# Modern Versus antiquated self defence



## RTKDCMB (Jan 29, 2014)

On many other threads there have been many posts that have mentioned 'modern self defence', 'modern violence', 'antiquated methods'. So what constitutes a modern attack, and why is it different from an antiquated one? How has violence changed over the centuries so that we need modern methods to combat it?


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Jan 29, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> On many other threads there have been many posts that have mentioned 'modern self defence', 'modern violence', 'antiquated methods'. So what constitutes a modern attack, and why is it different from an antiquated one? How has violence changed over the centuries so that we need modern methods to combat it?



That's actually a pretty good question.  I'll offer a few thoughts.  As far as a physical attack, well, a punch to the nose a thousand years ago is pretty much a punch to the nose today.  What has changed though would be along the line of weapons as one example.  Not too many folks walking around the mall with a sword.  This doesn't mean a sword isn't a good weapon, but society has transitioned away from its use.  So a more modern weapon such as a firearm could be factored into 'modern self defense'.  Additionally, people were on drugs a thousand years ago, however, imo I would suggest that the % in the modern era is much higher.  Not only do we have more people in general, but we have more drugs and more types of drugs.  Dealing with someone on spice or bath salts is a 'modern' consideration.  And it is a very serious consideration.

Just some thoughts to toss out.


----------



## geezer (Jan 29, 2014)

Yeah, people today have more things. Besides things that didn't exist in earlier times (cars, computers, smart phones), we have more access to food, medicine, ...and weapons ...and drugs. Although, depending on where you lived in ancient times, things like alcohol in the Western world and hashish and Opium in the East were widely abused.

Another thing. People today are much more culturally diverse. Travel is a lot faster, safer and cheaper and the world is a smaller place ...so we are interacting daily with people from all over. The old norms and unspoken "rules" for fighting don't apply. People fight in a lot of different ways and you have to be prepared for _whatever comes_. Interestingly there's a term for that in Tagalog, "Bahala na!" ... A good attitide to have.


----------



## Zero (Jan 29, 2014)

geezer said:


> ...so we are interacting daily with people from all over. The old norms and unspoken "rules" for fighting don't apply. People fight in a lot of different ways and you have to be prepared for _whatever comes_. Interestingly there's a term for that in Tagalog, "Bahala na!" ... A good attitide to have.


Yes, that is a very good point, with so many different cultures and peoples mixing in so many geographics and areas, it can be hard to establish what the "norms" are or will be at times in certain places; you need to be very on to it as to ascertaining who/what you are dealing with and the one approach (such as SD/diffusing tactic) will not be successful with all.  This "bahala na" approach you speak of makes sense for any person to apply.


----------



## MJS (Jan 29, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> On many other threads there have been many posts that have mentioned 'modern self defence', 'modern violence', 'antiquated methods'. So what constitutes a modern attack, and why is it different from an antiquated one? How has violence changed over the centuries so that we need modern methods to combat it?



I'm pretty much in agreement with what KSD said.  People back then, had 2 arms and 2 legs, just like people of today have.  Things that probably have changed: the types of weapons used today, the method of attack that people use today, the mental state of people, etc.  With MMA being a huge craze, the odds of potentially facing someone with varying degrees of skill, is also a possibility.


----------



## sopraisso (Jan 30, 2014)

geezer said:


> The old norms and unspoken "rules" for fighting don't apply.



I'm wondering what those ancient "unspoken rules" for fighting could possibly be. I've never heard people in the past fought - in self-defense situations - under any kind of rules.

Actually I would say someone would possibly be more likely to use "cheap shots" in the old times than now, because common people nowadays generally have misconceptions about physical fighting created through movies and combat sports. Further, today we have very clear self-defense laws and they actually become a concern for someone who might fight for self-defense: knowing the right moment when to react - and when not to react - has probably become a more complicated issue, as well as being able to control oneself and avoid overreacting. 

Generally, the advent of more universal and strict laws is an important difference concerning self-defense fighting today.

Enviado de meu GT-I9300 usando Tapatalk


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 5, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> On many other threads there have been many posts that have mentioned 'modern self defence', 'modern violence', 'antiquated methods'. So what constitutes a modern attack, and why is it different from an antiquated one? How has violence changed over the centuries so that we need modern methods to combat it?



As with Kong Soo Do, I think that's quite an interesting, and important question... but I'm going to disagree with quite a bit of what's been said before coming back to deal with these specific questions themselves.



Kong Soo Do said:


> That's actually a pretty good question.  I'll offer a few thoughts.  As far as a physical attack, well, a punch to the nose a thousand years ago is pretty much a punch to the nose today.


 
Actually, no, that's not quite the case. What's often meant by comments such as "a punch then is a punch now" is that the physical damage being done is the same (sometimes it's meant that the physical attack itself is the same, and that's simply incorrect for a variety of reasons we'll cover), which (broadly) can be seen as basically correct... but that's not what the actual similarities and differences are about.



