standup and 35% ground grappling. I'd like to know if there are any other systems with a mix like that out there? My heart is in standup but I recognize the need to be efficient in other and all ranges. 

Also I would like to know what everybody else is doing and in what arts? And how they stay within the boundries of their original systems? 

Do they continue to evolve? If so, how? If not, why? 

Is it proper to add new techniques or training methods to a system and call it the same name, even if your instructor does not teach it that way? 

Is it still the same system? Is it still the same system if you've added "all" of the ground grappling elements and enhanced the standup as well?


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 20, 2003)

I would like to know why a few people seem to think there is a need to invent a new martial art.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *I would like to know why a few people seem to think there is a need to invent a new martial art. *



The answer is in the top of my other post. Its about the ranges.

if you answer my questions objectively you will have the answer.


----------



## pesilat (Feb 20, 2003)

OK. Here's something to consider.

Each person is different. Therefore, each person's expression of the material in a system will be different. That's true even within very rigid systems when students have no other training.

Now, when someone goes out and trains in other arts. And, by "trains," I mean they really study them, not just attend a few seminars. When they do this, their personal art will change.

They may still be able to isolate all the elements, but within themselves, there will be (and should be) no delineation. It should become a cohesive whole.

If they start teaching and don't make a conscious effort to separate the material, then are they really teaching either system?

You train in A and B. They become enmeshed in your own body and understanding. When you move, the blend is what comes out and there's nothing you can do about it. When you start teaching, you teach them separately as A and B. But, gradually, you will be teaching A with some influence from B and B with some influence from A.

At what point do you draw the line? Is it respectful to A and B (and your instructors in those systems) to continue teaching these hybrids and call them A and B? Over time (through conscious decision, or natural progression) you're almost bound to start teaching how the two actually tie together. Now, not only are A and B blended in you personally, they're becoming blended in your students.

At what point is it "proper" to say, "You know what ... I'm not really doing service to A or B this way. I need to develop a curriculum that draws from the strengths of both." Now, do you call it AB? Do you call it BA? Do you call it C? How do you show proper respect to your roots and instructors while also expressing your own self honestly?

As for filling  a "niche" ... pretty much impossible. Especially in today's global community. But I'm not really sure it's necessary.

Each person's background and experiences are completely unique to that individual. Consequently, their perspective and interpretation is completely unique because it's based on that background and experience.

If the material is valid and it's laid out in a cohesive progression, then the system is valid. If it's valid then it's worth sharing. If it's a valid system then, what you name it is kind of inconsequential unless you insult someone else (i.e.: blending boxing and jujitsu and calling it "bo-jitsu" -- which I've heard done -- is somewhat insulting to the practitioners of "Bojitsu," the art of the Bo staff).


So, in summary, each person will naturally develop his/her own style (personal expression). As he/she continues to train, that personal style will continue to evolve and may, depending on the individual, become something very unlike the original source(s). So, at what point does it become disrespectful to still call it by the name of the original source(s)?

And, as I said before, if you think about it, _every_ martial art that you've ever heard of was, at one point, a new system created by someone.

I would imagine that every system that's ever been developed has undergone ridicule from members of the established systems in the region.

Mike


----------



## chufeng (Feb 20, 2003)

> The answer is in the top of my other post. Its about the ranges.



In your post lies the answer...
Too many people do NOT explore their art deeply enough to look at a variety of ranges...
But, you don't need a new art...you need to go deeper into the art you practice.

Many techniques can be found in the simplest movements in forms...most people look at the "bunkai" from a "fighting distance.
That is a place to start, and in fact, it was taught that way to the newer people in the art on purpose...the juicy stuff was saved for the serious student...but just like you had to learn the alphabet before spelling, and spelling before writing a sentence, and writing a sentence before short essays...there had to be a place to start...

Once the movement of a form is hard wired into your nervous system...and once you applied the techniques of obvious "bunkai" thousands of times, you learned a pattern of movement...that pattern is what you then use to learn the deeper levels of your art...now apply the pattern to an attack from the rear...now apply it from the side...now apply it at weapons distance...now in your face...

YES, the old arts DO teach ALL ranges of fighting...but it takes many years to SEE that...too many people leave before they have drunk deeply enough from the well of understanding...too many people have promoted people prematurely, for money, and given the newly promoted the right to teach something of which they really know nothing...THAT is why MANY schools do NOT understand WHAT they are teaching...that is why you feel you need to reinvent something that has been in front of you all of this time...

IMHO

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## pesilat (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chufeng _
> *In your post lies the answer...
> Too many people do NOT explore their art deeply enough to look at a variety of ranges...
> But, you don't need a new art...you need to go deeper into the art you practice.
> ...



Amen!

However, while this sometimes has something to do with people creating their own system, I think there are valid reasons for creating one (see my previous post).

One thing that is most certainly _not_ a valid reason is ego. And the situation describe is egotistical.

Mike


----------



## chufeng (Feb 20, 2003)

Pesilat,

I believe I agreed on your other post...

YiLiQuan is only 21 years old...it is derived, mostly, from BaiXingQuan, a Northern Shaolin system with over 400 years of history...

BaiXing had evolved over several years and actually had 72 open hand sets in it...Many of the hand sets repeated the same idea but changed a hand shape (say Phoenix Eye in one set and Sun-fist punch in another) so many of the forms were repetitious.

No one can really master more than probably three forms in a lifetime...so WHY 72???

Sifu Starr kept all fo the information from the 72 forms but cut away the repetition when he developed YiLiQuan...
...and the idea of including short forms that demonstrated a specific strategy was added...we now have a system that is much easier to learn...and each of the instructors will probably add a little here and there...and as time passes, the system may becoma as cumbersome as BaiXing was...then it will be time for another "pruning."

Sifu didn't "throw out what was not useful," because he kept all of the elements...but he streamlined it to better fit his students' needs.

Was there a shakeup when he did it?
Hell yes...he lost a good number of students...
He was criticized by many...
But, he put it out for public scrutiny in tournaments all over the United States (and even Canada)...
It has stood up, in its short history, against all challenges.
He and his art have been accepted in the Chinese boxing communities of many of the "closed" systems...but that's another story...

As another example...in the old days of Karate, one would learn one form for a long time and then maybe one or two more...that's it.

The idea of passing on ALL of the forms occurred fairly recently...
The worry was that some information would be lost.
So now we see practitioners who can do a lot of forms, but don't really understand what it is they are doing...there is a breadth of knowledge but no depth...

Hence, the question posed by RyuShiKan, WHY do we need more than we already have when we don't even understand what's in front of us?

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## pesilat (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chufeng _
> *No one can really master more than probably three forms in a lifetime...so WHY 72???*



In my estimation, one good reason to keep them is because different forms may suit different students better or worse. You may only master a few of them, but your students may master a different few depending on their tastes and attributes. But that's a tangential subject to the topic at hand 



> *
> Hence, the question posed by RyuShiKan, WHY do we need more than we already have when we don't even understand what's in front of us?
> *



 There will always be more to learn. We can always dig deeper. But by doing so, we learn more about ourselves and our personal expression will change even more. Then we're back to "When does it move so far away from your instructor's style that it becomes your style? And when should that change be recognized?"

Whether it's done within a single system or by cross-training, this is possible.

Innovation is the catalyst of progress. Is every system created good? No. Is every system created worthwhile? No. And when they aren't they either die out or they get really well marketed and succeed as businesses but are looked down on by other arts.

The problem I have is when people just dismiss them out of hand because they're new.

Personally, when I hear about a new system, I think, "Cool. I'll have to go check it out." My junk-o-meter may go off, but I reserve judgment until I actually see what they have to offer. If it's a valid system then I'll respect it and them.

Case in point: Shen Chuan

In 1998, I had to go to Nacogdoches, Texas for work. I was going to be down there for a week. When I traveled for work, I always tried to find people to train with. I got online and couldn't find anything except TKD in Nacogdoches. I would have settled for TKD because, at least, it would have been a workout. But I prefer to study Kali or Silat or, failing that, something I've not been exposed to previously.

I asked around online and a guy in Houston said, "There's a guy in Nacogdoches named Joe Lansdale. I don't know him, but my instructor thinks pretty highly of him. Here's his website." - http://www.joerlansdale.com/shenchuan

If you visit the site, you'll see the same thing I saw. I read, "This is the system designed for self-defense" and I thought, "OK. I've heard that before." Then I looked at the bios of their instructors. All kinds of alarm bells went off. I though, "OK. There's a high probability that these guys are either scam artists or paper tigers."

But, unlike TKD, it wasn't something I'd seen before so I decided to check it out. I called the school and talked to Professor Lansdale. I explained who I was and a little of my background and asked if I could visit and train while I was there for work. He said, "Of course you can. Come on down. We'll have a good old time!"

So, I went and checked it out. On Monday night they had a Combat Hapkido class and an "Aikibujutsu" class. The Combat Hapkido was interesting, but didn't hold much appeal for me. The Aikibujutsu itself didn't hold much appeal for me, but Shihan Coy, the instructor, was very good. They use the term "Aikibujutsu" because, between them, the instructors have rank in a couple of Aikido and Aikijujitsu systems. Rather than use a specific system name, they just used the generic term and taught the principles the various systems had in common.

I was very impressed with Coy's ability to do and to teach. And I was very impressed with Professor Lansdale's down-to-earth attitude and everyone was very cool to me -- which, unfortunately, isn't always the case when an experienced outsider visits a school.

While the material I'd seen didn't really appeal to me, I went back on Tuesday to check out what was taught that night. The first class was called "Stickboxing." It's rooted in FMA, but not a pure FMA system. The instructor, Eugene, had trained to a brown belt level in Modern Arnis and then his instructor moved away. The instructor gave Eugene permission to teach the material he had. Eugene then applied the Shen Chuan principles to the stickwork that he had and the system is very good. But it would have been disrespectful and misleading to claim it was a "Filipino martial art" so they just call it "Stickboxing."

Then I went to the Shen Chuan class taught by Prof. Lansdale. I was *very* impressed. The man is *very* good. The material is very good. It's a very solid system. It was developed by Prof. Lansdale.

In 2000, I went down and taught at an annual seminar the Prof. Lansdale has. In 2001, I moved down there to train in Shen Chuan and to teach. It was a very rewarding experience in a lot of ways.

Had I dismissed it out of hand because it was a "new system," I'd have missed out on some really good training and some really good friendships.

Mike


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chufeng _
> *In your post lies the answer...
> Too many people do NOT explore their art deeply enough to look at a variety of ranges...
> But, you don't need a new art...you need to go deeper into the art you practice.
> ...



I understand your point but your assuming that training from kata will hold up in the modern world martial arts and modern training application of technique. Even if all the instructors were true masters, learning a system from them thats takes to long to master is not efficient! Not in the least bit!

Over 30 years ago Bruce would tell karate instructors that his students would be proficient fighters in 18 months. Whether it was longer than 18 months or less, it does not matter. What matters is he was teaching someone to do what? Fight and be proficient in a matter of time that cant be done from kata! I also question Anyone that believes that they are proficient fighters without fight training. Kata does not fit that bill.

If you think that what you practice in a form is going to work in a real fight, I hope your insurance policy is up to date. Im not saying kata has no use, your just overrating it. Kata is a tool in the toolbox. To a lot of people (modern day martial art fighters) its not even a tool, but thats another thread in itself.

And like I said before, you really need to do the math. 65% standup and 35% groundgrappling. For every hour of training, there is approximately 20 minutes on the ground. 

There is no kata bunkai that can teach you like that!  

I asked if there were any systems out there that taught like that, but I already new the answer. The only ones are the the ones taught by eclectic martial artist. The ones that truely understand "all ranges." If your system is all ranges, I'll be the first to bow down. I just haven't seen a traditional system that is truely "all ranges." Stating that you need to wait for so many years is not an answer, nor an option! 

I really do teach in this fashion! You seem to misunderstand what you are doing as being complete which it isn't! Your to fixed on the technique you think that you will eventually learn. Its not going to happen. All the "years" spent on your bunkai, could have been used on other arts and then maybe your martial art really would be complete.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 20, 2003)

Hence, the question posed by RyuShiKan, WHY do we need more than we already have when we don't even understand what's in front of us?:asian:
chufeng [/B][/QUOTE] 




I just gave it to you!


----------



## chufeng (Feb 20, 2003)

> I just haven't seen a traditional system that is truely "all ranges."



Exactly !!!

YOU haven't seen it...but it is out there...

Your whole concept of "practicing for thirty years isn't efficient" IS the problem...anything worthwhile is worth the patience necessary to get to that end result...MOST teachers don't give any one art thirty years...and so we have this proliferation of "sensei" who don't KNOW why this  or that particular movement is in a form.

Forms are VERY important in keeping an art alive...the forms are the textbooks from which we pull all of the neat stuff out of.

Do I train ONLY in forms...no...
...ask Yiliquan1...

Drills and freestyle drill are HOW we learn and test our technique.

If all you are interested in is fighting skill, then go spit in somebody's beer...repeat until you get the fighting thing correct.
If all you are interested in is self-defense, then get a permit to carry concealed weapons and spend some time on the range...
If you want to learn a martial art...spend some time with it...

:asian:
chufeng

I'm not opposed to new systems, per se, but I do wonder at what point one is qualified to make changes significant enough to found a new system.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 20, 2003)

One thing that is most certainly _not_ a valid reason is ego. And the situation describe is egotistical.

Mike [/B][/QUOTE] 



Was that aimed at me? I don't understand?


----------



## pesilat (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> Was that aimed at me? I don't understand? [/B]



Absolutely not. I've gathered that you are or have started your own system, but I haven't seen anything about it except the very brief description you gave. As I said previously, I reserve judgment until I see/feel it first hand. I have no idea what your motivations are.

But ... why would you think it was aimed at you?

Mike


----------



## chufeng (Feb 20, 2003)

> And like I said before, you really need to do the math. 65% standup and 35% groundgrappling. For every hour of training, there is approximately 20 minutes on the ground.
> 
> There is no kata bunkai that can teach you like that!



The "bunkai" are where all of that 65%/35% stuff actually comes from...do you think that technique and form are separate?
Do you think that if I pull off a "naked strangle" that I divorced myself from form to do it? No...the techniques come directly from the forms...training the "bunkai" CORRECTLY will show you what I mean...again, it seems as though you haven't been exposed to GOOD traditional teaching...I certainly can't fix that over the internet...and I'm sure you'll disagree with me again on this point...but I am in the arts for more spiritual reasons and to get in touch with myself...I don't care who the baddest guy on the block is...

Fighting is fighting...what we do is much more than that...fighting is the lowest level of achievement...so, if that is your yardstick, so be it.

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## A.R.K. (Feb 20, 2003)

> If all you are interested in is fighting skill, then go spit in somebody's beer...repeat until you get the fighting thing correct.





> If all you are interested in is self-defense, then get a permit to carry concealed weapons and spend some time on the range...





> If you want to learn a martial art...spend some time with it...



This is actually a rather profound statement.  I think you've hit something here.  Not the spitting in the beer per say    but there is a difference in a martial 'art' and a defensive or 'fighting' system.

For example, LEO's, corrections, EP agents etc don't have the time, luxury or agency dollars to learn an 'art'.  Budgets are always limited and many are lucky to attend a 40 hr course.  Fortunately a lot can be covered in a 40 hour block for immediate hands on use.  Going deep into things takes time that simply is not available in many cases.

Hence the need for 'new' systems perhaps.  It fills a niche so to speak that a martial 'art' may not be able to because of training time/budget limitations.  This does not invalidate the 'art' portion but helps to explain, to a certain degree, the current trend of new systems perhaps.  Same wheel overall, just different spokes and in some regards  more expediant job related results.


----------



## pesilat (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by pesilat _
> *Absolutely not. I've gathered that you are or have started your own system, but I haven't seen anything about it except the very brief description you gave. As I said previously, I reserve judgment until I see/feel it first hand. I have no idea what your motivations are.
> 
> But ... why would you think it was aimed at you?
> ...



OK. Going back through the series of posts that led to my statement, I can see how you might have gotten that impression.

My bad. No, it wasn't aimed at you.

It was a general statement about anyone who doesn't dig deep enough to fully appreciate what is in front of them; then they go off and start a new art to fill the imaginary gap that they, in their ignorance, perceive.

If this does apply to you, then it is, in fact, aimed at you. But I'm not in a position to aim anything at you. Only you know why you are creating your own system. As I said before, personally, I reserve judgment until I see/feel it in person. If I ever get the opportunity to meet and work out with you, then I would determine whether I personally thought your system had merit.

Mike


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chufeng _
> *Exactly !!!
> 
> YOU haven't seen it...but it is out there...
> ...




Really, I knew you don't do just forms and it is my goal to preserve the old but also embrace the new. 

Over the last week I've been able to do a self evaluation of what I really want for the future of my martial arts. I myself have gone back into the traditional world but it does not fit the bill for what I teach as my system. Just differant. 

Things always have a way of working out. I live in No. Ca. and we all know that Dan Inosanto is in So. Ca., I don't know what you think of this man but I've debated for along time on going down there. It is a 6 hour drive, its long but not out of the question.

Also I've questioned myself as to whether my training would hold up in the "his" world. So during this week a new guy started with me who actually knows Dan. Let me state. This guy is not my student. He is advanced and just needs to someone to train with. I beleive he had 10 years of Praying Mantis Kung-Fu and followed that with 6 years of JKD. Anyway he is a student of Dans student and has trained under Dan on occasion.