Kong Soo Do said:


> What has changed though would be along the line of weapons as one example.  Not too many folks walking around the mall with a sword.  This doesn't mean a sword isn't a good weapon, but society has transitioned away from its use.  So a more modern weapon such as a firearm could be factored into 'modern self defense'.


 
This is more like it. Of course, as you note, it's just one aspect or part of the story.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Additionally, people were on drugs a thousand years ago, however, imo I would suggest that the % in the modern era is much higher.  Not only do we have more people in general, but we have more drugs and more types of drugs.  Dealing with someone on spice or bath salts is a 'modern' consideration.  And it is a very serious consideration.



Cool... this is all focusing on the particulars of some threats that could be faced (and they're correct in that sense), and, while part of it (or, more realistically, an result of), it's not quite where the real differences are.



Kong Soo Do said:


> Just some thoughts to toss out.



Cool, good start to the thread.



geezer said:


> Yeah, people today have more things. Besides things that didn't exist in earlier times (cars, computers, smart phones), we have more access to food, medicine, ...and weapons ...and drugs. Although, depending on where you lived in ancient times, things like alcohol in the Western world and hashish and Opium in the East were widely abused.



Okay. To be honest, though, I'm not seeing where this is showing any differences (or similarities) between antiquated and modern violence (and approaches to it).



geezer said:


> Another thing. People today are much more culturally diverse. Travel is a lot faster, safer and cheaper and the world is a smaller place ...so we are interacting daily with people from all over. The old norms and unspoken "rules" for fighting don't apply. People fight in a lot of different ways and you have to be prepared for _whatever comes_. Interestingly there's a term for that in Tagalog, "Bahala na!" ... A good attitide to have.



This is getting much closer to it! Although I would say that we're less culturally diverse, specifically because we're so globalised and more familiar with different cultural ideas and concepts... but we'll come back to that.



Zero said:


> Yes, that is a very good point, with so many different cultures and peoples mixing in so many geographics and areas, it can be hard to establish what the "norms" are or will be at times in certain places; you need to be very on to it as to ascertaining who/what you are dealing with and the one approach (such as SD/diffusing tactic) will not be successful with all.  This "bahala na" approach you speak of makes sense for any person to apply.



Sure, you'd need to be aware (as much as possible) of the cultural realities of wherever you are... but this still isn't dealing with the initial question itself. I also wouldn't class SD as "one approach", as it never is. Again, we'll come back to this.



MJS said:


> I'm pretty much in agreement with what KSD said.  People back then, had 2 arms and 2 legs, just like people of today have.


 
That's the thing, Mike, what they had isn't the question.... it's what they did with them, and how they did it that is. I mean, we have (basically... there are differences) the same bodies as our ancestors, but we dress differently, speak differently, move differently, walk differently, eat differently, and more.... which is really getting to the actual answer.



MJS said:


> Things that probably have changed: the types of weapons used today, the method of attack that people use today, the mental state of people, etc.


 
Again, in part, yes... but this is like talking about different styles (what skirts and shoes are "in" this season) and trends rather than different basic forms of clothing... and, as such, is only a result of the actual differences and changes.



MJS said:


> With MMA being a huge craze, the odds of potentially facing someone with varying degrees of skill, is also a possibility.



Skill? Not necessarily. Familiarity, yes.



sopraisso said:


> I'm wondering what those ancient "unspoken rules" for fighting could possibly be. I've never heard people in the past fought - in self-defense situations - under any kind of rules.



There are always rules, some are enunciated, some are not. And no, I'm not talking about laws here (although those are certainly one form), I'm talking about social and cultural rules. People have always fought under them, whether you've heard it or not. The concept of social stigmas associated with transgressing these rules is not new, and is not to be underestimated... especially when looking into older accounts.



sopraisso said:


> Actually I would say someone would possibly be more likely to use "cheap shots" in the old times than now, because common people nowadays generally have misconceptions about physical fighting created through movies and combat sports.



You might be very surprised, then.



sopraisso said:


> Further, today we have very clear self-defense laws and they actually become a concern for someone who might fight for self-defense: knowing the right moment when to react - and when not to react - has probably become a more complicated issue, as well as being able to control oneself and avoid overreacting.



They are a concern, and should be addressed by self defence teachers, but in the moment, I really doubt that they're the most pressing thing in your head.



sopraisso said:


> Generally, the advent of more universal and strict laws is an important difference concerning self-defense fighting today.



"Universal"? Actually, they're far from universal. Look at the different laws concerning firearms, stand-your-ground provisions versus duty-to-retreat, and so on. "Strict"? Depending on where and when you're talking about, current laws can be considered quite lenient... I mean, you don't get commanded to commit suicide by opening up your stomach for getting involved in a fight in a bar... 17th Century Japan, on the other hand....

Now, back to the original post again:



RTKDCMB said:


> On many other threads there have been many posts that have mentioned 'modern self defence', 'modern violence', 'antiquated methods'. So what constitutes a modern attack, and why is it different from an antiquated one? How has violence changed over the centuries so that we need modern methods to combat it?



Let's take this piece by piece. What constitutes a modern attack? Well, pretty simply, it's an attack that can be reasonably expected to be encountered when involved in a modern (self defence) situation. The exact mechanics can range quite a bit, and might be one-on-one, a group against one, a group against  another group (same size or smaller, commonly), it might involve weapons, it might not, it could be either social or asocial violence, and far more. Of course, none of this is unique to modern violence, but instead the way such things can happen. To understand how the "modern" aspect manifests itself, you need to go back a bit, though, and have a frame of reference outside of a single version of things. With that said, let's look at a contrast...

The biggest difference between old and new is largely to do with cultural context. And, as such, it's the same as between different contemporary systems from different countries. And, as a result, it's quite difficult to determine specific differences between "old" and "modern" attacks... you need to be far more specific. You can contrast old Japanese attacks with modern Western ones... old Chinese weapons with modern ones.... and so on. From there, of course, you need to understand the exact context of the system you're looking at... which can be rather specific. Martial arts are about fighting in one particular context, by and large, with each art having it's own context separate from others. The biggest problems I find is when people start to think that, just because they all deal with some form of fighting/violence, they're all dealing with the same context... which just isn't the case. MMA competition is a different context, and therefore a different approach and application of skills (both used and against), to a modern self-defence context... which itself can be any of a variety of different contexts (group, single, armed, unarmed, using improvised weapons or not, in public, in private, social or asocial violence, physical actions or emotional/intimidation methods, resource targeting, alcohol-fuelled venting, rage venting, road or otherwise, and so on and so forth), each of which require a different approach and response, different again to a duelling system and context (which again opens up to what form of duelling, armed or unarmed, socially regulated or not, to what end [death, injury, honour satisfaction/apology etc], culture and time period, legal restrictions and constraints, and more), to more "battlefield" contexts (which are commonly either to do with tactical lessons rather than practical combative methods, or simple combatively useful methods using common battlefield weapons of the day [bow and arrow, spears and pole arms etc], or a combination of both), to a self defence methodology (albeit still restricted or focused on the context of what self defence might have been for the systems historical applications and origins themselves, rather than the context of modern self defence needs), and so on. Simply thinking "well, self defence involves going against violent actions, so do martial arts, therefore it's the same thing" is to completely misunderstand both contexts.

So, why is a modern attack different from an antiquated one primarily by it's context and surrounding needs. This context gives different social cues, different senses of distance, different forms of attack, different pre-fight rituals, different restrictions and consequences, and so on. What exactly are the differences? Well, where are you talking about when you say "modern attacks"... the US? The UK? Australia? Japan? Brazil? Africa? Indonesia? Each of these will have some slight or large differences in all of the above areas... but they are getting closer and closer, particularly when the cultures are fairly alike (when it comes to media). With the globalization of many cultures, US television and movies being so prominent, as well as things like the UFC and boxing, the majority of people have been exposed (by movies and television) to very similar approaches to and representations of violence... pretty much everyone has an unconscious impression of what is "powerful", or what "works"... because it's what they see all around them (such as Western Hands/boxing handwork). This has lead to a more "generic", common approach found in many of the more developed cultures and societies around today... which can sometimes be seen as an indication that "we've always fought like this". No, we haven't. Even half a century ago, looking just at a single culture, violence has changed quite a bit. Go back further, and it's more removed (and, to be clear, I'm not just talking about physical "techniques" here). Take it to another country, another culture, and another place in time, and it can be almost unrecognisable. 

Why do we need modern methods to deal with modern violence? Because that's what's suited to the needs of modern violence. An art that's designed to deal with a single, committed, probably armed attack from a distance just isn't designed to deal with a close-quarters, unarmed barrage. Thinking it is, because it's also dealing with "violence", is again, to just miss entirely the reality there.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 5, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> ...
> 
> So, why is a modern attack different from an antiquated one primarily by it's context and surrounding needs. This context gives different social cues, different senses of distance, different forms of attack, different pre-fight rituals, different restrictions and consequences, and so on. What exactly are the differences? Well, where are you talking about when you say "modern attacks"... the US? The UK? Australia? Japan? Brazil? Africa? Indonesia? Each of these will have some slight or large differences in all of the above areas... but they are getting closer and closer, particularly when the cultures are fairly alike (when it comes to media). With the globalization of many cultures, US television and movies being so prominent, as well as things like the UFC and boxing, the majority of people have been exposed (by movies and television) to very similar approaches to and representations of violence... pretty much everyone has an unconscious impression of what is "powerful", or what "works"... because it's what they see all around them (such as Western Hands/boxing handwork). This has lead to a more "generic", common approach found in many of the more developed cultures and societies around today... which can sometimes be seen as an indication that "we've always fought like this". No, we haven't. Even half a century ago, looking just at a single culture, violence has changed quite a bit. Go back further, and it's more removed (and, to be clear, I'm not just talking about physical "techniques" here). Take it to another country, another culture, and another place in time, and it can be almost unrecognisable.
> 
> Why do we need modern methods to deal with modern violence? Because that's what's suited to the needs of modern violence. An art that's designed to deal with a single, committed, probably armed attack from a distance just isn't designed to deal with a close-quarters, unarmed barrage. Thinking it is, because it's also dealing with "violence", is again, to just miss entirely the reality there.