He opened me up to what I knew would be the right path for me but my Sifu did not walk this path. The end result is I'm going to make that 6 hour drive. 

Chufeng, understand there are many ways to do things. Some of us just see things differant. We always will see things differant. And that is why are arts are differant. 

And my goal is to make my students better than myself. And I will teach my students how to beat any system that I have learned. I'm not going to send a thug out with some dangerous technique. A thug is going to have a charactor self evaluation of himself before he is taken seriuosly and this he will figure out by himself. Thats something that I keep from the old, but I have to teach it all in a progressive manner that does not take forever.


----------



## pesilat (Feb 20, 2003)

6 hours or not, you're a lucky bugger to be close enough to visit Guro Dan's school on even a semi-regular basis. I've been to a couple of classes there with him and spent 100+ hours at seminars with him. He's an incredibly well-versed martial artist, an excellent practitioner, and one of the best instructors I've seen.



> Akja wrote:*
> And my goal is to make my students better than myself. And I will teach my students how to beat any system that I have learned. *



I'm curious about this statement, though. Was it poor wording, or do you actually think that way? Not trying to attack you, just curious.

Your students won't be fighting the systems that you've learned. They'd be fighting people who train in the systems. But you can't guarantee that any of your students will be able to beat any student of any system all the time.

Mike


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by pesilat _
> *OK. Going back through the series of posts that led to my statement, I can see how you might have gotten that impression.
> 
> My bad. No, it wasn't aimed at you.
> ...



I didn't think so but I've gotten hammered so much, I wouldn't put it past anyone. Your posts are very objective and I can tell you understand quite a bit more than what a lot of people are willing to accept. 

The last couple of times that I talked to my Sifu I told him that I was calling my art Bujutsu. He accepted that. It no longer was just Gung-fu, nor could I call it or Karate or Jujitsu or anything else all by itself.

I'm not creating a new system, it created itself. Its a part of me guiding a fighter into his own self as a martial artist.

My Sifu was not only my instructor but also my friend and I hope as things get better to be able to bring him in to teach his system "pure" the way he wants it to be taught.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by pesilat _
> *6 hours or not, you're a lucky bugger to be close enough to visit Guro Dan's school on even a semi-regular basis. I've been to a couple of classes there with him and spent 100+ hours at seminars with him. He's an incredibly well-versed martial artist, an excellent practitioner, and one of the best instructors I've seen.
> 
> 
> ...




Yea I feel lucky too. I hope we can go down as a group maybe monthly. We definately plan to go down. From what I've seen of the way he teaches he is the "Master Blender." 

Most people have a hard tme undrestanding me, it probably is my wording. 

My students will not compare to a BJJ fighter on the ground. But I definately will teach how to beat a grappler by exposing all the weaknesses that I've experienced. The same goes for Gung-Fu and Karate.

All arts have weaknesses and what we practice is what come out in a fight. I'm not going to box a boxer or grapple a grappler. I will use grappling against a grappler but I will take the  fight into another range and out of his world. Thats the way I teach.

You have to spend a lot of time fighting from your back or else what I'm saying would be crap. Most peoples weaknesses are in ranges that they don't practice. So practicing all ranges and specializing in a range or ranges that work best for you is a realistic approach to teaching.


----------



## pesilat (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *I didn't think so but I've gotten hammered so much, I wouldn't put it past anyone. Your posts are very objective and I can tell you understand quite a bit more than what a lot of people are willing to accept. *



I do my best. I've been around the martial arts for a while (longer than some, not as long as others -- about 23 years). I'm relatively young (only 31), but over the years, I've been exposed to a lot of stuff. Some good. Some bad -- OK ... a lot of bad. But I've been surprised enough times to know that it doesn't pay to jump to conclusions. I always try to keep an open mind and remain objective. Especially until I've seen/felt something first hand.

Also, I've been involved in the internet MA discussions for about 10 years. I know that all too well that this medium is a double-edged blade. On the one edge, it presents a great opportunity for people to share and explore beyond the bounds of their physical locale. On the oother, it's _very_ easy to misstate or misinterpret something out here.

And, unfortunately, when you make a faux pas out here, it generally comes back to haunt you. As such, I try to be very honest and clearly state myself -- though I sometimes hang the pooch. And I try to always keep in mind that writing and language have always been areas I've excelled in. Other people out here -- a lot of people, in fact -- aren't that lucky. So if I, with my knack for language and writing, can step on my own tongue out here, then it's probably even easier for a lot of other people to do so.

So I try to be very clear when I write while also giving other people a lot of leeway and, often, the benefit of the doubt. And before I jump on something, I try to draw out a clarification to determine if it's just a miscommunication.

So often, I see a debate rage back and forth for a while and then, suddenly, both people realize that they're basically saying the same thing. They're on the same sheet of paper with different colored crayons and they're focusing more on the color used than what is actually being written 



> *I'm not creating a new system, it created itself. Its a part of me guiding a fighter into his own self as a martial artist.*



Sounds to me like you're doing it right. Again, with the caveat that I reserve judgement until I see/feel in person 

Mike


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chufeng _
> *The "bunkai" are where all of that 65%/35% stuff actually comes from...do you think that technique and form are separate?
> Do you think that if I pull off a "naked strangle" that I divorced myself from form to do it? No...the techniques come directly from the forms...training the "bunkai" CORRECTLY will show you what I mean...again, it seems as though you haven't been exposed to GOOD traditional teaching...I certainly can't fix that over the internet...and I'm sure you'll disagree with me again on this point...but I am in the arts for more spiritual reasons and to get in touch with myself...I don't care who the baddest guy on the block is...
> 
> ...



Your right we are going t see it differantly. That is normal and it is OK. 

Like I said, For Me, I am learning some things from people who don't fit the profile of what I teach. And that is OK too. But when I admitted that I practice traditional arts too, thats when everybody tried to invalidate my personal system that I teach.

What I teach comes from my heart, it is my belief as to what is the most effective, executed most effiently as diretly as possible.


----------



## pesilat (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *Yea I feel lucky too. I hope we can go down as a group maybe monthly. We definately plan to go down. Rrom what I've seen of the way he teaches he is the "Master Blender."*



Yes, but he's also very good at keeping things separated and presenting them separately. At his academy, he and his instructors teach separate classes with separate, traditional curriculums. They do teach some "blended" systems (i.e.: Shootfighting, Maphilindo Silat, etc.) but they are all taught as individual curriculums. He leaves it up to the student to cross-train and find his/her own path.



> *All arts have weaknesses and what we practice is what come out in a fight. I'm not going to box a boxer or grapple a grappler. I will use grappling against a grappler but I will take the  fight into another range and out of his world. Thats the way I teach.
> 
> You have to spend a lot of time fighting from your back or else what I'm saying would be crap. Most peoples weaknesses are in ranges that they don't practice. So practicing all ranges and specializing in a range or ranges that work best for you is a realistic approach to teaching. *



Couldn't agree with this more. I believe it's important to be well-rounded. To be proficient in all the ranges with and without weapons. But I also think that "proficiency" has several shades.

For instance, I feel that I'm proficient in long range. But I hate it. I've got poor depth perception and I don't have very long limbs, so I don't want to stay at the long range. Consequently, most of my long range material is geared toward getting me through that range quickly. I can hold my own at the long range and if I think someone is a better fighter than I am in the closer ranges then I'll try to stay at long range. But that's rare. Usually, I go to middle range quickly. If I think they're better than me there, then I'll go to close range. If I think they're better than me there, then I'll go to standing grappling. If I think they're better than me there, then I'll go to the ground. But I don't like the ground much better than I like long range so I tend to avoid it, too. As such, my ground game, like my long range game, is geared toward finishing quickly if I can but, primarily, it's geared toward getting back to my feet. I don't like the ground primarily because of multiple opponent situations. What I prefer is to put the other guy on the ground while I'm still standing or kneeling. Generally, I find that I can gain an upper hand in either the middle, close, or standing grappling ranges and I stay there.

If, however, I'm faced with someone whose long range is good enough to keep me out, then I'm probably outta luck. If I'm faced with someone who's better than me at the close ranges _and_ can get through my long range, then I'm probably outta luck.

The close and standing grapple ranges are where I specialize. But, like you, I feel it's important to be well-rounded and at least comfortable in the other ranges because I never know where a fight will end up.

Mike


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by pesilat _
> So often, I see a debate rage back and forth for a while and then, suddenly, both people realize that they're basically saying the same thing. They're on the same sheet of paper with different colored crayons and they're focusing more on the color used than what is actually being written.
> 
> Mike [/B]



It couldn't be any more true!


----------



## pesilat (Feb 20, 2003)

Akja, you're in San Jose, right?

Check this group out - http://www.pentjaksilatusa.com

The head of the system, Dr. Andre KnutsGraichen is absolutely top notch. He's a great guy, a very good martial artist and instructor. I'm not sure if personally teaches (except for his senior students) but he lives in San Jose and, last I knew, there was a group being run there. The system is good and all the people I've met from the organization are good people.

If I lived in San Jose, that'd be where I'd train (along with the visits to Guro Dan).

Also, since my brother-in-law lives in San Jose, I may actually be out in your neck of the woods sometime within the next couple of years 

Mike


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *The answer is in the top of my other post. Its about the ranges.
> . *



Ya I read it. What makes you think other arts don't teach/do the same thing?


The stuff you think is "ground breaking research" is old news to many people.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by pesilat _
> *Yes, but he's also very good at keeping things separated and presenting them separately. At his academy, he and his instructors teach separate classes with separate, traditional curriculums. They do teach some "blended" systems (i.e.: Shootfighting, Maphilindo Silat, etc.) but they are all taught as individual curriculums. He leaves it up to the student to cross-train and find his/her own path.
> 
> 
> ...




I think we think alike alot. Arts change and technique varies. I never stated being a master at anything, but I do train to master what I do.


----------



## pesilat (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *Ya I read it. What makes you think other arts don't teach/do the same thing?
> 
> 
> The stuff you think is "graound breaking research" is old news to many people. *



In all fairness, Jujitsu guys said the same thing about BJJ before they saw it 

This is why I try to keep an open mind and not make judgments until I see/feel it firsthand.

You may well be right -- but you could also be completely wrong.

Mike


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *I understand your point but your assuming that training from kata will hold up in the modern world martial arts and modern training application of technique. *



Obviously you dont or we wouldnt be seeing your post.
You think people that train in kata just do a kata a couple of hundred times and then say Well, that was a good work out see ya tomorrow
Not hardly. Most people I know that train kata also extract the bunkai and train using it to practice real situations.




> _Originally posted by akja _
> *And like I said before, you really need to do the math. 65% standup and 35% groundgrappling. For every hour of training, there is approximately 20 minutes on the ground.
> There is no kata bunkai that can teach you like that!  *



Just what do you think bunkai is and how do you think people train in it?


----------



## chufeng (Feb 20, 2003)

> Chufeng, understand there are many ways to do things. Some of us just see things differant. We always will see things differant. And that is why are arts are differant.
> 
> And my goal is to make my students better than myself. And I will teach my students how to beat any system that I have learned.



I agree entirely...as a parent, the teacher should wish that his students do better...but the parent must supply the proper tools...

I know this is a difficult endeavor...if that IS your focus, you are on the right path...but PLEASE listen to some of the other stuff here...I think that you and I can both benefit from continuing to explore other things.........

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *Ya I read it. What makes you think other arts don't teach/do the same thing?
> 
> 
> The stuff you think is "graound breaking research" is old news to many people. *



Of course not groundbreaking or next fad to be. Especially not the next martial sport. I just don't believe that training primarily in a traditional fashion is enough. and what i teach is a reflection of me.


----------



## Kirk (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *Just what do you think bunkai is and how do you think people train in it? *



I've never heard of the term, and have no idea of it's meaning.
After you're done discussing this with him, please go into some
depth on this.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by chufeng _
> *Exactly !!!
> 
> YOU haven't seen it...but it is out there... *



If he hasnt seen it then it doesnt exist.  (This is what Chinese call a frog in the well looking upward)


----------



## pesilat (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> *I've never heard of the term, and have no idea of it's meaning.
> After you're done discussing this with him, please go into some
> depth on this. *



Bunkai is a term used in Japanese arts. Not sure of the exact translation. But, basically, it means to extrapolate application from the movements in a form.

In Silat, I've most often heard it called "buah" (fruit) and the form is the "bunga" (flower). I've also heard the term "sambut" (answer) used.

Since you do Kenpo, Kirk, I believe this concept may be what you would consider "extensions" (I believe that's the proper term, but may be confused since I'm not a Kenpo player at all) -- and the "form" would be one of your techniques; it's just a 2 person form as opposed to a solo form.

Mike


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *Of course not groundbreaking or next fad to be. Especially not the next martial sport. I just don't believe that training primarily in a traditional fashion is enough. and what i teach is a reflection of me. *



Can you give some characteristics of what you consider to be typical traditional weak points?


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *If he hasnt seen it then it doesnt exist.  (This is what Chinese call a frog in the well looking upward) *



There are techniques within the Kata! I did not deny that. What I did say that you will not learn how to fight from your back from Bunkai. You could learn grappling techniques but you won't get the sensitivity that it takes fight on the ground.

You give me the impression that your technique revolve around the one-punch mentality and if thats true , then you must be right.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *Can you give some characteristics of what you consider to be typical traditional weak points? *



You want an example. How are you going to deal with a shootfighter?


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by pesilat _
> *Bunkai is a term used in Japanese arts. Not sure of the exact translation. But, basically, it means to extrapolate application from the movements in a form.
> *





Thats a pretty good definition.
When the Colombia crash happened the Japanese news described it as ku chu bunkai.
Basically it means mid-air separation, or breaking apart.

Bunkai is actually a verb but westerners have opted to use it as a noun. When studying a kata one uses bunkai to discover the omote and ura techniques within the kata.
Omote means the obvious stuff ura means the not so obvious stuff.ura is usually the sneaky stuff the resembles dentist drill pain.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *You want an example. How are you going to deal with a shootfighter? *




That's not giving me your opinion, that's asking a question.
Would you like me to restate the question so you understand it better?


----------



## chufeng (Feb 20, 2003)

> There are techniques within the Kata! I did not deny that. What I did say that you will not learn how to fight from your back from Bunkai. You could learn grappling techniques but you won't get the sensitivity that it takes fight on the ground



Again, you assume that those who train in traditional systems don't go to ground...don't look at "real world" situations...

Please stop assuming and start looking at possibilities...

I acknowledge that what you teach might be effective in a fight...but how does that fight relate to the martial art that you profess to teach?

My point is that martial training goes beyond what we train for in the gym.

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## pesilat (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *Thats a pretty good definition.
> When the Colombia crash happened the Japanese news described it as ku chu bunkai.
> Basically it means mid-air separation, or breaking apart.*



Beautiful! Never heard that before. Then, definition-wise, it's actually more related to the Indonesian term, "pecahan."

The actual translation of pecahan (pronounced "pet-cha-han") is "fragment." However, it also is used to describe a form of divination in which a glass container is dropped and the future is read from the pattern formed in the shattering.

In martial arts, they use it to describe the concept of extrapolation. When a punch comes at me, it is the glass being dropped. All of the options I have for dealing with that punch are the "pecahan." They're the fragments of my skill/ability that can be applied to dealing with that punch.

Mike


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by pesilat _
> *In martial arts, they use it to describe the concept of extrapolation. When a punch comes at me, it is the glass being dropped. All of the options I have for dealing with that punch are the "pecahan." They're the fragments of my skill/ability that can be applied to dealing with that punch.
> 
> Mike *



You just described what Hung Yi Syan used to say about Bagua.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *That's not giving me your opinion, that's asking a question.
> Would you like me to restate the question so you understand it better? *



 A weakness of a traditional karate system would be assuming that "your original system" is really covering all ranges. It most likely touches slightly on important ranges such as the ground, but does not go deep enough to be considered covering all ranges effectively.

What is considerd effective? That depends on who is talking and who is listening. But for me, it meant spending several years on the mat in a BJJ school learning to fight from my back. Knowing that its far from over and that taking me to the ground is not taking me out of my world!

I use Karate as an example, but as I stated all arts have weaknesses. But the Judo guys don't make false claims of being complete!


----------



## pesilat (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *You just described what Hung Yi Syan used to say about Bagua. *



Once again we've proven that concepts and principles are universal and only their expression differs. "A rose by any other name ..."

Mike


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *A weakness of a traditional karate system would be assuming that "your original system" is really covering all ranges. It most likely touches slightly on important ranges such as the ground, but does not go deep enough to be considered covering all ranges effectively. *



This has been your core grip all along but you still have not given any specifics.
I cant say for every traditional art but the one I study covers all ranges including ground.





> _Originally posted by akja _
> *I use karate as an example, but as I stated all arts have weknesses. *



No, thats not really accurate. Arts dont have weaknesses. Only teachers or students have weaknesses.



> _Originally posted by akja _
> *But the Judo guys don't make false claims of being complete! *



You obviously dont know the same Judo guys as I do.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by pesilat _
> *Once again we've proven that concepts and principles are universal and only their expression differs. "A rose by any other name ..."
> 
> Mike *




My teacher has stressed the point on us that all arts are one..........must be something to that.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *My teacher has stressed the point on us that all arts are one. *




Care to explain?  It seems to contradict what tou preach.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *This has been your core grip all along but you still have not given any specifics.
> I cant say for every traditional art but the one I study covers all ranges including ground.
> 
> ...



You can be very much right. But you don't give any detail on your art except you say it covers all ranges. Everybody thinks that. And you spend so much time trying to pick me apart because I believe that I teach better than I was taught. I try hard not to hold back. 

I put the time in learning certain things that "make me" as a martial artist. Doesn't it make sense that I would base my teaching from my personal beliefs and not just what other people think I should do.

If I didn't teach from my heart, then I would be fake!


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> * It seems to contradict what tou preach. *




Not at all. What I "preach" is that all "real" martial arts have basically the same motives and ideas for what they do and why the do it. To elaborate a bit, most use similar body mechanics that allow them to use the opponents strength against themselves. 

Care to elaborate on that question I asked earlier or are we going to have another marathon post session where I have to ask you repeatedly..........


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *You can be very much right. But you don't give any detail on your art except you say it covers all ranges. *



All ranges means all ranges doesn't it............


----------



## pesilat (Feb 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *My teacher has stressed the point on us that all arts are one..........must be something to that. *



That's pretty much what I believe.

Here's a summation of my personal belief on the subject:

There is a finite number of ways that the body can move, be moved, or be affected. The martial arts further reduce that number by limiting to methods of defense and attack.

Consequently, there is a pool of concepts and principles that all the martial arts draw from.

It's a big pool, but still finite.

What makes each system unique is what they choose to draw from the pool, the amount of various elements they choose to draw, and how they choose to approach and express it.

Mike


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> 
> 
> Care to elaborate on that question I asked earlier or are we going to have another marathon post session where I have to ask you repeatedly.......... [/B]



Do you want me to try and pick apart your art? I thought I gave a good example of a weakness. 

Is it wrong to believe that most arts overstate there martial art as being complete? At least I've seen a lot of what the world has to offer to base my decision.

Yet what I believe I hear from the "majority" is that what I do can't be right. 

Nothing in the last 10 years has happened that would make me want to explore multiple arts. I only need one art, thats enough.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *All ranges means all ranges doesn't it............ *



 I've told you so much more than you have told me!

I don't need to convert you! But if you want me to believe what your saying, the you should be the one doing some elaborating. I give many examples of what I do and what I believe and how what i believe effects what I do.

You on the other hand should read your posts. You don't give me any reason to believe that your art is anything more than a standard version of Karate.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by pesilat _
> *That's pretty much what I believe.
> 
> Here's a summation of my personal belief on the subject:
> ...



Yup.... I agree.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *Do you want me to try and pick apart your art? I thought I gave a good example of a weakness.
> 
> Is it wrong to believe that most arts overstate there martial art as being complete? At least I've seen a lot of what the world has to offer to base my decision.
> ...




Oh brother here we go.

Once again, what specifically do you think are the weaknesses of a traditional martial art?


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *
> You on the other hand should read your posts. You don't give me any reason to believe that your art is anything more than a standard version of Karate. *




One look at the mpegs on the URL I gave you several weeks ago would tell you I don't do a standard version of Karate.


----------



## pesilat (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *Oh brother here we go.
> 
> Once again, what specifically do you think are the weaknesses of a traditional martial art? *



It might help if someone specifies a particular art. Otherwise it'll be pretty rough for him (or anyonoe) to answer that question meaningfully.

Mike


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *Oh brother here we go.
> 
> Once again, what specifically do you think are the weaknesses of a traditional martial art? *



If your asking for specific techinques then I would have to have knowledge of all or many traditional arts.

You are avoiding telling me anything about your complete art!

Its not realistic to think that no art has weakness or one art is enough. Not in todays martial art world. Weaknesses as I stated are in all arts! Not just traditional arts. But the differances may differ from traditional vs. non-traditional. 

If you don't tell me about your art, I can't help you find your weakness. 

With all seriousness, you are entitled to your opinions. But you are playing a head game. Tell me about your art and I will try and use your art as an example. I think that is fair.

I did not look at the mpegs. That would be my fault. But I will look a them. I really only went to the page where you had your kata listed.


----------



## pesilat (Feb 21, 2003)

Hey akja, what is your avatar? I keep looking at it trying to figure it out, but it's got me stumped.

Mike


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 21, 2003)

Its a monkey with a bamboo stick on his shoulder whereing a Gung-Fu type of uniform. It looks better when it is bigger but that was as big as I could get it loaded up.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by pesilat _
> *That's pretty much what I believe.
> 
> Here's a summation of my personal belief on the subject:
> ...




Here is something that might be of interest. 
A couple of weeks ago I was working out with a Sambo/Gracie JJ guy on Camp Zama. Yiliquan1 knows who I am talking about.
Anyway we were going over techniques and what we came to find was a lot of the chokes and other holds were similar if not the same to the art that I practice. 
I should mention that I have never practiced Sambo. 
Another interesting point was the guy I was working out with said that some of the holds I do would not be allowed in competion Sambo because there would be too much chance for injury. Different art, same pool.



> _Originally posted by akja _
> *If your asking for specific techinques then I would have to have knowledge of all or many traditional arts. *



Lets start with Karate.



> _Originally posted by akja _
> *Its not realistic to think that no art has weakness or one art is enough. *



You cant blame the art for your lack of discovery, but then if you dont spend much time in an art its kind of hard to discover things.
Too many people today need to be spoon fed and dont think or discover for themselves. 



> _Originally posted by akja _
> *Tell me about your art and I will try and use your art as an example. I think that is fair. *




OK, traditional Karate. In your opinion what does it lack to "hack it" in the real world?


----------



## pesilat (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *Its a monkey with a bamboo stick on his shoulder whereing a Gung-Fu type of uniform. It looks better when it is bigger but that was as big as I could get it loaded up. *



Huh. Cool. Can you attach it to a post?

Mike


----------



## pesilat (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *OK, traditional Karate. In your opinion what does it lack to "hack it" in the real world? *



You'll probably need to be more specific. Which system of Karate?

Mike


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by pesilat _
> *You'll probably need to be more specific. Which system of Karate?
> 
> Mike *



Any system...........let's take the system I study for example.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 21, 2003)

Here it is.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by pesilat _
> *You'll probably need to be more specific. Which system of Karate?
> 
> Mike *



It's on my website.


----------



## pesilat (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *Any system...........let's take the system I study for example. *



 What system is that?

I think this is what akja is trying to ask. There are _a lot_ of "traditional" Karate systems out there; each with its own specific focus, emphasis, and specialty.

Mike


----------



## pesilat (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *Here it is. *



Cool pic 

Mike


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by pesilat _
> * What system is that?
> 
> I think this is what akja is trying to ask. There are a lot of "traditional" Karate systems out there; each with its own specific focus, emphasis, and specialty.
> ...




He wasn't specific when he said "traditional martial arts" & "traditionalists" so I have no idea if he is referring to my art or some other art.


----------



## pesilat (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *He wasn't specific when he said "traditional martial arts" & "traditionalists" so I have no idea if he is referring to my art or some other art. *



Yup. One of the inherent problems with generalizations.

Mike


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 21, 2003)

Ok, you cover the ranges more than the avarage traditional karate system. I'm referring to finishing moves based on what you have listed as systems. I didn't see to much information though or the Mpegs. Where are they located?

If you conversate better, we could talk. But you want me to mess up saying something that I don't know. That won't happen. 

If I say that something is lacking, then that is what I believe.  I have reasons to believe what I do and that reflcts the way I train, but I'm not the scholar you must think I am.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *He wasn't specific when he said "traditional martial arts" & "traditionalists" so I have no idea if he is referring to my art or some other art. *



 Which quote are you quoting me on?


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *Which quote are you quoting me on? *



Look at your old posts.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by pesilat _
> *Yup. One of the inherent problems with generalizations.
> 
> Mike *



Exactly. Either akja is claiming vast knowledge on all traditional arts by saying they are lacking or he is claiming to know one traditional art well enough to voice an expert opinion on it.
Whichever it is, he has not come forth with any information on the points I asked him to verify and in very much the same way as another member did when asked about his credentials has responded with unrelated questions and not actual answers.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 21, 2003)

Here is a schools complete Karate curriculum. I say it is not complete as martial art. It does not cover the ranges as I say they should be. You do the translation and tell me what makes it complete because I don't see it.

You talk in riddles! You choose to quote me and when I ask what specific quote you are talking about you don't want to get to the point and say it. 

This school put their system out there for the whole world to see so I am not going to name them.  I got more from them that I sure got from you!

Second they have Jujitsu system that is separate. Together they may be complete! But given the fact that they teach them separately, both systems are incomplete in regards to covering all fight ranges. Covering a little here and there in other ranges is not enough. 

Evidently they found a need to add a BJJ curriculum to enhance their trad. Jujitsu because they now teach that too!


 Karate #1

Blocks (Uke)	Kicks (Geri)
·	Age uke ·	Ude uke ·	Soto ude uke ·	Nagashi uke ·	Jodan juji uke ·	Gedan juji uke ·	Soto age uke ·	Gedan ulna uke ·	Gedan barai uke ·	Kakiwake uke ·	Mikazuki geri uke 	·	Mae geri ·	Rear mae geri ·	Yoko geri ·	Mawashi geri ·	Mikazuki geri ·	Soto mikazuki geri ·	Ushiro geri ·	Fumikomi geri Hittsui geri 
Strikes (Uchi)	Stances (Dachi)
·	Cross shuto ·	Yoko shuto ·	Sakotsu shuto ·	Ganmen shuto ·	Nukite (pure form) ·	Gohon nukite ·	Ura tsuki ·	Kage tsuki ·	Uraken (downward/side) ·	Mawashi tsuki ·	Tate tsuki ·	Oi tsuki ·	Gyaku tsuki ·	Hiji (forward/rear/side/up) ·	Shotei ·	Haitto ·	Morote tsuki ·	Tettsui 	·	Zenkutzo/Zen (front) ·	Kokutzo/Ko (back) ·	Necho ashi/Necho (cat) ·	Kiba (horse) 

Karate #2
1.	Club blow (or right blow): Age uke--zen--double ura tsuki 
2.	Straight right: Ude uke--ko--ganmen shuto 
3.	Straight right: Ude uke--ko--side uraken 
4.	Lapel grab: Ude uke--necho--gyaku tsuki 
5.	Straight right: Soto ude uke--kiba--hiji--kage tsuki 
6.	Straight right: Nagashi--kiba--yoko shuto--uraken 
7.	Straight right: Nagashi--kiba--yoko haitto--cross shuto 
8.	Right blow: Cross shuto--ko--shuto uchi (strike) 
9.	Right blow: Cross shuto--zen--mawashi--kage--ura tsukis 
10.	Side club: Inside uke--kiba--rear hiji 
11.	Club blow (downward): Jodan juji--zen--tettsui (downward) 
12.	Club blow (downward): Jodan juji--zen--ura tsuki 
13.	Knife up thrust: Gedan juji--kage tsuki 
14.	Straight right: Soto shuto--ko--yoko haitto 
15.	Overhead chain: Soto age uke--ko--kage tsuki 
16.	Knife thrust (or club to legs): Left gedan barai--zen--left uraken 
17.	Knife thrust (or club to legs): Right gedan barai--zen--right uraken 
18.	Belt grab: Gedan ulna--necho--left uraken 
19.	Front choke: Kakiwake uke--zen--double ura tsuki 
20.	Front choke: Kakiwake uke--zen--sakotsu--double ura tsuki 


Karate #3
1.	Front choke, parry: Haitto--cross shuto--osoto gari 
2.	Right blow, block: Hiji--sakotsu--osoto gari 
3.	Right & left, spin: Sakotsu--osoto gari 
4.	Club blow, juji uke: Armbreak (side)--sakotsu--osoto gari 
5.	Right & left: Lo-hi-lo--double ura tsuki--bodyslam 
6.	Rear strangle: Right-left hiji--ippon seoi 
7.	Club blow, juji uke: Sakotsu--double ura tsuki--bodyslam 
8.	Front hug (pinned): Windmill--sakotsu--osoto gari 
9.	Police hammerlock: Hiji--armbreak (side)--sakotsu--osoto gari 
10.	Straight lapel: Arm-neck shutos--ura tsuki--bodyslam 
11.	Boxer's left, parry: Left hook--left uraken--standing tani otoshi 
12.	Front choke, parry: Right hook--right uraken--inside armtwist 
13.	Double lapel: Knee up--ear slap--kidney chops--headlock throw 
14.	Rear hug (pinned): Windmill--sakotsu--osoto gari 
15.	Front headlock: Groin haitto (pivot)--mae geri--sakotsu--osoto gari 
16.	Front choke: Ude uke--mae geri-tate tsuki--bodyslam 
17.	Straight right, parry: Yoko shuto--left uraken--collar dragdown 
18.	Straight right, parry: Yoko haitto--cross shuto--standing tani otoshi 
19.	Boxer's left: Arm-thigh chops--left shotei--tackle ouchi 
20.	Front choke, parry: Yoko shuto--left uraken--inside armtwist 
21.	Knife thrust, left gedan: Elbow break (up)--right mae geri--inside armtwist 
22.	Right blow, block: Elbow break (side)--left uraken--bodyslam 
23.	Front hug (free): Knee--ear slap--kidney chops--eyes takedown 
24.	Front choke: Winglock (to side)--double haitto--osoto guruma 
25.	Right & left: Knee-to-face--double uras--lapel guruma 

Karate #4
Knife Defense 
1.	Right gedan barai--side armbreak--right yoko tettsui--left shotei 
2.	Right gedan barai--elbow break--right shotei--kosoto--rear kneelingbar--barflex 
3.	Right gedan barai--elbow break--right, left shotei--reverse hadake--tettsui smash 
4.	Left gedan barai--upward elbow break--mae geri--tettsui 
5.	Left gedan barai--right arm sakotsu--left gohon--left mae geri--left sakotsu (high) 
6.	Left gedan barai--right armchop--left gohon--right cross shuto--hittsui 
7.	Soto ude uke (double)--elbow break (right under)--right mawashi geri--osoto--fumi komi (to ribs) 
8.	Soto ude uke--elbow break--right kage (to face)--left kidney shuto--kosoto 
9.	Soto ude uke--left armbreak--right shotei--left kage (ribs)--osoto 
10.	Upthrust: Gedan juji--right mae geri--right tettsui--cross twist otoshi (to mat) 
11.	Upthrust: Gedan juji--right mae geri--right collarbone sakotsu--reverse armbar 
12.	Cross slash: Tensho grab (double soto ude uke)--armbreak (submit)--kosoto--rear kneelingbar 
13.	Overhead knife (down): Jodan juji--jodan tettsui--elbow break--hiji-bodyslam 
14.	Double inside uke--rear right hiji--ippon seoi--fumi komi (to axilla) 
15.	Draws pocket knife: Left gedan barai--upward armbreak--left face shotei 
16.	Straight thrust: Right yoko geri--wrist twist--fumi komi (to ribs)--yubi tori 
17.	Left gedan shuto--right sakotsu (to arm)--crosstwist--mae geri--sakotsu--flex comealong 
18.	Straight thrust: Right yoko haitto (to face)--hadake jime 
19.	Straight thrust: Right sakotsu (to arm)--nelson strangle 
20.	Straight thrust: Right yoko haitto (to face)--hittsui--inside armtwist 
21.	Straight thrust: Right yoko haitto (to face)--ude tori--otoshi--fumi komi (to ribs)--yubi tori 

Karate #5
Club Defense 
1.	Blow: jodan juji uke--R sakotsu--elbow break--L hiji--R hittsui--osoto gari 
2.	Blow: jodan juji uke--R tettsui--L gedan ulna--R ura tsuki--inside armtwist 
3.	Blow: age uke--Mae geri--sakotsu--ulna press--barflex 
4.	Blow: age uke--Mae geri--tettsui--osoto gari--winglock 
5.	Straight thrust--Soto ude uke--elbow break--R shotei--osoto guruma 
6.	Blow: age uke--Sakotsu--hittsui--osoto gari 
7.	Thrust: parry--Right yoko haitto--cross shuto--ulna press--barflex--rear otoshi--yubi tori 
8.	Thrust: parry--Armbreak--right kage--left kidney chop--kosoto gari--rear kneelingbar--barflex 
9.	Thrust: parry--Yoko shuto--kage tsuki (to face)--inside armtwist 
10.	Thrust: parry--Yoko haitto--ude tori--barflex--rear otoshi 
11.	Thrust: parry--Right haitto--right gohon nukite--rear hadake 
12.	Thrust: parry--Yoko shuto--right kage--osoto gari--winglock 
13.	Attack legs--L gedan barai--up elbow break--L gohon--R ganmen shuto 
14.	Attack legs--L gedan barai--elbow break--left gohon--R gedan haitto--chicken head strike (under chin)--left: right gohon--kouchi gari 
15.	Attack legs--L gedan barai--R arm sakotsu--R yoko geri--L ushiro geri 
16.	Blow: jodan juji uke--Tettsui--double uras--ulna press--one-hand barflex--otoshi--fumi komi--yubi tori 
17.	Blow: age uke--R hiji--ippon seoi--fumi komi--club yawara 
18.	Blow: age uke--R tettsui--uras--hiji--bodyslam--ashi hishigi 
19.	Blow: jodan juji uke--Sakotsu--uras--gohon--lapel guruma--rolling heel kick 
20.	Blow: jodan juji uke--Tettsui--gohon--uras--hittsui--osoto gari 

Karate #6
Boxer defense 
1.	Nagashi uke--Left yoko haitto---left rear hiji (to kidney) 
2.	Nagashi uke--Left-right kage tsuki 
3.	Left cross shuto--Right thigh shuto---left hiji---right kage 
4.	Left cross shuto--Right-left hiji---right uraken 
5.	Left cross shuto--Left yoko haitto---elbow break---right yoko shuto 
6.	Nagashi uke--Left kage tsuki---left downward uraken 
7.	Nagashi uke--Left hittsui geri---left fumi komi---uraken 
8.	Nagashi uke--Left yoko haitto---right gohon---right kosoto 
9.	Nagashi uke--Left hiji---left osoto gari 
10.	Nagashi uke--Left yoko geri---right yoko geri 
11.	Nagashi uke--Left mawashi geri---right ushiro geri 
12.	Nagashi uke, spin--Right soto mikazuki geri 
13.	Nagashi uke, spin--Right soto mikazuki geri---right yoko shuto---left cross shuto 
14.	Nagashi uke--Left mawashi geri---right soto mikazuki geri 
15.	Nagashi uke, back--Right mawashi geri---left mae geri 
16.	Nagashi uke, spin--Soto ushiro geri 
17.	Nagashi uke, spin--Right ushiro geri---left yoko geri 
18.	Nagashi uke--Half-step shuffle---left-right yoko geri 
19.	Nagashi uke--Right mikazuki geri (to kidney)---left fumi komi 
20.	Nagashi uke--Left mawashi geri (to mat)---left fumi komi---sakotsu 
21.	Nagashi uke--Right ushiro geri---left yoko geri---right yoko shuto


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *Exactly. Either akja is claiming vast knowledge on all traditional arts by saying they are lacking or he is claiming to know one traditional art well enough to voice an expert opinion on it.
> Whichever it is, he has not come forth with any information on the points I asked him to verify and in very much the same way as another member did when asked about his credentials has responded with unrelated questions and not actual answers. *




I asked you to direct me to the quote but you played you headgame! At midnite I aint playing your headgame. So slow down with the credibility crap!