Do you think  the differences you mention are in fact what make them similar?  Differences in culture, time and place (the OP did not specify a time, place, or culture) will make a difference now as they would have then if two different cultures or social strata engaged with each other.

One thing that was mentioned was differences in fighting style.  A boxer is an easy mark for most martial arts, unless the MA is forced to fight by boxing rules.  Then the boxer should win.  As a 'cave man,' if all you have is a club, no matter how good you are, a spear will be very dangerous to you.


----------



## MJS (Feb 5, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> That's the thing, Mike, what they had isn't the question.... it's what they did with them, and how they did it that is. I mean, we have (basically... there are differences) the same bodies as our ancestors, but we dress differently, speak differently, move differently, walk differently, eat differently, and more.... which is really getting to the actual answer.



Agreed, and that's what I was getting at in my post, when I mentioned method of attack.  Odds are, the way things were done many years ago, has changed today.





> Again, in part, yes... but this is like talking about different styles (what skirts and shoes are "in" this season) and trends rather than different basic forms of clothing... and, as such, is only a result of the actual differences and changes.



Umm...I think you lost me Chris.  However, I think my answer was pretty clear and made sense.  People existed years ago, just like today, however, the differences in the things I mentioned, should be clear.  





> Skill? Not necessarily. Familiarity, yes.



I disagree.  You can have 2 people, 1 who is a backyard yahoo, who gets together with their friends, watches TUF and UFC, then heads out to the yard and mimics what they see, and 1 who goes to a MMA gym, trains under a coach, etc.  The degrees of skill will be obvious, again, to anyone with a pair of eyes and common sense.


----------



## Kframe (Feb 5, 2014)

Liking this thread. 

All I can point to is Krabi Krabong and its sport offshoot Muay thai. One is newer, one is very old but most of mauy thai can be found in the syllabus of the old krabi krabong.  

Watching old videos of early muay thai you can see how it was different from western violence.  It had a distinct hands style, and worked nothing like western boxing.  Then sometime later they adopted a large part of western boxing into the mauy thai syllabus and now you have modern muay thai that looks nothing like it did just 70+ years ago.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 5, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> On many other threads there have been many posts that have mentioned 'modern self defence', 'modern violence', 'antiquated methods'. So what constitutes a modern attack, and why is it different from an antiquated one? How has violence changed over the centuries so that we need modern methods to combat it?



I view both terms as misnomers.  Really you have inclusive and exclusive.  

A an exclusive art is just that; exclusive.  It doesn't change to include new techniques or adapt to new threats.  Each instructor seeks to be as true to what he or she was taught by his or her instructor.  This creates a dynamic where body of techniques do not really change and where with the passage of time, the art develops no means to address circumstances that did not exist at the time that it was developed.  

Some arts are exclusive by nature; a person trying to preserve an historical fighting art has aims that go beyond surviving his trip home.

An inclusive art is more adaptable.  Techniques from outside are embraced when they compliment the art and defence methods adapt to keep pace with not only the changes in threats, but the changes in society.  My sword skills are more than up to the task of dealing with an unarmed opponent.  But swords are not carried as part of one's fashion and may not be legal to carry at all.  So having 500 ways to defeat a mugger with a sword is rather pointless if I cannot carry it.

Bartitsu incorporates self defence with a bicycle.  Useful for a cyclist, but not without the bicycle.  However it does reflect that self defence at the time was inclusive of the development and use of the bicycle and addressed how one could defend one's self assailed while riding or walking the bike.  Still useful today.  However, tactics that involve advising one to walk in the middle of the road so as to have a better view of what might be along side the road and have time to react are not so applicable (though the principles are).  

Modern self defence classes address things like cell phone usage, how one should handle parking a motor vehicle.  These are elements that were not really a factor a century ago when motoring was in its infancy and cell phones did not exist.  Some classes may even address things like internet usage, another thing that was inapplicable thirty years ago.

Additionally, physical training methods have changed a lot.  Sports medicine is very different now than it was even thirty years ago and the physical training methods of today are much more scientific and focused than they were.  

In my opinion, as KSD pointed out, a punch in the nose today is no different from a punch in the nose a thousand years ago.  Human vital points are still in the same places and the human body still functions the same way.  So an art developed two centuries ago, if inclusive, can remain very relevant and vital and avoid becoming antiquated or static.


----------



## TKDTony2179 (Feb 5, 2014)

Seems to me that every one do realize that time have change and that transportation have change.  Meaning that I don't believe people were stealing your horse carriage like they do when they steal your car. Just more value in a car than a horse.  Also the fact that culturally we see people attacking each others in a different manner. Some places are more violent than others. That is why you need to know about the place you are traveling to. I can let my guard down more in my home town rather than in a large city. 

For example,  I watched a video on fb and I saw somewhere in South America that a couple of guys got jumped. Three of them got away but two ending up brutally hacked and slashed from machetes.  In that video no one is watching any of the cars approaching until it is to late. I although I watch and train from time to time to defend against multiple attackers, I don't see many reality fighting system even training against multiple attackers with weapons.  So just show that you may not be prepared for everything. 

Now can you learn to defend yourself against a sword? Possibly.  Will you ever need that skill? Hardly every. But just shows you that how people are attack in Compton,  California is not the same as in the jungle.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 6, 2014)

TKDTony2179 said:


> Now can you learn to defend yourself against a sword? Possibly.  Will you ever need that skill? Hardly every. But just shows you that how people are attack in Compton,  California is not the same as in the jungle.


We trained in unarmed defences against a sword in hapkido and geom beop.  Though I am unlikely to run into a sword wielding opponent, a machette is available at Home Depot for less than ten dollars and the lessons of defence against a sword can be extrapolated to hand held weapons of greater than two or three feet in length.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 7, 2014)

oftheherd1 said:


> Do you think  the differences you mention are in fact what make them similar?  Differences in culture, time and place (the OP did not specify a time, place, or culture) will make a difference now as they would have then if two different cultures or social strata engaged with each other.



I'm not quite following you there.... are the differences what makes them the same? Uh... no. They're what make them different... or, more realistically, they are a way to define and recognize the differences. My point was more that the differences are to do with the cultures, part of which is the time period, part of which is the social structure and community values and beliefs.



oftheherd1 said:


> One thing that was mentioned was differences in fighting style.  A boxer is an easy mark for most martial arts, unless the MA is forced to fight by boxing rules.  Then the boxer should win.  As a 'cave man,' if all you have is a club, no matter how good you are, a spear will be very dangerous to you.



By "a boxer is an easy mark for most martial arts", if you mean it's easy for most martial arts to beat a boxer, I might disagree with that quite a bit... in no small part due to the boxers methodologies being more rooted in a closer context and culture to the application than most martial arts are... I'm not saying the boxer will definitely "win", but they're hardly going to be an "easy mark" either. Oh, and the cave man with a club can easily prevail over a spear.... depending on context... and the type of spear... 



MJS said:


> Agreed, and that's what I was getting at in my post, when I mentioned method of attack.  Odds are, the way things were done many years ago, has changed today.


 
In society, yes. In the martial arts, not as much as you might think. There, martial arts are almost like a capsule (like a time capsule, but encapsulating far more than just the time period), so expecting that "things have changed, therefore martial arts have as well" isn't quite correct.



MJS said:


> Umm...I think you lost me Chris.  However, I think my answer was pretty clear and made sense.  People existed years ago, just like today, however, the differences in the things I mentioned, should be clear.



I'll try to rephrase then.... you mentioned a few things that you say have changed over time (weapons, methods of attack etc), which is true.... however, the changing weapons and methods of attack are reflections of the culture that applied them. Certain weapons, attacks, tactical applications, environments etc are preferred due to the underlying culture itself, and it's values. So saying that weapons change over time (which is true) is really just looking at a direct response/reaction to the actual thing that changes, which is the culture itself. Those changes in culture influence the changes in weapons and attack methods, which can then (in turn) influence the culture one way or another, and so on back and forth. But it's really the culture that's the real crux of it.



MJS said:


> I disagree.  You can have 2 people, 1 who is a backyard yahoo, who gets together with their friends, watches TUF and UFC, then heads out to the yard and mimics what they see, and 1 who goes to a MMA gym, trains under a coach, etc.  The degrees of skill will be obvious, again, to anyone with a pair of eyes and common sense.



Sure... but the odds aren't that you're coming up against the MMA guy, you're going to encounter the MMA fan... which is why I said familiarity, not skill, is likely.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> I view both terms as misnomers.  Really you have inclusive and exclusive.


 
Actually, I'd disagree with that, Daniel... I don't think there's really such a distinction, however there really is a genuine distinction between archaic/older methods and modern forms of violence. 



Daniel Sullivan said:


> A an exclusive art is just that; exclusive.  It doesn't change to include new techniques or adapt to new threats.  Each instructor seeks to be as true to what he or she was taught by his or her instructor.  This creates a dynamic where body of techniques do not really change and where with the passage of time, the art develops no means to address circumstances that did not exist at the time that it was developed. Some arts are exclusive by nature; a person trying to preserve an historical fighting art has aims that go beyond surviving his trip home.



I don't think that has anything to do with "exclusive" or "inclusive", just to do with the values of the system itself. To go against it's values and principles would be to turn it into something else, really, which is the main reason not to. And, as I mentioned earlier, all arts are designed for dealing with/addressing a single context, or only a small number of contexts. No art deals with all, or even many contexts. Even those that you'd label as "inclusive".