I am continually misquoted by you. When did I say I had vast knowledge. I put all my training out there for you but you haven't produced anything except a website that did not tell me much at all.

The only art that I can say I really know as complete as complete can be at this time is "my art!"


----------



## Matt Stone (Feb 21, 2003)

*akja* - 

When you make sweeping generalizations that "traditional" arts aren't fit to the challenges of "modern" fighting, the crux of your error lies in the fact that unarmed fighting techniques and the requirements for surviving or winning an unarmed confrontation have _not_ changed in all of human history.

You have two arms and two legs, a head, a torso, and specific ranges of motion for your limbs.  You can only, ultimately, move in a finite number of directions or combinations of directions.  Thus, how you attack me today is ultimately no different than someone from 500 years ago would attack me...

You say that "traditional" systems don't train all ranges.  I disagree.  I disagree that all "modern" systems train in methods better than their "traditional" origins.  Individual instructors may have not learned or taught everything their system has to offer, and so are only able to provide limited instruction to their students.

In Yiliquan we don't deliberately advocate "going to the ground" with any attacker, grappler or non-grappler.  Being on the ground with your opponent, wrestling for superior position (be it for submission or incapacitation) is unsafe at very best.  The argument that I have yet to hear adequately addressed by BJJ people regarding their superior martial art and its application against multiple attackers applies here.  You say you won't fight a boxer by boxing (implying you would grapple with him instead).  What if you are confronted by several boxers?  Your options are significantly reduced, and you will likely have to play the striking game in order to address the multiple opponent issue.  So then what?  The "modern" argument of using an opponent's training weaknesses (which, by the way, are not hung around the neck of a fighter, and are therefore unknown to you until he attempts something) against him are invalidated at that point.  The only sound basis of your argument is to be exposed to all ranges rather than specializing in one - which is taught by any "traditional" system worth its salt.

As an example of standing and ground applications coming from the same form:

In Yiliquan's first fist form Di Yi Guan Nien ("First Idea") - The opening movement begins from the arms being held in front of the body, palms down, fingertips touching and pointed toward the centerline of the body.  The right hand reaches out to the right and circles up so the forearm is held parallel to the ground at chest height, while the left hand sweeps up in front of the face and circles down and around to the left to end with the hand palm up in front of the navel.  The arms appear to be holding a large ball in front of the body.

This technique, done standing, causes the right arm to enter between the opponent's left arm and his body, circling over to duck him forward and lock the elbow.  The left hand simultaneously reaches up and behind the opponent's head, ducking the head down and effecting the bending of his body.  This same technique, modified somewhat due to a ground position, can be applied to an attacker in the mount position who is attempting a punch/strike.

Same movement, form/kata based.

The trick is to have an instructor that knows the forms well enough, that knows the techniques well enough, to allow them to be taught to the students.  _That_ is where the flaw in "traditional" arts lies, not in the arts themselves.  The art still contains the information, it is simply the instructors who do not know their art sufficently well to extract the needed techniques.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 21, 2003)

I agree very much. We will get attacked in the same ways but it does not mean that we have to practice in the same ways. I was kind of pushed to say a lot of what I say. I've been asked repeatedly to verify why I teach the way I do. Its a double edged sword.

Not boxing a boxer does not mean having to go to the ground, just not fighting his range which is upright punching. Many arts address these ranges without ending up on the ground. 

My whole point is my teaching methods are being questioned and I don't see how it makes a differance if you get the job done. For me, to teach someone to understand the grappler, you have teach them to fight from their back and to transition from all the positions. The submissions will come if you can get to the right positionand if you want them, you may choose to pound them. Just knowing what to do down there does not mean that you will be in control down there. So my opinion of this learning process is putting in the mat time is the key to being in control when being on the ground which I see as a position that needs to be well addressed.. 

The way to not have to fight on the ground is to have a deep understanding of the ground. My Sifu is a good example. He would show me several ways that he woiuld stop someone from running over him and taking him to the ground.

At his level, yes maybe. But the average Joe is nowhere near his level. So I teach what I think will get them well versed in the ranges that I feel would be a weakness to me if I had not learned them. 

Just because you have technique that will work against all ranges, it does not mean that when a student needs to in a real situation be able to use those techniques. 

Training on the ground will enable you to get off of the ground.
I spend a lot of time with the ground work because if you don't your technique can get shut down once you end up on your back. Thats all it is. 

I never said I did anything better. I was pushed to say some things that I would have liked to state not so harshly. 

But the end result is I'm not a green horn and I will be.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Feb 21, 2003)

JMHO, creating a new MA this day, is pretty much like creating a new cake recipe.  Mix and match all the known ingredients.  

It does not mean the product is necessary bad. The USMC came up with a USMC MA.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *JMHO, creating a new MA this day, is pretty much like creating a new cake recipe.  Mix and match all the known ingredients.
> 
> It does not mean the product is necessary bad. The USMC came up with a USMC MA. *


You couldn't be more wrong, in my opinion, which we are both entitled to, our opinions.

The last 10 years have set the stage for modification and evolution.

One on one, several individual arts have been singled out as not complete. They have been tested in the safest but most realistic manner as possible. There is no question as to what the right decision is!

You haven't paid close enough attention to what I have said.

If you teach, but you no longer teach what your instructor teaches. He does not teach what you teach. 

Should your art use the name of your instructor that it does not represent or does it deserve a new name?


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Feb 21, 2003)

Well, there are many arts that have rather standardized curriculum.  You are either a member or you are not. Little room there.

If people want to mix, for example  BJJ with Muay Thai and call the combo a new name, there is nothing to stop them from doing that.  We already have American Karate, which has TKD in its core,  

So, just about anyone can mix and match any art and slap a new label on it.  Its a free country.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *Well, there are many arts that have rather standardized curriculum.  You are either a member or you are not. Little room there.
> 
> If people want to mix, for example  BJJ with Muay Thai and call the combo a new name, there is nothing to stop them from doing that.  We already have American Karate, which has TKD in its core,
> ...



Too many people are you using that same name American Karate. Joe Lewis used to call his American Karate along with others.

There is nothing wrong with crosstraining. When I was in traditional classes under my brother-in-law. He taught several classes but all separately. And guess what? 

All the classes cost the same price. 
At todays rates for Karate, Judo, Kobudo and Aikido. Thats an easy $300. a month per student. I think I do see why they don't want us to mix the arts up!!!!!


----------



## chufeng (Feb 21, 2003)

> My whole point is my teaching methods are being questioned and I don't see how it makes a differance if you get the job done.



The question asked in a rhetorical way was: "Why do we need a new art?"

That does not question your teaching methods...

Your reply was a generic, "Traditional arts don't teach you to fight at all ranges."

That is when things started  to get heated...

I have nothing more to add to what I posted earlier...

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *Here is a schools complete Karate curriculum. I say it is not complete as martial art. It does not cover the ranges as I say they should be. You do the translation and tell me what makes it complete because I don't see it. *



I am not reading through all that crap.
I asked you a question and in a rather non-threatening  and polite way.
All you have done is responded by asking me questions and accusing me of playing head games.
I just want YOU to answer a simple question.
You are the one that made the sweeping generalization that traditional styles are lacking and I merely asked you which ones and why.
However, I see you are going to do a Zhao Dei Wei and prance around with out ever giving a direct answer.

You made the comment traditional MA are lacking in some way so it is up to you to qualify your statement and explain what you mean.

Just in case you forgot here is the question again:



> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *Can you give some characteristics of what you consider to be typical traditional weak points? *


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *I am not reading through all that crap.
> I asked you a question and in a rather non-threatening  and polite way.
> All you have done is responded by asking me questions and accusing me of playing head games.
> ...



I've said it many times but you don't accept what I say.

What I stated was "partially wrong." 

I should of stated that it is my opinion that "many arts" traditional and non-traditional believe that they are effectively covering all ranges but in reality "I" do not feel that they do.

I say this because, like I've stated, knowing particular techniques, in this case grappling submissions is not enough. "I feel" that it is at least just as important to spend  more time on matwork which builds natural instinct like reactions. Focusing on the positions and transitions within the positions.

"Being in control" when on the ground rather than being overwhelmed on the ground. I'm not saying your art does not do this. I'm saying "many do not."

I put that schools curriculum in because it obviously did not cover the ranges like I am trying to express.


----------



## Matt Stone (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *Well, there are many arts that have rather standardized curriculum.  You are either a member or you are not. Little room there.
> 
> If people want to mix, for example  BJJ with Muay Thai and call the combo a new name, there is nothing to stop them from doing that.  We already have American Karate, which has TKD in its core,
> ...



And this is exactly what "creating a new art" amounts to these days...

If a person does some MT, some BJJ, some Wing Chun and Kali, some of this, some of that, and he/she is using the same training methods those styles used to develop the unique skills they all possess, then why does the individual feel a need to give it a label to identify the particular amount and mix of training he/she has in order to differentiate it from anything else?

One simple answer - ego.

I have studied Yili, Modern Arnis, some Ryu Te Karate and soon (I hope) some Shinto Muso-ryu Jo.  Should I run out and label it "Matt-ryu Combat Bang Up-do-jutsu Chuan" just because I like how my training turned out and the skills I developed work(ed) for me?  Why?  Why not simply a) point someone in the direction of the teachers I felt were worthy of learning from and let them evolve from there, on their own and in their own way, or b) teach what I know but continue to identify each part as what it is?

Why the need for a new label to identify one particular person's method?

Ego, again.  The need to be recognized for one's own accomplishments and skills gets in the way of demonstrating, developing and passing on those same skills.  It becomes what Brucie was trying to keep folks from getting hung up on.  "Have no way as (your) way" means only not to tie yourself down and limit your thinking.  

"The perfect way is only difficult for those who pick and choose.  Do not like, do not dislike; all will then be clear.  Make a hairbreadth difference and heaven and earth are set apart; if you want the truth to sand clear before you, never fe for or against.  The struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease."  That is straight from Brucie's own pen, page 8 of the 1975 version of the Tao of JKD.  By saying "traditional" is no good ("I don't like traditional") and "modern" is the best ("I like modern"), you fall into the trap of choosing...

I study because I enjoy studying.  I learn from whoever I train with, whatever they train in.  Perhaps I don't learn a technique, but I can at least develop an understanding of how one particular technique, favored one place and disliked another, is perceived by someone from outside my training.  That was the main thing I gained from Modern Arnis training - the perception of what I do from someone else's vantage point.  In training with RyuShiKan in Ryu Te Karate I learned more about Xingyi, Taiji and Bagua than I had in a long time - from studying _real_ classical Karate methods...  I was shown how universal MA really are when you get to their roots.

*akja* - 

I don't begrudge your teaching ability.  I have never once commented on your ability as a teacher, only the possibilities that you could be an incredible teacher, or a mushmouthed idiot.  Both are equally possible, and until I meet you and watch you teach I have absolutely no foundation for an opinion on that subject.

I have already said that the amount of years you have behind you, and the explanation for your gradings received from people you didn't necessarily train under, seemed to hold water.

The only thing _I_ am saying is that if you are really creating a _new_ art, it should be far more than just a collection of techniques learned here and there from this teacher and that teacher, compiled together with your own take on things...  That isn't a new style, but perhaps more of a new tradition of a style (e.g. Shorin-*ryu* and Gojo-*ryu* are both termed _styles_ of karate, but in reality they probably have more in common than they have in differences, so they could be considered different traditions of karate...  Likewise, what separates Oakland JKD from Seattle JKD or Jun Fan Gung Fu?  Just interpretations and evolutions of the same basic principles, right?  I don't do JKD, but it seems, from what I've read in the media, that all JKD has more in common that it does in the amount of things that set different methods apart...

One art being new and different would be like the differences between Taiji and Arnis.  They both kick, punch, lock joints and throw.  They both use a variety of weapons.  But it is in the theory and strategy of their application that they are different.  They internal methods, the non-physical as well as the physical, is what makes them styles of martial arts instead of variations on the same theme...

Perhaps I didn't make this thinking clear.  Please let me know if you at least grasp where I am going with this...

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## Matt Stone (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *I should of stated that it is my opinion that "many arts" traditional and non-traditional believe that they are effectively covering all ranges but in reality "I" do not feel that they do. *



But because "you" feel they do, does that necessarily make you right?  How many "traditional" styles did you study, and how long?  Did you try for a second opinion by going to other schools of the same style to verify the lack of certain information?

Like I said in an earlier post, just because a teacher doesn't pass on certain knowledge (for whatever reason), doesn't mean that that art doesn't or didn't contain the information you are seeking.  Just that that teacher couldn't pass it on to you.

In time, I'm sure, if enough teachers fail to pass on the same information, that information will be lost entirely.  I don't think that is the case currently, however, though Taiji and Shotokan along with most mini-mall styles of TKD may well be about halfway down the path...

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 21, 2003)

Its not a new art in the sense that I invented anything. I stated that too. All techniques were probably done somewhere before.

But it is a new art in the sense that it is differant enough to not be labeled by any one of my past instructors.

When the old great masters went to China to train, they said they learned Chinese "Kempo", at least thats the way I heard it.

We know that it was actually several forms of Gung-Fu. Definately White Crane Gung-Fu. My use of that word is valid, it is generic and it explains what I interpet my art along with Jujitsu.

I've deleted the "Label of Atemi". What I have is Kempo Jujitsu, modern martial art. "No ego!" 

I know you guys don't agree with the "Soke" councils but my 5th Dan in Kempo is not just certified by a "Soke" council member, it is stamped with the "seal" of the "Soke" council. Whether anybody agrees iwith me is irrellavant, my Kempo Jujitsu is mine.


----------



## Matt Stone (Feb 21, 2003)

They called it "kempo" because in their language that was the pronunciation of the same characters the Chinese were using for the words "chuan fa."

"Kempo" wasn't a new label, just a translation of the same words.  That is like saying someone from Spain came to the US to learn "martial arts," and went home to use the brand new label "artes marcial," or "artes de guerre" as the name of their art.  Completely incorrect.  They just spoke of what they learned in their own language rather than clinging to the language of another place and people that the folks they were interacting with back home didn't understand.

You call what you do "kempo jujutsu."  Whatever.  The point is you don't speak Japanese, so you are using those words as a label and then citing what international travelers did to describe (in their own language to folks they knew at home) what they saw and learned (in another language in another country).

I ate a lot of _sushi_, _sashimi_ when I was in Japan.  No problem, we can use those words because most folks know what they mean.  But if I tell you I ate _donburi_, _yakiniku_ and _temaki_ you might have a little more trouble understanding.  I also ate tons of _asagohan_ and _bangohan_, and while that makes it sound really interesting all it means is that I ate a lot of breakfast and dinner!   Better that I tell you "breakfast" and "dinner" than amaze and befuddle you with stories of _asagohan_ binges or long awaited _bangohan_ outings...

"Kempo" is what those teachers called their "chuan fa" when they came back home to people that had no idea what "chuan fa" was, but could understand what "kempo" meant.  Nothing more.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## Matt Stone (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *Its not a new art in the sense that I invented anything. I stated that too. All techniques were probably done somewhere before.
> 
> But it is a new art in the sense that it is differant enough to not be labeled by any one of my past instructors.*



So what you do is _your_ method of JKD it seems...  Or if not JKD then your variation on the art(s) you studied.  So why not call it "Billy Bob's-ryu" or something like that?  That would identify it as your particular take on what you learned, while acknowledging that it is still, in some degree, the original art (though modified according to your understanding and ability).

Just a thought.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *They called it "kempo" because in their language that was the pronunciation of the same characters the Chinese were using for the words "chuan fa."
> 
> That is what makes it correct, along with being cerified in it.*


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 21, 2003)

I do see all of your points but the terminology came to the USA with the arts as a part of them. So it is ours do with as we choose.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 21, 2003)

Hey, here's an idea for y'all. You cannot create a new martial art, in the sense of coming up with something that was never there beofre, for the same reason that the sciences do not create new theories. What you're doing is to uncover what was already there, inherent in the human body, and physics, and social norms, and responses to weapons, that was always already there before you.

Just as a note, I find two things interesting about these threads. 1) How much I've learned from your various references about martial arts' history (though I might note that it's odd not to know about Donn Draeger's books) and 2) How little of all the technical info is new--because every single technical thing I've read here, especially including all the stuff about ranges, I learned (intellectually, that is) by purple belt in American kenpo. You might check out Mr. Parker's "Infinite Insights" series, assuming of course that you haven't already. It's in there, all of Nature's goodness.

Thanks.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Hey, here's an idea for y'all. You cannot create a new martial art, in the sense of coming up with something that was never there beofre, for the same reason that the sciences do not create new theories. What you're doing is to uncover what was already there, inherent in the human body, and physics, and social norms, and responses to weapons, that was always already there before you.
> 
> Just as a note, I find two things interesting about these threads. 1) How much I've learned from your various references about martial arts' history (though I might note that it's odd not to know about Donn Draeger's books) and 2) How little of all the technical info is new--because every single technical thing I've read here, especially including all the stuff about ranges, I learned (intellectually, that is) by purple belt in American kenpo. You might check out Mr. Parker's "Infinite Insights" series, assuming of course that you haven't already. It's in there, all of Nature's goodness.
> ...




Ed Parkers Kenpo dosen't even come close to the ground game the I'm talking about. Theories maybe, not technique. Ed was a smart man and a true American Pioneer but Kenpo is not a grappling art by "my definition."


----------



## Matt Stone (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *That is what makes it correct, along with being cerified in it.*



I have no idea what you meant by that statement...  Clarification, please? 



> *I do see all of your points but the terminology came to the USA with the arts as a part of them. So it is ours do with as we choose. *



No, the terminology is _not_ ours to "do with as we choose."  It is a living language for God's sake!  Why can't people get it through their heads that having a foreign sounding name that is used incorrectly is complete BS?  Just because your art has a foreign sounding name (I say sounding because some folks have used words that don't even go together to mean anything as the name of their art, not to mention using completely incorrect characters from Japanese or Chinese for the alleged name of their style) does _not_ mean it is correct...

I study Yiliquan.  That is the Mandarin Chinese pronunciation.  The Japanese pronuciation of the exact same characters is Ichi Ri Ken.  That doesn't mean I can call it "kenpo."  It isn't.  Period.  Not one single solitary ounce.  Yiliquanfa would be Ichi Ri Ken Po.  You can't just use words to mean whatever _ you_ think they should, could, or what you want them to mean.  What if I called my "brand new" art Masturbatory Ejaculate Spewing Fecal Scat-jutsu (MESFSJ for short), but told everyone that no matter what _they_ thought, those words _really_ refer to concepts within the deadly combative art I had just devised...  Everyone would think, rightly so, that I was a complete loon!  Words mean things, in English or any other language.  Just because you know a few words, and you think you know what they mean, doesn't mean you have license to fling them about in whatever manner you choose!

If what you do is based on Kempo, then call it Kempo.  If what you do is based on Jujutsu, then call it Jujutsu.  If you have combined Kempo and Jujutsu into some kind of approach to personal combat, then call it Kempo Jujutsu.  But don't create your own Billy Bob method then hang Asian language terms onto it just because you like the sound of it...

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *I have no idea what you meant by that statement...  Clarification, please?
> 
> 
> ...



I quoted you. Kempo was actually Gung-Fu which everybody says is differant. Thats my point. My background is Karate and Gung-Fu and Jujitsu. I am certified in Kempo. Kempo Jujitsu is a natural expression of my art.

And the terminology is a part of the systems, thus making it ours to do with as we choose. Technically it was forced upon us. If we wanted to train and eventually test, we "had" to "use" and "learn" the terminolgy. Everything that I have been exposed to in the arts is mine.


----------



## Matt Stone (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Hey, here's an idea for y'all. You cannot create a new martial art, in the sense of coming up with something that was never there beofre, for the same reason that the sciences do not create new theories.*



Sure.  I agree.  But the theories uncovered were previously unknown.  Someone would need to uncover a previously unknown martial theory to warrant the title of "new art."  Repackaging already known, understood and commonly held theories is simply different marketing of the same old product.



> *What you're doing is to uncover what was already there, inherent in the human body, and physics, and social norms, and responses to weapons, that was always already there before you.*



Hence the "All are/is One" comment.  All martial arts really are the same, just viewed differently.  While no single art contains all the possible training methods of every art (nobody has that kind of time), just because style number 1 has ABCDEFG and style number 2 has HIJKLMN and number 3 has DEFGHIJK doesn't mean that style number 3 is a brand new art...



> *Just as a note, I find two things interesting about these threads. 1) How much I've learned from your various references about martial arts' history (though I might note that it's odd not to know about Donn Draeger's books)*



Actually, Mr. Draeger's books have been referenced elsewhere, though I don't think they have had much use on this thread...



> *and 2) How little of all the technical info is new--because every single technical thing I've read here, especially including all the stuff about ranges, I learned (intellectually, that is) by purple belt in American kenpo. You might check out Mr. Parker's "Infinite Insights" series, assuming of course that you haven't already. It's in there, all of Nature's goodness.
> 
> Thanks. *



All is One.  When I studied Modern Arnis I found that Yiliquan already contained pieces of it.  When I studied Ryu Te Karate I found that Yiliquan already contained pieces of it.  I also learned that those other arts already contained pieces of Yili.  All are One.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 21, 2003)

Isn't Sifu Starr an American? Where di the word Yili come from?


----------



## Matt Stone (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *I quoted you. Kempo was actually Gung-Fu which everybody says is differant.*



Because they are.  _Gung fu_ or _kung fu_ mean any skill, *any* skill, developed over time.  You can have car driving _kung fu_ or spaghetti making _kung fu_.  That term does *not* mean martial arts...  Ignorant Americans simply took it to mean that when they were first exposed to it.

_Chuan Fa_ is the romanization of the characters meaning roughly "fist law."  _Kempo_ is the romanization of the Japanese/Okinawan pronunciation of the exact same characters.



> *Thats my point. My background is Karate and Gung-Fu and Jujitsu. I am certified in Kempo. Kempo Jujitsu is a natural expression of my art.*



Your background is in Karate and Gung Fu and Jujutsu (note the spelling, yours is incorrect).  You claim certification in Kempo.  Whatever.  Call it what you want to call it, since you are missing the boat on the entire consistency thing anyway...  



> *And the terminology is a part of the systems, thus making it ours to do with as we choose. Technically it was forced upon us. If we wanted to train and eventually test, we "had" to "use" and "learn" the terminolgy. Everything that I have been exposed to in the arts is mine. *



Maybe they are yours, so if you choose to continue fostering your ignorance of their use by teaching your students to be ignorant as well, feel free to do so.  You wouldn't be the first one to use what is yours incorrectly, and I'm sure you won't be the last.  Sorry to be so blunt, but bottom line you are using the words incorrectly, and there are plenty of ways to prove I am right on this one...  So I won't take a wavering, touchy-feely stance of "maybe it's okay for you to use them the way you want."  No, words are used one way, and one way only.  Period.  If the rules aren't followed, it is incorrect.  Period.

I prefer to know what I am saying when I say it.  If you want to use the words for historical continuity's sake, then learn how to use them correctly.  If you are using them to sound authentic, you are failing miserably in the eyes of the people that speak the languages you are mutilating.  

Why not make up your own terms since you are making up your own style?  Brucie did it with his ABC and other abbreviations...  That would avoid the whole issue, wouldn't it?

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## Matt Stone (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *Isn't Sifu Starr an American? Where di the word Yili come from? *



The word*s* _Yi_ and _Li_ are romanization of the characters for "one" and "principle."  _Quan_ means "fist."

Our teacher inherited his Chinese system of _Baixingquan_ from his Chinese teacher (who spoke Chinese, by the way, and who taught him Xingyiquan, Taijiquan and Baguazhang as well).  When he "created" Yili (which was really nothing more than a reorganization of everything he had learned from his teacher, rather than teaching it seperately - not too dissimilar in concept from what you are trying to do), he acknowledged its Chinese roots, heritage and ancestry by keeping the Chinese terms.

We have found some incorrect terms that we had been using, and when we found the actual terms and phrases in correct Chinese, we changed them.  For example, our transliteration of the Japanese term _kiai_ was mistransliterated as *qi*_ai_.  We found out it is instead _qi*hu*_.  So we changed it to be correct in grammar and syntax.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *Because they are.  Gung fu or kung fu mean any skill, any skill, developed over time.  You can have car driving kung fu or spaghetti making kung fu.  That term does not mean martial arts...  Ignorant Americans simply took it to mean that when they were first exposed to it.
> 
> Chuan Fa is the romanization of the characters meaning roughly "fist law."  Kempo is the romanization of the Japanese/Okinawan pronunciation of the exact same characters.
> ...



I don't use the terminology, just Kempo Jujitsu. I spell Jujitsu the way same way a lot of people spell it. Take note James mitose was a Japanese speaking Japanese American and he called his art Kenpo Jiu-Jitsu. His first language was Japanese and he spelled yet even differantly. Who care what is correct?

Like I said, I don't use the termoinology for techniques. To me it defeats the purpose of the learning process. Again its just "my opinion." " I think" that your brain (an Americans) should be focused on the techniques and what is really trying to be accomplished without having to get confused withj so much terminology. That does not mean using terminolgy is wrong, it is just not of concern to me to focus on it like it was for our instructors.

What is the big concern anyway? The Japanese that brought Karate and Jujutsu to the USA went to great lenths to make the terminology a part of the arts!


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *The words Yi and Li are romanization of the characters for "one" and "principle."  Quan means "fist."
> 
> Our teacher inherited his Chinese system of Baixingquan from his Chinese teacher (who spoke Chinese, by the way, and who taught him Xingyiquan, Taijiquan and Baguazhang as well).  When he "created" Yili (which was really nothing more than a reorganization of everything he had learned from his teacher, rather than teaching it seperately - not too dissimilar in concept from what you are trying to do), he acknowledged its Chinese roots, heritage and ancestry by keeping the Chinese terms.
> ...



I respect that. But if he made the changes, he "could have used" English! The system was now his and he is American. It might sound wrong to you, but it fits the same bill of what you are telling me.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 21, 2003)

This is headed no where.


----------



## Matt Stone (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *I don't use the terminology, just Kempo Jujitsu. I spell Jujitsu the way same way a lot of people spell it.*



And they all spell it incorrectly.  Romaji is the official method of romanization of Japanese for non-Japanese speakers.  There are only 5 vowel sounds in Japanese, as opposed to 10 - 12 in English, so the use of the "i" in _jitsu_ is actually the wrong vowel sound for the word _jutsu_.



> *Take note James mitose was a Japanese speaking Japanese American and he called his art Kenpo Jiu-Jitsu. His first language was Japanese and he spelled yet even differantly.*



I really could care less.  He was/is wrong.



> *Who care what is correct?*



You're right...  Who cares what is correct...  Let's all just do what we want to, expressing ourselves and our personal perspectives...  Nobody's right, nobody's wrong...  What a wonderful world that would be, right?  Whatever...  



> *Like I said, I don't use the termoinology for techniques. To me it defeats the purpose of the learning process. Again its just "my opinion."*



I'm not talking about using _zenkutusu dachi_ instead of forward stance, or _kokutsu dachi_ instead of back stance.  I'm simply addressing the title of your art.



> *" I think" that your brain (an Americans) should be focused on the techniques and what is really trying to be accomplished without having to get confused withj so much terminology. That does not mean using terminolgy is wrong, it is just not of concern to me to focus on it like it was for our instructors.*



Not sure what the point is about pointing out my nationality...  If it is your attempt at trying to say that I shouldn't care so much about what language is used, it is a weak riposte to my arguments about personal responsibility in communication.  I am very much concerned about the techniques.  I just don't allow my pursuit of martial excellence to end with technique alone.  That is a shallow goal.  I aspire to know my techniques, their variations, the history of their evolution, the cultural context for the origin and development of my art and the arts that spawned it, the development of other arts, etc.  



> *What is the big concern anyway? The Japanese that brought Karate and Jujutsu to the USA went to great lenths to make the terminology a part of the arts! *



Again, you are incorrect in your perspective if not your observations...  Sure, the karate instructors went to great lengths to make the Americans learning their arts learn the Japanese terms for them...  Because it made communication for the _teachers_ easier!  They did not speak English well, if at all, and making the students learn a new language is far more in keeping with Japanese teaching tradition than it is for the teachers to learn a new language to pass on what they know.  Since the concept of Japanese national identity is one that borders on fanatic racism at times, maintaining the cultural identity and orientation of their arts was also of great concern.

What I am saying is that if you use the language use it right or not at all...

As far as your jab about my teacher not simply using English - nice try, but we do.  In common teaching and training, the English translations of form names, weapons, postures, etc., are all done in English.  When the Chinese term is shorter and more readily conveys the concept behind the words than the English translation would, we use the Chinese (as do you when you discuss chi sao).

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## Matt Stone (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *This is headed no where. *



Only because you cling to what you think is right even when you can be proven wrong...  Development and evolution come about by seeing errors and correcting them.

Seeing errors and remaining blind to their existence, or holding fast to errors because that is how it has been done for so long, are anathema to the theories of JKD.  You should know this.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *
> What I stated was "partially wrong."
> 
> I should of stated that it is my opinion that "many arts" traditional and non-traditional believe that they are effectively covering all ranges but in reality "I" do not feel that they do. *



Ah, and there it is.
In your opinion based on your limited exposure to traditional arts.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *I know you guys don't agree with the "Soke" councils but my 5th Dan in Kempo is not just certified by a "Soke" council member, it is stamped with the "seal" of the "Soke" council. Whether anybody agrees iwith me is irrellavant, my Kempo Jujitsu is mine. *



Soke councils are a joke. Not to mention a disgrace to serious martial arts practioners.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *
> You're right...  Who cares what is correct...  Let's all just do what we want to, expressing ourselves and our personal perspectives...  Nobody's right, nobody's wrong...  What a wonderful world that would be, right?  Whatever...   *



 
I see what your getting at.
Ya, so next time I go and visit one of my friends at their home I will just take a big dump on their living room floor. I they get upset I will just say Hey, thats just me, Im just expressing myself.
 

Just as we have certain rules to govern proper social behavior we also have rules to govern language and its usage.

Folks that think they can just define words as they see fit must in their own minds rank themselves pretty high on the food chain.

As I said before, my way to say Soke is Bonehead. So if I call someone Bonehead it is not a derogatory remark it is just my way of calling the Soke.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *What is the big concern anyway? The Japanese that brought Karate and Jujutsu to the USA went to great lenths to make the terminology a part of the arts! *



Actually, to be more accurate, Okinawans (the people that showed the Japanese what Karate is) dont use a lot of complex terms to describe technique. 
Also, the Japanese that brought Karate and Jujutsu to the USA didnt go to great lengths to make up any terminology.it is naturally part of their language.

After reading many of your posts and seeing your repies to various question it is obvious you are unqualified about discussing the concepts and culture of Asia and its languages and you are just as unqualified to discuss what traditional arts contain and do not contain.
This is not meant disrespectfully.
However, it seems that when you enter your opinions into the above mentioned areas people seem to have to educate you on basic points far too often.

You can make up your own art, call it whatever you wish.
 Bare in mind that when you do this and make certain statements about traditional arts, foreign terminology etc people will ask you questions.


----------



## chufeng (Feb 21, 2003)

In 1982 a yellow sash in our system (equivalent to green belt) walked into my teacher's office and said..."I've got to lay off training for just a bit...until everyone is at my level of understanding."  He REALLY did that...

I was JUST a white sash (equivalent to yellow belt), that is I just got promoted...

I was appalled...

Sifu nodded his head and said...OK, come back when you think you they are ready for you.

This guy showed up sporadically and trained with us...
He never held back (but that's OK, because he didn't have much)

Eventually we were the same rank and I loved it when he showed up...I regularly handed him his ***...whereupon he would go to the office to talk with Sifu and apprise him of my "remarkable" progress...Sifu always played it down..."Yeah, he's starting to catch on...works real hard at it."

Then I passed this guy in rank...he finally went to Sifu and said, OK, it's time for me to get serious again... (Now...what was this guy thinking??? He should have been serious about his training the entire time)

Ultimately, this guy barely passed his black sash test after spending twice as long in our system...I know everyone has there own learning curve...but this guy wasted a lot of time.

We didn't see him after that promotion...
Then, one day, one of his students showed up on this web-site and posted...