Daniel Sullivan said:


> An inclusive art is more adaptable.  Techniques from outside are embraced when they compliment the art and defence methods adapt to keep pace with not only the changes in threats, but the changes in society.  My sword skills are more than up to the task of dealing with an unarmed opponent.  But swords are not carried as part of one's fashion and may not be legal to carry at all.  So having 500 ways to defeat a mugger with a sword is rather pointless if I cannot carry it.



No, all that is is an art that has a value of looking at other things and taking ideas from outside. And, when all's said and done, that's still just sticking to an ideal of the art. The sword argument, honestly, isn't really much of anything here, other than showing that a context needs to be understood for an art to be considered valid in it's addressing of it.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Bartitsu incorporates self defence with a bicycle.  Useful for a cyclist, but not without the bicycle.  However it does reflect that self defence at the time was inclusive of the development and use of the bicycle and addressed how one could defend one's self assailed while riding or walking the bike.  Still useful today.  However, tactics that involve advising one to walk in the middle of the road so as to have a better view of what might be along side the road and have time to react are not so applicable (though the principles are).


 
Takenouchi Ryu teaches methods with umbrellas and cooking pots, so you know (dating from 1542...), EDO (Everyday Objects) are a common enough "modern" training concept as well... and older arts do change when they need to, or have a value to. Shinden Fudo Ryu Jutaijutsu/Jujutsu has a range of kata that were supposedly originally methods of Daisho Sabaki (movements where you and your opponent both have two swords) that were altered/adapted to be purely unarmed methods after the disbandment of the samurai ending the time of anyone wearing two swords... and that was the late 19th Century. I agree with principles being able to have application (almost) regardless of the context, but the actual application itself is rooted in the context, which is cultural.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Modern self defence classes address things like cell phone usage, how one should handle parking a motor vehicle.  These are elements that were not really a factor a century ago when motoring was in its infancy and cell phones did not exist.  Some classes may even address things like internet usage, another thing that was inapplicable thirty years ago.



Yep, agreed. And each of those is an element of the modern (Western) culture, when you look at it.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Additionally, physical training methods have changed a lot.  Sports medicine is very different now than it was even thirty years ago and the physical training methods of today are much more scientific and focused than they were.


 
Hmm, they can be... depends on the system you're training in, really. Modern sporting systems? Yep, I'd certainly expect them to be taking full advantage of such advances... others, not so much (but most that I've seen in more recent sports science developments I can find analogues to in traditional methods.... just the way of explaining it seems to be different). 



Daniel Sullivan said:


> In my opinion, as KSD pointed out, a punch in the nose today is no different from a punch in the nose a thousand years ago.  Human vital points are still in the same places and the human body still functions the same way.  So an art developed two centuries ago, if inclusive, can remain very relevant and vital and avoid becoming antiquated or static.



Except that a punch to the nose today is a fair bit different to a punch to the nose back then... the effect is largely the same, but the delivery method can be very different. And, as such, in an art developed two centuries ago, it is very likely antiquated and less relevant.



TKDTony2179 said:


> Seems to me that every one do realize that time have change and that transportation have change.  Meaning that I don't believe people were stealing your horse carriage like they do when they steal your car. Just more value in a car than a horse.


 
Not necessarily... speaking relatively, a horse might (at times) be far more valuable than a car is today.



TKDTony2179 said:


> Also the fact that culturally we see people attacking each others in a different manner. Some places are more violent than others. That is why you need to know about the place you are traveling to. I can let my guard down more in my home town rather than in a large city.



Sure, of course, that's only a part of it, and is to do with modern situations. It can be extrapolated back to older methods (and should be), of course.



TKDTony2179 said:


> For example,  I watched a video on fb and I saw somewhere in South America that a couple of guys got jumped. Three of them got away but two ending up brutally hacked and slashed from machetes.  In that video no one is watching any of the cars approaching until it is to late. I although I watch and train from time to time to defend against multiple attackers, I don't see many reality fighting system even training against multiple attackers with weapons.  So just show that you may not be prepared for everything.



Look to RBSD systems, then.... just don't expect any guarantees even there.... 



TKDTony2179 said:


> Now can you learn to defend yourself against a sword? Possibly.  Will you ever need that skill? Hardly every. But just shows you that how people are attack in Compton,  California is not the same as in the jungle.



Yep, different cultures will have rather different approaches to violence.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> We trained in unarmed defences against a sword in hapkido and geom beop.  Though I am unlikely to run into a sword wielding opponent, a machette is available at Home Depot for less than ten dollars and the lessons of defence against a sword can be extrapolated to hand held weapons of greater than two or three feet in length.