Turns out this guy renamed the art...promoted himself to tenth dan and opened SEVERAL schools with black belts in three cities!!!
THAT is why I'm very skeptical when someone claims to start something new...

After seeing the training history of AKJA, I was less concerned with his teaching...he certainly had enough time (more than many) but I was concerned about depth of understanding...that is why his comments regarding "traditional" systems rankled me...he had not spent enough time with ONE traditional system to really evaluate it's effectiveness at ALL of the ranges he describes...Maybe his teachers simply did not know (that would not surprise me)...but I'm willing to learn from anyone...so, I'm willing to carry on a dialogue with him regarding what it is he teaches.

Hopefully, he will be more careful about pointing a scattergun at us "traditionalists" and examine what each of us have to offer...
He seems quick to excite (count to ten AKJA)...and sometimes reads more into the post than is there (a bit paranoid)...

I don't think I've personally insulted him (at least not intentionally) but I am blunt...sorry, you will simply have to deal with that...

Oh, and btw, I have nothing further to add to my above posts.

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *And they all spell it incorrectly.  Romaji is the official method of romanization of Japanese for non-Japanese speakers.  There are only 5 vowel sounds in Japanese, as opposed to 10 - 12 in English, so the use of the "i" in jitsu is actually the wrong vowel sound for the word jutsu.
> 
> 
> ...



I wasn't pointing out your identity, I was pointing out from my(American) point of view. The Japanese used their pronunciation of Chuan Fa. We are using our pronunciation of Jujutsu.

There are other authourties than yourself for the reasons of how someone spells a foreign word. Such as Grandmaster Wally Jay whom "I borrowed" the spelling of Jujitsu from. Then there is Professor George Kirby who spells it Ju jitsu.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *Only because you cling to what you think is right even when you can be proven wrong...  Development and evolution come about by seeing errors and correcting them.
> 
> Seeing errors and remaining blind to their existence, or holding fast to errors because that is how it has been done for so long, are anathema to the theories of JKD.  You should know this.
> ...


 

You haven't proved anything! Just what are these errors you think you have proven to me?

What I think is right for me, is right for me! 

What is right for you, does not mean it is right for all!


----------



## Matt Stone (Feb 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *I wasn't pointing out your identity, I was pointing out from my(American) point of view.*



If you were pointing out _your_ identity, then why did you say:



> *I think" that your brain (an Americans) should be focused on the techniques...*



The use of the word "your" indicates you were addressing _me_, not yourself...  Or is that your selective use of the rules of language again?



> *The Japanese used their pronunciation of Chuan Fa. We are using our pronunciation of Jujutsu.*



No.  Our pronunciation of _jujutsu_ is "grappling," "groundfighting," or something similar.  See, the thing is that the characters are what they are.  Those same characters are used through certain countries to represent certain ideas.  They are used as common parts of those languages.  The words _ju_ and _jutsu_ are neither common nor indiginous to English, though the above terms are.  But if you knew more about the languages you are playing with, this wouldn't need to be pointed out...



> *There are other authourties than yourself for the reasons of how someone spells a foreign word. Such as Grandmaster Wally Jay whom "I borrowed" the spelling of Jujitsu from. Then there is Professor George Kirby who spells it Ju jitsu. *



And they are both still wrong.  Go to Japan, take a Japanese language course in a local college, pick up a Japanese language textbook.  There is one method of romaji, and one only.  Anything else is very simply incorrect, no matter who uses it.



> *You haven't proved anything! Just what are these errors you think you have proven to me?*



I have given you the corrections for the linguistic errors you continue to make, along with the arguments needed to point out why you are wrong.  But because of your terminal monolingualism (or at least your ignorance of Asian languages as they are actually spoken), you continue to use the lame excuse that "this is my way" to validate your continued misuse of certain terms.



> *What I think is right for me, is right for me!  What is right for you, does not mean it is right for all!*



You're right again.  So when I dump on your living room carpet or urinate on your dining room table, am I just doing what is right for me?

Rules are rules for reasons.  Rules don't exist just because people like them, but because we need them to govern our entire community (local and global alike).  When we allow individual expression to erode standards, we erode the foundations of whatever it is we are doing.  If we do not enforce certain standards of our martial arts community, then mini-mall fraud masters have alibis and excuses for their activities - they are, after all, just doing what they think is right...

Do what you want.  I can't stop you.  I have simply tried to show you that, after living in Japan, studying Japanese language informally with my Japanese friends and formally in college courses, I may just know the proper use of that language a little better than you do.  Like the argument on another thread about the use of _shi_ versus _yon_ for the number 4, and _shichi_ versus _nana_ for the number 7.  Just because a bunch of monolingual Americans use the word incorrectly does not make it right.

As a humorous (at least I think so) aside, one of my favorite jokes, and one that was _really_ well received by some of my friends in Japan (from Japan, China, Germany, Canada and England) is as follows:

What do you call someone that speaks two languages?

Bilingual.

What do you call someone that speaks three languages?

Trilingual.

What do you call someone that only speaks one language?

American.

Additionally, the Englishman (actually an English born Irishman) maintains that we Yanks don't actually speak English...  I suspect that in most cases he is right!   I told him he needed to learn to talk American more better...

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## D.Cobb (Feb 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *If your asking for specific techinques then I would have to have knowledge of all or many traditional arts.
> 
> You are avoiding telling me anything about your complete art!
> ...




Why is it that no matter what subject we discuss in these forums, you continually come back to specific techniques being important?
All that any of the techniques are for in any "REAL" martial system, is to train the practitioner in the correct usage of the principles and concepts, that go together to make the "ART".

When all is said and done, it all comes down to something, that is really quite obvious to one and all.......

*A KICK IS JUST A KICK, A PUNCH IS JUST A PUNCH.* 
Another obvious reality is that there is really nothing new under the sun.

--Dave

:asian:


----------



## D.Cobb (Feb 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *And they are both still wrong.  Go to Japan, take a Japanese language course in a local college, pick up a Japanese language textbook.  There is one method of romaji, and one only.  Anything else is very simply incorrect, no matter who uses it.
> 
> 
> ...



Unfortunately in one regard, this arguement can't really hold water.....
The language that you speak is to some extent ENGLISH, but with an American twist....
For example, Eng. MUM  US. MOM
                     Eng. COLOUR   US. COLOR.

Based on what you say in your post, mom and color are wrong. I guess the American pronounciation of ALUMINIUM is also wrong....
I see where you are coming from, and for the most part I agree. Infact some times it can be a bit of a joke..... 
Here in Australia, we have a Karotte style known as Go Kan Ryu. From my extremly limited knowledge of any Asian language, this translates loosely to School Of Rape.....

--Dave  :asian: 

Oh and by the way, here in Australia we speak our own version of English, called Strine. That is actually the way we pronounce the word Australian. 
You want to hear the way we pronounce Japanese terminology?

:rofl:


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by D.Cobb _
> *Here in Australia, we have a Karotte style known as Go Kan Ryu. From my extremly limited knowledge of any Asian language, this translates loosely to School Of Rape.....
> *



I hac one of his students in my dojo a few years back.

All I can say is :rofl:


----------



## Matt Stone (Feb 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by D.Cobb _
> *Unfortunately in one regard, this arguement can't really hold water.....
> The language that you speak is to some extent ENGLISH, but with an American twist....
> For example, Eng. MUM  US. MOM
> ...



You know what?  I agree with you completely!  Though mum vs. mom and color vs. color can sometimes be a pain, I will be the first to point out that not only is American English a painful mutation of English English, it is in an ongoing state of downwardly spiraling flux with the acceptance of modern slang as valid spoken language (i.e. Ebonics).

I am a  purist.  I think language is our primary skill, since we all use it daily for hours at a time.  To be poorly skilled in spoken AND written communication is to demonstrate ignorance every moment of the day.  If I feel that strongly about my own native language, you can imagine how strongly I feel about making use of foreign languages properly...

So how does the Aussie pronunciation of Japanese terms sound?

Gambarimasu (maybe Gam-barry-mass?)
:asian:


----------



## mtabone (Feb 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Joe Hardwick _
> *Since this topic has been popping up in some other threads I thought I would start one about this specifically.  So here are 3 questions:
> 
> 1-Is it appropriate to start a new martial art?  Please answer with a yes, no or maybe and give reasons why.  Also, if you feel that certain parameters must be required then mention them as well.
> ...


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by D.Cobb _
> *Why is it that no matter what subject we discuss in these forums, you continually come back to specific techniques being important?
> All that any of the techniques are for in any "REAL" martial system, is to train the practitioner in the correct usage of the principles and concepts, that go together to make the "ART".
> 
> ...



I did try to lean in those directions more or less, but then they want specifics. The specifics for me may not be the same for you.

For me I explain about covering the ground in what I believe a sufficient manner. I speak primarily of positions, because to me that is the key for that range. 

I'm not going to say this technique is better than that technique. Some people just don't like other peoples views of training. Thats understandable, we are all differant, yet we are all one! 

So it boils down to that all I was really trying to say before the confusion was that by the way I was taught, if you want to learn how to do a punch or kick, then practice it a thousand times. That would also apply to all ranges. I just beleive that some ranges don't get enough coverage. Thats it, just my view. We know some of us do this and some don't. No big thing.

I'm not trying to convert anyone. If I was I would start a church and lease a cable channel.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *If you were pointing out your identity, then why did you say:
> 
> 
> ...



I could understand you wanted to correct something that you have sen both sides to. But your joke answered explained quite well and I'm sure that you knew that.

Speaking "American" sometimes I do use the word you as referring to us or we or me. An example would be. You know if you run the red light, you will get a ticket. That could be taken as "you' our "us" meaning. We are not supposed to run red lights. Its not a great example but it is honest.

On a second note. considering how close we are to Mexico and the high population of hispanics in America of which I am a part of the hispanic community myself. Should I of take offense to the mispronunciation of the Spanish language. 

We are much closer to so many spanish speaking countries and our hispanic population is continually growing. Actually "we" are the number one largest minority in the country by the most recent surveys. Is there a crusade in the works here?


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by mtabone _
> *
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Feb 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> .............  I was shown how universal MA really are when you get to their roots.......



AMEN! Free At last ! Free At Last!  The "ultimate truth" about MA is chiselled here today!


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Feb 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *Very Good!!
> 
> Anybody can create a "system" but a "style" will stand the test of time! *



This is NOT supposed to come from someone who studies JKD.  Isn't the essence of JKD is to be free from the constraint of style?


----------



## Matt Stone (Feb 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *I could understand you wanted to correct something that you have sen both sides to. But your joke answered explained quite well and I'm sure that you knew that.*



But my joke was just that - a joke.  I do not actually believe that an Englishman needs to speak American English better to understand our method of speaking...  Quite the contrary, I believe Americans need to learn how to use their own language better than they do currently.



> *Speaking "American" sometimes I do use the word you as referring to us or we or me. An example would be. You know if you run the red light, you will get a ticket. That could be taken as "you' our "us" meaning. We are not supposed to run red lights. Its not a great example but it is honest.*



Nice try at getting out of having fingered me in your comment, but your use of the word "you" was directed at me personally, and was not an impersonal plural "you" implying everyone in general...



> *On a second note. considering how close we are to Mexico and the high population of hispanics in America of which I am a part of the hispanic community myself. Should I of take offense to the mispronunciation of the Spanish language. *



You most certainly should.  I have heard Americans overseas constantly complain and bicker about how the people from their host nation were completely incorrect in their use of American English.  I have heard Americans yelling at people in _other countries_ telling _them_ to speak English!  Americans are some of the most intolerant people when it comes to non-Americans speaking English.  The same standard should apply to anyone, anywhere, trying to speak a foreign language.  Kudos for trying, but not caring whether you are speaking it properly or not is nothing more than flaming ignorance in bloom.  If you speak a language, speak it correctly.  If you write in a language, write correctly.  And if you fail to do either, expect to be labeled an ignoramus.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Feb 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> 
> At todays rates for Karate, Judo, Kobudo and Aikido. Thats an easy $300. a month per student. I think I do see why they don't want us to mix the arts up!!!!!



LOL the irony of economics.   The point is not lost.

I am not exactly against mix and match.  Just that anybody and his grandpa can do it and you just end up with more JKD-like mess, where for some it is a case of everything goes.

But this is a free world and people are going to do what they want.  There is just going to be more and more "American Karate" stuff as time goes by.  

That is why when I hear someone says he can fight, I would suggest that he steps up to the plate and goes fight in the ring. :asian:    The test of the putin is in the eating.  I realize the ring is hardly a true test, but it is the best we have.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Feb 22, 2003)

JMHO, I believe that the assertion that "traditional art" is not effective, has only to do with the way the specific practitioners are trained.  Of course you can find traditional Martial Artists  that cannot fight. That is only because they fail to train in real fighting. Their fault, not the fault of the art.  You have many karateka who got their asses kicked by Muay Thai fighters in Bangkok. But you also have karateka who kicked MT fighters ***. You have WingChun artists who got KO in 5 secs. You also have WingChun artists who KO MuayThai fighters. You have Taiji guys who couldn't fight a McDojo kid. You also have Mas Oyama who lost to a TaiJi old guy, after Oyama had prevailed over all challengers.  

It is safe to say that it  is primarily a function of how hard you train.

Having said that, it should not be overlooked how a particular style may fit your personal preference and complement your physiology better.


----------



## Matt Stone (Feb 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *JMHO, I believe that the assertion that "traditional art" is not effective, has only to do with the way the specific practitioners are trained.  Of course you can find traditional Martial Artists  that cannot fight. That is only because they fail to train in real fighting. Their fault, not the fault of the art.  You have many karateka who got their asses kicked by Muay Thai fighters in Bangkok. But you also have karateka who kicked MT fighters ***. You have WingChun artists who got KO in 5 secs. You also have WingChun artists who KO MuayThai fighters. You have Taiji guys who couldn't fight a McDojo kid. You also have Mas Oyama who lost to a TaiJi old guy, after Oyama had prevailed over all challengers.
> 
> It is safe to say that it  is primarily a function of how hard you train.
> ...



AMEN! Free At last ! Free At Last! The "ultimate truth" about MA is chiselled here today! 

See!  We _can_ all really get along! 

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *This is NOT supposed to come from someone who studies JKD.  Isn't the essence of JKD is to be free from the constraint of style? *



 If you read the posts you would know that I study several martial arts.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *LOL the irony of economics.   The point is not lost.
> 
> I am not exactly against mix and match.  Just that anybody and his grandpa can do it and you just end up with more JKD-like mess, where for some it is a case of everything goes.
> ...



This is very true! There is no stopping any of it. But the true will be here for generations to come. None of us "hybriders" can claim honestly that we will be here tommorrow. Proof is in time!


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 22, 2003)

Nice try at getting out of having fingered me in your comment, but your use of the word "you" was directed at me personally, and was not an impersonal plural "you" implying everyone in general 

Gambarimasu.
:asian: [/B][/QUOTE] 

I really do talk like that but that dosen't cancel out the ignoramus theory.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 22, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *JMHO, I believe that the assertion that "traditional art" is not effective, has only to do with the way the specific practitioners are trained.  Of course you can find traditional Martial Artists  that cannot fight. That is only because they fail to train in real fighting. Their fault, not the fault of the art.  You have many karateka who got their asses kicked by Muay Thai fighters in Bangkok. But you also have karateka who kicked MT fighters ***. You have WingChun artists who got KO in 5 secs. You also have WingChun artists who KO MuayThai fighters. You have Taiji guys who couldn't fight a McDojo kid. You also have Mas Oyama who lost to a TaiJi old guy, after Oyama had prevailed over all challengers.
> 
> It is safe to say that it  is primarily a function of how hard you train.
> ...



Are there any links for any of those fights or are they generalizations?


----------



## D.Cobb (Feb 22, 2003)

I spent 6 years training in American Kenpo, and really enjoyed my time there. I started training in Ryukyu Kempo around 3 or 4 years ago. I wanted to add pressure points to the really nasty s#*t I was learning in AK. Problem was the more I saw at the advanced levels of RK, the more I realised just how similar our different systems are! The main difference that I could see was attitude. 
In AK I learnt how to fight and do it well!
In RK I am learning how not to fight.


On another note.....



> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *Gambarimasu (maybe Gam-barry-mass?)
> :asian: *



To be honest, I am not familiar with this term, but it would be more like Gaam-barry-muss. And then we would say OOS!
I am better at English. I can speak the Queen's English as she is writ mate!



:rofl: :rofl: 
--Dave


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Feb 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *Are there any links for any of those fights or are they generalizations? *



Those are actual accounts, from numerous sources.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Feb 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *If you read the posts you would know that I study several martial arts. *


What I mean was, as a JKD practitioner, you would be unlikely to be using the term "style",


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *What I mean was, as a JKD practitioner, you would be unlikely to be using the term "style",  *



What I teach is not JKD by definition. In my personal journey I understand the formless form. But I think of my teaching as an art. The formlessness will come for those who search but most people are not searching for it in that sense. 

I feel that if you reach your potential, you will find the formless form. Instructors can't teach that. We can just guide the student in the right direction.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *Those are actual accounts, from numerous sources. *



I figured that it was passed down type of information. I do have a tape that has a Sambo fighter body slamming a Wing Chun fighter in a mixed martial competition. It can be searched out. It was a one time only event called the contenders.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Feb 24, 2003)

I can get you the pictures and stories. But it is a pain to hunt them down.

Don "The Dragon" Wilson, Billy "The Jet" Uriquze (sp?) and a boat load of Karateka, Kungfu guys, got their asses kicked by MuayThai fighters. There are pictures of these glorious defeat all over the internet.

Hawkins Cheung, and William Cheung both claimed to have WC fighters that prevailed in Lumpinee Stadium. Bruce Lee claimed to have defeated a MT fighter after one of the toughtest fight in his life. Lee is dead. But the other 2 Cheungs are still around. Someone can ask them about it.  But most WC practitioners would unlikely to be standing at the end of 5th rounds at Lumpinee. Not that WC sucks. Just that WC people don't normally train as hard and intense as MT fighters in Thailand.

Mas Oyama and his Kyokushin proteges have prevailed over MT best fighters.  Kind of sad that these days, KyokuShin organization is a shadow of its former glory. We have not seen any new "HundredMen Kumite" Champion for a while now. That is what happens when an organization gets too much into the "sport" part of MA.  We don't see anyone from KyokuShin going over to Thailand to test their skills anymore. KyokuShin is more interested in infighting among splinter groups these days. *sigh*

Oyama got his *** kicked by a TaiJi old guy. He just couldn't get a hit on the old guy. He ended up studying TaiJi from the old guy. This was after Oyama had defeated all comers.  This does not mean TaiJi is the be all end all. 9999 out of 10,000 Taiji practitioners today cannot fight to save their lives. 

JKD may be the ultimate unrestrained martial way.  30 years after Bruce's death, we have yet to see another JKD guy proves himself in any competition. You would wonder why that is so, given how sounds and great the theory of JKD is.


It just goes to say that one should be really careful when it comes to generalization about the MA itself.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *I can get you the pictures and stories. But it is a pain to hunt them down.
> 
> Don "The Dragon" Wilson, Billy "The Jet" Uriquze (sp?) and a boat load of Karateka, Kungfu guys, got their asses kicked by MuayThai fighters. There are pictures of these glorious defeat all over the internet.
> ...



JKD is not sport.

It goes against the concepts to be bound by anything except nothing.

If you are referring to a JKD guy that is a competitor. Eric Paulson is a JKD guy under Dan Inosanto and has been competing MMA for quite a while now. So he would be the JKD you have yet to see. He's held several titles. 

But looking for a JKD in competition is the wrong place to look as a bottom line. One of the first things you learn in JKD is that there is no sporting aspects to it. It does not mean that an individual can not apply some of the concepts, just that you would be bound by limitations and that would not be JKD.


Benny the Jet went to Thailand to "learn." After "he returned from Thailand" he became undefeated. Also Emin Bostepe supposedly knocked out William Chueng. The Thai fighter that Bruce fought if I'm not mistaking was on the set of a movie and there was many witnesses. It went something like he thought Bruce couldn't really fight and said so. 

Talk is talk and it is always going to change. You know how if you say something at one end of the room and let everyone tell the person next to them the story. And what the story sounds like when it reaches the last person.

I would think that there have been many examples of certain arts prevailing over others and always will. That is unless certain arts are not willing to test their skills.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 26, 2003)

A question for Zhao Dei Wei

I just noticed your new website minus the previously mentioned dan grades and a new name for your style it seems.

http://cqdt9d1.freeservers.com/index.html

Is this the new name?  Mya Ryu Jitsu 

I am just wondering what the new names means.

Mya =  ?  Is it Japanese?

Ryu = I can think of several meanings in Japanese, not sure which one you mean.

Jitsu = day or in another nuance it means actually or honestly


----------



## Mike Clarke (Feb 26, 2003)

To return to the original question for a moment

Is it appropriate to make your own system?

I think the short answer is "Yes". but I'd have to qualify that by saying, "Only if you know what you're doing."
It's painfully clear [to me at least] that some on this forum haven't got a bloody clue. They're depending on grades issued by self-made masters and honourary titles that come from places beyond the Black Stump [an Australian term meaning the back end of nowhere!].

If a person has something new to add to a sound body of knowledge, understanding, and ability, then I'd say yes. But a few years here and there doing a bit of this and a bit of that does not give a person any qualifications at all when it come to forming their own 'system'. Mixing a couple of Shotokan kata with a few from Goju-ryu, and then adding a bit of sticky hands and some grappling techniques from Judo, does not make a new style. It just delivers a poor representation of the systems the 'founder' has pilfered from.

Zhao Dei Wei [now known as Mya Ryu Jitsu] is a point in question.
Regardless of the 'founders' attempts to present himself as a 'master' of the martial arts, he continues to reveal himself for the Kuchi-bushi he clearly is. He hasn't even mastered either of the languages he's used for the name of his system so far. Lord only knows what his grasp of the techniques are like? For the sake of his students, I hope they're better than his language skills! 

Mike.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Mike Clarke _
> *To return to the original question for a moment
> 
> Is it appropriate to make your own system?
> ...




I agree with that statement and would like to add that we all personalize the art(s) we study merely by studying them.
That is to say we dont do things exactly as our teachers do themsomething that is impossible. I can no better imitate my teachers technique than I can walk and talk like him. And to imitate anothers knowledge is merely that..imitation and not real knowledge. You must make techniques your own to truly make them effective.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *I agree with that statement and would like to add that we all personalize the art(s) we study merely by studying them.
> That is to say we dont do things exactly as our teachers do themsomething that is impossible. I can no better imitate my teachers technique than I can walk and talk like him. And to imitate anothers knowledge is merely that..imitation and not real knowledge. You must make techniques your own to truly make them effective. *



You clearly understand what you "preach" and I think that by your posts you also "practice what you preach."

With that said. I am asking you at what point do you think that your art becomes differant enough that it needs the name to be changed.

If you take a very differant approach, one that your instructor "definately" does not follow. An approach that your instructor does not beleive in. This approach would include significant changes enough that your instructor may even be offended if you used his name. 

Note; I said signifcant changes, not inventing.

In your opinion would it be approppriate to not change the name?


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *
> If you take a very differant approach, one that your instructor "definately" does not follow. An approach that your instructor does not beleive in. This approach would include significant changes enough that your instructor may even be offended if you used his name.
> *



It hasnt happened so I guess I dont really have to worry about it.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *It hasnt happened so I guess I dont really have to worry about it. *



I didn't mean you, I meant in general. Some people get confused when I use the word you. I meant it referring to anybody.
Sorry.


----------



## Mike Clarke (Feb 27, 2003)

I think we all like to think the way we do  things is good [no great!], but that's not the same as it actually being great.
To my students, everything I do seems great, but to my teachers I still have a long way to go to get things right.

So at what point do you stop listening to your teacher and start thinking you have 'arrived'?

For me that could only happen when I could physically prove that 'my' way of doing things was better than the methods they have taught me. Also, I'd have to be able to win any arguments they might be able to put up as to why I should continue to practise the techniques I'd been instructed in. I should point out that I'm light-years away from being able to accomplish either of the above.

Much has been made of Shu-Ha-Ri by people who have founded their own systems, but none of them, so far as I can tell, have understood the meaning of this concept. The fact that they see themselves as having reached the final stage, Ri, is proof in it's self that they have missed the mark by miles.

Each of these stages of progress or learning are seen in us by others, not by us. In simple terms, 'Shu' is to follow faithfully and to try and learn all that one can from ones teacher. At this stage we do as we are told and only as we are told.
'Ha' is reached after many years of training [if it's ever reached at all?], and means to make the methods ones own in some respect. To infuse what you know with your own 'feelings' while still adhearing to the teachings of your sensei.
'Ri' is to transend those teachings and emerge with something different from the body of knowledge you have learnt from your teacher.

As I've already said, too many people use this kind of thinking to justify their self proclamation as founders of their own style.
But, as I have also said, to do so is to highlight the depth of their own folly and lack of understanding.

Mike.


----------



## Nightingale (Feb 27, 2003)

if you have good teachers and respect them...

you stop listening to your teachers and feel you have "arrived" when they tell you so and give you equal rank or send you on to someone else to continue your journey.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Mike Clarke _
> *I think we all like to think the way we do  things is good [no great!], but that's not the same as it actually being great.
> To my students, everything I do seems great, but to my teachers I still have a long way to go to get things right.
> 
> ...


 


I agree with your mentality except you glide over a couple of things like your instructors don't always have the "all" answers themselves and not everyone creating and training in new systems is claiming to be "Founders!"

The old great ones who are "our" ancestral sensei and found a need to cross the ocean and discover themselves. 

My Sifu in Jun Fan was close minded to grappling. I really should not speak of him that way. he was more than my Sifu, he was my friend and I hope to mend the wounds I may have created. 

But the truth is, before him, I had already been exposed to grappling and I should not of been asked repeatedly to quit Jujitsu. 

I may never arrive but I will always be on the journey. And I most definately do not beleive that we can find all we need in "ANY" one system. It does not exist. The logic I hear, is that I don't spend enough time in one system. I do not beleive that.

I use what is usefull, reject what is useless and add what is specifically my own!!!" 

Just as "My Sijo" instructed "All" of his students to do!!


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *It hasnt happened so I guess I dont really have to worry about it. *



You still haven't answered it yet! I clarified what I meant for you!


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Feb 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> ...Benny the Jet went to Thailand to "learn." After "he returned from Thailand" he became undefeated.....



He never went to Thailand to "learn". Don Wilson was the one who actually went to Thailand to learn, after he got his *** wiped. Yet, the second time around wasn't any better. He ended up apologizing to the fans for his poor performance.

The Jet  got his *** wiped so bad, he steadfastly refused any challenge from MuayThai fighters.  LMAO!  His PR people still maintain the farce that he is undefeated.



> Also Emin Bostepe supposedly knocked out William Chueng.


Bostepe is also a WC guy, same as Chueng, except that Bostepe is from another branch.  Besides, that supposed fight was no more than Bostepe jumping Cheung from behind.  The fight was pretty much like a bum fight.  I wish Yip Man was there to witness the farce. lol



> I would think that there have been many examples of certain arts prevailing over others and always will. That is unless certain arts are not willing to test their skills.



 Name some.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *He never went to Thailand to "learn". Don Wilson was the one who actually went to Thailand to learn, after he got his *** wiped. Yet, the second time around wasn't any better. He ended up apologizing to the fans for his poor performance.
> 
> The Jet  got his *** wiped so bad, he steadfastly refused any challenge from MuayThai fighters.  LMAO!  His PR people still maintain the farce that he is undefeated.
> ...



Beeny said in an interview that he went to Thailand to train.

With Emin I said "supposedly".

I also said " I would think that there have been many examples", 
but  if you want an example.

In the "Contenders" competition Egor Zinoviev, a Sambo artist, beat the crap out of a Wing Chun guy in about a minute. At least he tried. Most would not of tried at all.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *You still haven't answered it yet! I clarified what I meant for you! *





 what was the question again?


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 27, 2003)

RYUSHIKAN,

You clearly understand what you "preach" and I think that by your posts you also "practice what you preach."

With that said. I am asking you at what point do you think that someones art becomes differant enough that it needs the name to be changed.

If they take a very differant approach, one that their instructor "definately" does not follow. An approach that their instructor does not beleive in. This approach would include significant changes enough that their instructor may even be offended if they used his name. 

Note: I said signifcant changes, not inventing.

In your opinion would it be approppriate to not change the name?


----------



## RyuShiKan (Feb 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> * With that said. I am asking you at what point do you think that someones art becomes differant enough that it needs the name to be changed. *



Only if it is so different it cant be recognized as the original art.




> _Originally posted by akja _
> * If they take a very differant approach, one that their instructor "definately" does not follow. An approach that their instructor does not beleive in. This approach would include significant changes enough that their instructor may even be offended if they used his name.
> Note: I said signifcant changes, not inventing.
> In your opinion would it be approppriate to not change the name? *




Actually this happened in our system.
George Dillman was a very brief seminar student (a grand total of 6 seminars) and decided he had arrived and started doing things under the name of Ryukyu Kempo that my teacher was not.
For example:

*Color by numbers kyusho*= Dillman got off on this tangent that atemi & kyusho points were the same as the smaller more difficult to find acupuncture points, which they are not, and would draw these little dots all over people demonstrating the locations.often in the wrong spot.
A friend of mind went to a Dillman seminar and asked him the name of several points he had mentioned. Dillmans answer was wrong on all counts.

Once Dillman got the boot from our association he hooked up with Wally Jay of SCJJ.
I have heard from many people I respect that Mr. Jay is a good martial artist BTW.
However, Dillman started calling what he had learned from Mr. Jay tuite.
SCJJ and tuite are not the same.
Dillman had learned a VERY limited amount of tuite from our associationand I mean very little.
As a side note Tuite was a name coined by my teacher for the grappling art he teaches.
It is a combination of the Okinawan word tui and the Japanese word te.
Interesting to see how many people use that word that havent ever studied with my teacher.

During all this Dillman was still using the name Ryukyu Kempo. 
If you go to Okinawa you wont find any schools that teach Ryukyu Kempo.
The reason being my teacher didnt want to use the name Okinawan Kenpo that one of his teachers had used. (long story)
Therefore he wanted to use a name that reflected the old style Okinawan arts and not the new competition oriented stuff so he chose the old name for Okinawa which is Ryukyu. Since much of what we do is from China he used the word Kempo as well. 
Now, having said all that, Dillman used to say he did  Ishinryu or something along those lines before meeting my teacher. After his 6 whole seminars  he started using Ryukyu Kempo.
After he got the boot he still used Ryukyu Kempo, my teacher wanting nothing to do with the likes of him changed the name of our organization and had it Trademarked so unscrupulous folks couldnt use it unless they were actually approved members.
Which is kind of sad since martial arts people are supposed to have some moral fiber.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 27, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *Only if it is so different it cant be recognized as the original art.
> 
> 
> ...



The Dillman thing is interesting. A few years back a Dillman protoge invited  my Sifu to a "seminar" that was to be televised for the Dicovery channel and some magazine coverage.

Well we went and the seminar was totally staged! They had the cameras ready to go and they wanted us to let them "knock us out," the guy even took off his gi and black belt and handed it to me so that I would look good for the camera.

As it went, we were not playing that. We took the producer outside, talked a few minutes, got his buisness card and left. That led to my Sifus magazine article  (part 1 of 3) on my site. 

About my art it has changed "enough" in my honest opinion but its not really a style. The last few times that I talked to my Sifu I told him that I was calling my art Bujutsu.

I have a new JKD guy that wanted to train with me and my guys and I am learning alot from him. I'm in "absorbing" mode again. 

But what I do is I have broken down my art into a methodical way of practicing with or without a partner. Its not always convenient to have someone to train with that is at the same level as you. I know this first hand. Thats why I've worked at putting together a method  that could be worked quite a bit by oneself. Making "quality training time" outl of all training time. Making the most effeient use of ones time considering you don't always have a partner. Others do this too. 

We can look at it like the home training as being the Yin while the majority of the training being the Yang or vice versa. What matters is that neither are complete without the other. The two equal one whole.

In order to learn to fight, we need to learn the execution of techniques in a profiecient manner. The form, body mechanics, footwork and execution as well as many drills can all be done by oneself.

As you become comfortable with the basics then you will need a partner to work on the sensitivity training, but some of this also can be done alone.


----------



## James Kovacich (Mar 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *He never went to Thailand to "learn". Don Wilson was the one who actually went to Thailand to learn, after he got his *** wiped. Yet, the second time around wasn't any better. He ended up apologizing to the fans for his poor performance.
> 
> The Jet  got his *** wiped so bad, he steadfastly refused any challenge from MuayThai fighters.  LMAO!  His PR people still maintain the farce that he is undefeated.
> ...



Jonathon, Just curious.

Do you have some more examples of Art vs. Art fights? 

All that come to mind besides the Gracies at the beginning of the UFC's is back in the '70's on the wide world of sports they had a Kung-Fu guy fight a boxer, each fighting by their own rules. Of course the boxer whooped him.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 3, 2003)

http://members.aol.com/Thaiboxing2000/

BTW, I am afraid I have some bad news for you.  The term Kempo JiuJitsu is already been taken decades ago, byMasayoshi Mitose. In 1953, he wrote a book, "What is Self-Defence? Kempo JiuJitsu"

lol  I think, "AKJA Kempo JiuJitsu" isn't too bad.


----------



## James Kovacich (Mar 3, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *http://members.aol.com/Thaiboxing2000/
> 
> BTW, I am afraid I have some bad news for you.  The term Kempo JiuJitsu is already been taken decades ago, byMasayoshi Mitose. In 1953, he wrote a book, "What is Self-Defence? Kempo JiuJitsu"
> ...



Your right and there are many more after him that have nothing to do with him as well. Actually none of his students that I know of use Kempo Jujitsu at all. 

They all have their own newer names that they each say is the correct name. 

I did make an attemt to distinguish myself from others by putting a "label" in front of the Kempo Jujitsu, but I think its more proper to leave the"label" off for now.


----------



## James Kovacich (Mar 6, 2003)

There have been many pros and cons as to why or why not to "create" something with a new flavor. Many negative and I'd say probably less were positive.

After the first automobile was created. Did other companies as well as other countries go ahead and "create" their own of the automobile?

Were these new versions not valid? Yes they were. But based on the things I've read, it would be no.