Except that a sword attack and a machete attack are quite different mechanically, tactically, distance-wise, and more. A sword attack (as learnt when performing defences against them) will be a skilled, precise, controlled attack, largely to upper body targets, from an optimal distance for a sword. A machete attack, though, is more likely to be more frenzied, less controlled, less precise, less skilled, an attack of opportunity, with a weapon that is more blade heavy (giving the attack a very different rhythm and cadence), from a closer distance, and will target body extremities (initially), such as the arms and legs (legs are a very common machete target due to the primary "training" being using a machete to clear brush or similar, lending towards low chopping actions). While you can take some overall principles from sword defence, thinking that "I can defend against a sword, I can handle a machete" can be quite a mistake... there's really very little in common between them.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 7, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> I'm not quite following you there.... are the differences what makes them the same? Uh... no. They're what make them different... or, more realistically, they are a way to define and recognize the differences. My point was more that the differences are to do with the cultures, part of which is the time period, part of which is the social structure and community values and beliefs.



I was responding to your comment "_So, why is a modern attack different from an antiquated one primarily by it's context and surrounding needs. This context gives different social cues, different senses of distance, different forms of attack, different pre-fight rituals, different restrictions and consequences, and so on" which I think is true throughout time and place."  which since it will apply to all past times and all different places, make them of similar difference and similarity.  Maybe I'm not expressing it well, but I believe those differences involve similarities._



> _By "a boxer is an easy mark for most martial arts", if you mean it's easy for most martial arts to beat a boxer, I might disagree with that quite a bit... in no small part due to the boxers methodologies being more rooted in a closer context and culture to the application than most martial arts are... I'm not saying the boxer will definitely "win", but they're hardly going to be an "easy mark" either. Oh, and the cave man with a club can easily prevail over a spear.... depending on context... and the type of spear... _



Who said I was going to let a boxer get close to me?  Why wouldn't I try to take out his legs before he is in striking range?  That is not what a boxer trains against so he will be more vulnerable.  To say otherwise would sound to me just to nit pick for an answer.

While I think I understand what you are trying to say about clubs vs spears, I disagree.  As you mentioned about machetes, the club is a heavier weapon that relies on blunt force use.  The spear allows the spear bearer to stay out of the range of the club to stride, so the club bearer must strike at the spear if it is thrust, and it may be withdrawn out of the range of the club before it is struck.  While he is recovering, the spear bearer can then thrust with the spear, ending, or hastening the end of the fight.  That will work even with a heavy shafted spear, since the only direction needed for attack would be forward and back.  With a lighter more flexible spear shaft, other uses, defenses and attacks are possible.  Mind you, I not an expert in either clubs or spears, but common sense seems to me to agree with what I say.

While I am at it, you comment on the machete is correct, but doesn't take into account training against the sword.  There are slashes, at the side or top or bottom, as well as the downward cuts.  In Hapkido, one is taught to move into the attack, normally allowing the defender to be inside the arc and unavailable to the sharp edge.  Other methods may be used if one has the short stick available.  I will grant, as you have perhaps heard me comment before, that speed and accuracy are paramount in Hapkido since one so often moves into the attack.  But then aren't speed and accuracy important in all MA?

...


[/QUOTE]


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 7, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Actually, I'd disagree with that, Daniel... I don't think there's really such a distinction, however there really is a genuine distinction between archaic/older methods and modern forms of violence.


Of course there is such a distinction.  And yes, there is a genuine distinction.



Chris Parker said:


> I don't think that has anything to do with "exclusive" or "inclusive", just to do with the values of the system itself. To go against it's values and principles would be to turn it into something else, really, which is the main reason not to.


Yes.  Exclusive.  Which is neither good nor bad, but still exclusive.  You're welcome to disagree, but I stand by my post.



Chris Parker said:


> And, as I mentioned earlier, *all arts are designed for dealing with/addressing a single context, or only a small number of contexts.* No art deals with all, or even many contexts. Even those that you'd label as "inclusive".


Before I say that I agree or disagree with you, please elaborate on this point. 



Chris Parker said:


> No, all that is is an art that has a value of looking at other things and taking ideas from outside. And, when all's said and done, that's still just sticking to an ideal of the art. The sword argument, honestly, isn't really much of anything here, *other than showing that a context needs to be understood for an art to be considered valid in it's addressing of it*.


I'd rather thought that that was what I was doing. 



Chris Parker said:


> Takenouchi Ryu teaches methods with umbrellas and cooking pots, so you know (dating from 1542...), EDO (Everyday Objects) are a common enough "modern" training concept as well... and older arts do change when they need to, or have a value to. Shinden Fudo Ryu Jutaijutsu/Jujutsu has a range of kata that were supposedly originally methods of Daisho Sabaki (movements where you and your opponent both have two swords) that were altered/adapted to be purely unarmed methods after the disbandment of the samurai ending the time of anyone wearing two swords... and that was the late 19th Century. I agree with principles being able to have application (almost) regardless of the context,but the actual application itself is rooted in the context, which is cultural.


Sure.  There are no doubt many such examples.  



Chris Parker said:


> Yep, agreed. And each of those is an element of the modern (Western) culture, when you look at it.


I'm not sure what the relevance of your statement is to this conversation.  Unless you're implying that eastern cultures don't use things like the internet, cell phones, or automobiles, which I don't think that you are.  Those things are pretty well embedded in industrialized eastern cultures.