What about the airplane or the computer? Were all these products related in some way to the original product? Only in name and design and the make up of elements that make up each of these products. The original "creator" of the car did not go to Japan and say "I'm going to help you build a car." Yet Japan is arguably one of the best car builders in the world. 

The same goes for every product and service in the world. Where is the connection besides the name? 

Of course the martial arts are differant. But isn't everything in the world differant in some way?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 6, 2003)

Well, yes, sure, fine, da si. In general terms, of course this stuff is true.

Regrettably, the generalities and cliches don't mean a thing.

What's important, in settling this unsettleable question, is this specific situation. 

Sigh.


----------



## James Kovacich (Mar 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Well, yes, sure, fine, da si. In general terms, of course this stuff is true.
> 
> Regrettably, the generalities and cliches don't mean a thing.
> ...



I think you touched it right there. That it is "unsettleable."

Anything imagineable in life will be copied legaly or illegaly. Copyright or no copyright. Pirates will always exist. Whats differant with the arts is its not tangible. So something that is not of real worth will not last.

But this issue still stands. Can there be an acceptable way by all parties? I think not.


----------



## DAC..florida (Mar 8, 2003)

Everyone seems to agree that martial arts started in either the middle or far east.
I feel that over the years the M.A.'s have evolved just like everything else in this world and i also feel that like the automobile there should be different makes and models, and maybe even new styles but how different or new are they really, doesnt everything stem from the original.


----------



## James Kovacich (Mar 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by DAC..florida _
> *Everyone seems to agree that martial arts started in either the middle or far east.
> I feel that over the years the M.A.'s have evolved just like everything else in this world and i also feel that like the automobile there should be different makes and models, and maybe even new styles but how different or new are they really, doesnt everything stem from the original. *



Whether or not it is accepted by the majority, there will always be new flavors introduced. All through martial history arts have been changed and so have the names.

Can anyone actually claim to practice or teach an art that is original in form and name? NO!

Even the arts today that have the names that you see in here, Okinawa Te and Shuri Te. They may be traditional but how can they be in original form? We know those arts names were changed and techniques were modified and somebody down the line changed the name back to the original name. 

Whether or not they can argue about the name and who did or didn't change the name. The fact remains that as the arts were passed down they were changed and the "majority" knows this as well as they know the names were changed also.


----------



## pesilat (Mar 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by DAC..florida _
> *Everyone seems to agree that martial arts started in either the middle or far east.
> I feel that over the years the M.A.'s have evolved just like everything else in this world and i also feel that like the automobile there should be different makes and models, and maybe even new styles but how different or new are they really, doesnt everything stem from the original. *



Depends on what you mean by "started."

If you mean that it "started" there and then was picked up in other places from there, then I disagree.

If you mean it "started" there as in it's the "oldest recorded" then I'd agree because, last I heard, the oldest recorded system of martial arts was with the Minoans on Crete.

But I don't personally believe in a "sun source" of martial arts (except when I'm reading The Destroyer and then, of course, it's Sinanju). I think fighting is part of human nature and anywhere there was a group of people gathered, they would have developed a method of defending themselves from each other, from other tribes, and from animals. And the survivors would, logically, have taught others in their tribe what they had learned. And that was the seed of "martial arts" in that civilization.

The various martial arts from a given region will, of course, have influenced each other through fighting with each other, or alliances with each other.

As technology improved and people were able to travel further abroad, there was more influence in both directions (they were influence by the arts they saw when traveling and they influenced other arts while traveling).

But I don't think there's a single source for the evolution. I think there were many sources of independent evolution of MA all around the globe. Over time, these have influenced each other.

Of course, I wasn't there so I could be totally wrong. But it makes a certain amount of logical sense to me.

In the same way that houses all have the same basic structure, but were developed independently by each civilization as the need for shelter from the environment arose.

Mike


----------



## DAC..florida (Mar 8, 2003)

I did mean the oldest record........
I also meant that all things change with time and the M.A. was also due to change we no longer do battle as samurai's or with swords for that matter. So why not have some changes or maybe new styles to stay with the changing world.


----------



## pesilat (Mar 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by DAC..florida _
> *I did mean the oldest record........
> I also meant that all things change with time and the M.A. was also due to change we no longer do battle as samurai's or with swords for that matter. So why not have some changes or maybe new styles to stay with the changing world. *



OK. I'm on the same page now 

Mike


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 9, 2003)

Martial art stated when the first stoneage Neantherdal tried to steal his friend's food.


----------



## pesilat (Mar 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *Martial art stated when the first stoneage Neantherdal tried to steal his friend's food. *



<g> Yup.

Or, if you take a Biblical perspective, then it'd be when Cain killed Abel.

Mike


----------



## James Kovacich (Mar 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by DAC..florida _
> *I did mean the oldest record........
> I also meant that all things change with time and the M.A. was also due to change we no longer do battle as samurai's or with swords for that matter. So why not have some changes or maybe new styles to stay with the changing world. *



Wasn't the oldest recorded record in Africa?


----------



## pesilat (Mar 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *Wasn't the oldest recorded record in Africa? *



Not according to what I found the last time I looked. I believe, last time I looked it up, that the oldest record of martial arts was from circa 12,000 BCE with the Minoans on Crete.

http://martialartinstitute.com/social_sciences_of_combat_2_ancient_combat.htm

Mike


----------



## James Kovacich (Mar 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by pesilat _
> *Not according to what I found the last time I looked. I believe, last time I looked it up, that the oldest record of martial arts was from circa 12,000 BCE with the Minoans on Crete.
> 
> http://martialartinstitute.com/social_sciences_of_combat_2_ancient_combat.htm
> ...



I've never heard of BCE. What does it stand for?


----------



## pesilat (Mar 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by akja _
> *I've never heard of BCE. What does it stand for? *



Same as "B.C." ... means "Before Christian Era"

Mike


----------



## James Kovacich (Mar 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by pesilat _
> *Same as "B.C." ... means "Before Christian Era"
> 
> Mike *



I thought it might of had something to do with evolution. Thanx.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 10, 2003)

I would have to agree with one Karate expert's view that an art is not considered established, until it has at least 2 generations of Blackbelts. That is, after the first generation black belts have left the founder and gone on to recruit, train and graduate their first generation of black belt. Only then, you can state that the art has established its niche.


----------



## James Kovacich (Mar 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *I would have to agree with one Karate expert's view that an art is not considered established, until it has at least 2 generations of Blackbelts. That is, after the first generation black belts have left the founder and gone on to recruit, train and graduate their first generation of black belt. Only then, you can state that the art has established its niche. *



That sounds reasonable and makes a bit of sense.


----------



## Matt Stone (Mar 10, 2003)

A.D. = anno domini, a reference to the reign of Mother Church and the influence of Christianity on the world.

B.C. = Before Christ, an old fashioned method by which dates prior to 1 A.D. were referenced.

B.C.E. = Before Common Era, the current academic, non-religious way in which dates are referenced.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## pesilat (Mar 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *A.D. = anno domini, a reference to the reign of Mother Church and the influence of Christianity on the world.
> 
> B.C. = Before Christ, an old fashioned method by which dates prior to 1 A.D. were referenced.
> ...



Yup. Though my dictionary actually says both for B.C.E. - "before (the) Christian (or Common) Era"

Mike


----------



## Nightingale (Mar 10, 2003)

In academics, we are instructed to use CE for "common era" and BCE for "before common era"  AD and BC really aren't used anymore, at least in academic, textbook, research, or journal style writing.


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 11, 2003)

Seems like just  Political Correctness trying to whitewash reality. What marks the begining of this newly coined term "COMMON ERA"? Hmmmm..... I'll be damn! Its the birth of CHrist! Duh!       But it must offend a lot of people if you dare to point that out!

Having said that, I can understand how non Christians feel. I know I would be pissed if my carlender was based on the Islamic carlender.  Yet, using Common Era is simply camouflaging the reality. The chronological order is still based on the birth of Christ.  This new term is simply a "feel good" kind of exercise. Nothing changes. Just the feeling of some people.  

BTW, who the hell concent to this change of terminology? Was there a vote? Did I miss an election?


----------



## Matt Stone (Mar 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *Seems like just  Political Correctness trying to whitewash reality. What marks the begining of this newly coined term "COMMON ERA"? Hmmmm..... I'll be damn! Its the birth of CHrist! Duh!       But it must offend a lot of people if you dare to point that out!
> 
> Having said that, I can understand how non Christians feel. I know I would be pissed if my carlender was based on the Islamic carlender.  Yet, using Common Era is simply camouflaging the reality. The chronological order is still based on the birth of Christ.  This new term is simply a "feel good" kind of exercise. Nothing changes. Just the feeling of some people.
> ...



The main problem I see with the entire "Birth of Christ" thing is that I am not aware that anyone has been able to factually pin down _when_ He was born...  Academia is _supposed_ to be objective, and given the lack of objective historical data on Christ, basing scientific and historical facts on very fluid and interpretive stories provides a very weak foundation...


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 11, 2003)

The question is not whether that was the exact year of His birth. It is just that, the year was picked BECAUSE it was associated with HIS birth.  The Common Era gig is just an attempt to erase that assoication that has been in place for the last 2003 years.


----------



## Kirk (Mar 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *The main problem I see with the entire "Birth of Christ" thing is that I am not aware that anyone has been able to factually pin down when He was born...  Academia is supposed to be objective, and given the lack of objective historical data on Christ, basing scientific and historical facts on very fluid and interpretive stories provides a very weak foundation... *



I have some religious views that would be considered "freaky" by
a lot of people, and I don't want to sound to preachy, but to
reply to your message .... 

The weak foundations you speak of supposedly part of God's 
plan.  At first, his presence was well known, and the "rules" to
get into  heaven weren't the same as they are now.  How hard
is it to NOT believe in Christ if you're watching him turn water 
into wine, or feed thousands out of a small number of loaves of
bread and fish.  Nowadays, we're supposed to get into heaven
through faith alone.  Faith that Jesus did come, perform said
miracles, and died on the cross as a new way to enter into the
kingdom of heaven.  With pure scientific evidence, it wouldn't be 
faith that gets ya there.  For me, the question is .. WHY must it
be faith?


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 11, 2003)

Not by grace alone. You must "carry my[Christ's] Cross and follow my footsteps".


----------



## Matt Stone (Mar 11, 2003)

So when is His actual date of birth?  Day, month and year, please...


----------



## Johnathan Napalm (Mar 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *So when is His actual date of birth?  Day, month and year, please... *



Dunno. 12/25 was a Pagan holiday, coopted by the Roman Emperor to patronize the Christians and the Pagans in one stroke of political genius.


----------



## Matt Stone (Mar 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> *I have some religious views that would be considered "freaky" by a lot of people*



Which may go a long way toward explaining why everyone hates you...    JUST KIDDING!!!



> *, and I don't want to sound to preachy, but*



But you are going to sound preachy anyway, right?    JUST KIDDING AGAIN!!!



> *The weak foundations you speak of supposedly part of God's plan.  At first, his presence was well known, and the "rules" to get into  heaven weren't the same as they are now.  How hard is it to NOT believe in Christ if you're watching him turn water into wine, or feed thousands out of a small number of loaves of bread and fish.  Nowadays, we're supposed to get into heaven through faith alone.  Faith that Jesus did come, perform said miracles, and died on the cross as a new way to enter into the kingdom of heaven.  With pure scientific evidence, it wouldn't be  faith that gets ya there.  For me, the question is .. WHY must it be faith? *



The error with this is that it is faith based.  Historical data, scientific data, must be supportable by something other than belief.  I can believe all day long that the Middle Ages occurred, but that doesn't tell me when or where...  That may be overly simplistic, but the illustration fits.

I'm not debating that Christ did or did not exist.  All I am saying is that since nobody really has an accurate date of His birth, to base a calendar on factually inaccurate data is flawed.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:


----------



## pesilat (Mar 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *The question is not whether that was the exact year of His birth. It is just that, the year was picked BECAUSE it was associated with HIS birth.  The Common Era gig is just an attempt to erase that assoication that has been in place for the last 2003 years. *



Actually, it hasn't been in place for 2003 years.

The use of "A.D." didn't come about until the 6th century A.D.
The term "B.C." didn't come into common usage until the end of the 18th century or the early 19th century. So, at most, a few hundred years.

Not trying to bust your chops, but I got curious and looked it up 

Just an FYI.

Mike


----------



## Matt Stone (Mar 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm _
> *Dunno. 12/25 was a Pagan holiday, coopted by the Roman Emperor to patronize the Christians and the Pagans in one stroke of political genius. *



And there you go...


----------



## pesilat (Mar 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *So when is His actual date of birth?  Day, month and year, please... *



Here's an interesting article about this: http://www.griffithobs.org/IPSBidelman.html

Mike


----------



## Kirk (Mar 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *Which may go a long way toward explaining why everyone hates you...    JUST KIDDING!!!*



   Aww, hail, that was cold!



> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *But you are going to sound preachy anyway, right?    JUST KIDDING AGAIN!!!*



Pretty much, yeah LOL



> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *The error with this is that it is faith based.  Historical data, scientific data, must be supportable by something other than belief.  I can believe all day long that the Middle Ages occurred, but that doesn't tell me when or where...  That may be overly simplistic, but the illustration fits.
> *



And I don't disagree.  I was just relating 8 years of catholic school
to ya.



> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *Gambarimasu.*



Gamblamblasoo to you too!


----------



## Matt Stone (Mar 11, 2003)

Glad you saw the humor in there...

When you and I first started interacting, we fought and fought.  Now we manage to play nice.  Just wanted to poke fun at you, nothing personal...


----------



## Kirk (Mar 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *Just wanted to poke fun at you, nothing personal... *



So long as ya don't wanna poke me  

Nothin' personal taken.  Glad all you're with me on putting that 
all behind us.


----------



## D.Cobb (Mar 14, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Kirk _
> *I have some religious views that would be considered "freaky" by
> a lot of people, and I don't want to sound to preachy, but to
> reply to your message ....
> ...



And the greatest trick, the Devil ever performed, was to convince the world, that he doesn't exist.

--Dave


----------



## Jason Davis (Mar 19, 2004)

Joe Hardwick said:
			
		

> Since this topic has been popping up in some other threads I thought I would start one about this specifically. So here are 3 questions:
> 
> 1-Is it appropriate to start a new martial art? Please answer with a yes, no or maybe and give reasons why. Also, if you feel that certain parameters must be required then mention them as well.
> 2-Is it appropriate to make a derivative or variation of an existing martial art such as "Combat TaeKwonDo" (I don't know if this exists or not but is simply an example). Again, please answer with a yes, no or maybe and reasons why.
> ...


I think that a "new" martial art isn't a new martial art. Just a new system.


----------



## Black Bear (Mar 19, 2004)

LOL I love the new avatar! That is freaking awesome! 

Okay, so how do you define each: martial art, and system?


----------



## Jason Davis (Mar 19, 2004)

Black Bear said:
			
		

> LOL I love the new avatar! That is freaking awesome!
> 
> Okay, so how do you define each: martial art, and system?


Ok well a Martial art is like Combat art right?

Systems are like Karate, kenpo, tae-kwon-do, tiger, crane, snake, mantis you know any name you can put on it.

I guess Martial arts the same way i look at regular art you know if you draw or paint, play music, or even cook it's still called "the arts" and you stil would go to an art school to learn how to do it. the end result in any of these things is to be able to express yourself in whatever way you would like too. their would just be a different department you went to aquire your skill.

Thats kind of like "martial arts" basically you are learning how to fight. So really all of the "martial arts" are doing the same thing "learning how to fight"
we just all go to diferent "departments" or "dojo" or "studio" or where ever to learn right. But the procieved end result is the same right? you learn how to protect yourself and you build your character at the same time.

So, Just like all in other arts how you are trying to express yourself and this gets accomplished with whatever skill you aquire, Any "Style", "system", "martial art" or whatever gets you to the same place people just get their in different way i guess.

so basically i guess what I'm trying to say is that in the last 2,500 years someone has done everything that you are going to try to put in your martial art so really it's not new just put together in a different way.  thats why i say all martial arts are just one big martial art with a whole bunch of "departments" and everyone goes to the one they want to learn. I

I think someone else might have said this but, you only have two legs and two arms their is only so much you can do with them.

That is just my opinion though. I'm sure everyone's is different.

oh yeah your avatar is really cool too.


----------



## Black Bear (Mar 19, 2004)

Huh. The way you use the terms martial art and system make a whole lot more sense, semantically, than the way a lot of people do.


----------



## MichiganTKD (Mar 21, 2004)

Whenever someone states "I've created a new martial art", my reactions are as follows:

 1. What organization did you get thrown out of?
 2. Who is your Instructor and why did he cut you?
 3. Did you make it past 3rd Dan in any given style?

 I have been involved in Tae Kwon Do for over 20 years. Over the years I gradually will have my own interpretation of TKD technique. But it is just that-_interpretation. _I have not created by own style or system. It is simply my spin on using Tae Kwon Do technique. I am verrry skeptical whenever someone advertizes a new system, because 99% of the time it is simply a rehash of what already exists. "Combat Hapkido" is not a new style, it is simply "Grandmaster" John Pellegrini's spin on Hapkido. "Combat Tae Kwon Do" is not a new style, it is simply emphasizing the self defense applications of Tae Kwon Do over the sport. Guess what? Some of us already do that.


----------



## TonyM. (Mar 21, 2004)

ROTFLMAO! That was spot on.


----------