Chris Parker said:


> Hmm, they can be... depends on the system you're training in, really. Modern sporting systems? Yep, I'd certainly expect them to be taking full advantage of such advances... others, not so much (but most that I've seen in more recent sports science developments I can find analogues to in traditional methods.... just the way of explaining it seems to be different).


Sure.  Apply as appropriate.



Chris Parker said:


> Except that a punch to the nose today is a fair bit different to a punch to the nose back then... the effect is largely the same, but the delivery method can be very different. And, as such, in an art developed two centuries ago, it is very likely antiquated and less relevant.


Regarding punches to the nose, or really punches in general, I disagree with you.  Regarding the relevance of an art developed two centuries ago, that really depends on how adaptable and inclusive the art is.  As I said, inclusive or exclusive.  

Based on your statement, one could argue that Bujinkan Ninjutsu is very likely antiquted and less relevant (not an argument that I'm making).  Would you say that that is an accurate statement?  Or has the art adapted to address later methods of violence?  If the answer to the second question is no, then you have an exclusive art.  If the answer to the second question is yes, then you have an inclusive art. 



Chris Parker said:


> Except that a sword attack and a machete attack are quite different mechanically, tactically, distance-wise, and more. A sword attack (as learnt when performing defences against them) will be a skilled, precise, controlled attack, largely to upper body targets, from an optimal distance for a sword. A machete attack, though, is more likely to be more frenzied, less controlled, less precise, less skilled, an attack of opportunity, with a weapon that is more blade heavy (giving the attack a very different rhythm and cadence), from a closer distance, and will target body extremities (initially), such as the arms and legs (legs are a very common machete target due to the primary "training" being using a machete to clear brush or similar, lending towards low chopping actions). While you can take some overall principles from sword defence, thinking that "I can defend against a sword, I can handle a machete" can be quite a mistake... there's really very little in common between them.


I made my comment the way that I did for the purposes of brevity.  We trained for defence against more than one bladed weapon, more than one sword type, and attacks to the lower body.  Just to be clear, I am not making the statement that if you can defend against a sword, you can automatically and without prior training handle a machete.  In any cased, based on your statement regarding application of prinicples regardless of context, I would think that you'd get the point that I was making rather than compartmentalizing my statement.  We're speaking on a very broad topic and I'm making, for the most part, fairly generalized statements.


----------



## MJS (Feb 7, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> In society, yes. In the martial arts, not as much as you might think. There, martial arts are almost like a capsule (like a time capsule, but encapsulating far more than just the time period), so expecting that "things have changed, therefore martial arts have as well" isn't quite correct.



So basically, nothing has to adapt or change?  Am I understanding correctly?  One would think though, that given the fact that change happens all the time, an art would change, even slightly, as well.  I'll use the Bujinkan as an example.  Your teacher trained in it for quite some time, correct?  I understand he left, for reasons that I don't need to know, and you are now training under him.  My questions are: has your teacher made changes to the art that he trained in?  Do you/your teacher feel that the way things are currently taught in the Buj, are effective in todays world? To clarify, I'm talking about unaltered, no changes.  If this is a sensitive topic, please feel free to PM me. 





> I'll try to rephrase then.... you mentioned a few things that you say have changed over time (weapons, methods of attack etc), which is true.... however, the changing weapons and methods of attack are reflections of the culture that applied them. Certain weapons, attacks, tactical applications, environments etc are preferred due to the underlying culture itself, and it's values. So saying that weapons change over time (which is true) is really just looking at a direct response/reaction to the actual thing that changes, which is the culture itself. Those changes in culture influence the changes in weapons and attack methods, which can then (in turn) influence the culture one way or another, and so on back and forth. But it's really the culture that's the real crux of it.



Ok, so if it's more a cultural thing...do you feel that things will still change or remain the same?




> Sure... but the odds aren't that you're coming up against the MMA guy, you're going to encounter the MMA fan... which is why I said familiarity, not skill, is likely.



Ok, I can accept that.  Of course, until things start to unfold, we might not know who we're facing...the fan or the actual student.


----------



## wingchun100 (Feb 7, 2014)

I haven't had time to read through every reply, so I apologize if I repeat.

There are certain weapons no longer in common use, although with proper training you could use those skills if you were holding an everyday item comparable to the "antiquated" weapons. Also, there are certain attacks that don't serve the same purpose: if a jump kick used to be for knocking people off horses, how would you use that today?


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 7, 2014)

I still don't buy the jump kick knocking off horsemen story, but you can use them in sport TKD today.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 7, 2014)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I still don't buy the jump kick knocking off horsemen story, but you can use them in sport TKD today.



Horsemen or the kick?  

It must be true, I've seen it in Korean movies.  

I sure wouldn't want to do that against a swordsman with an unsheathed sword.  I guess you could do it against an unarmed rider, or perhaps one armed with a spear and you were inside the arc of the spear.  But in the movies I have seen that done in, and the clothing and equipment, they must have jumped from a trampoline.  

I don't know for sure either way, but it surely takes tremendous strength, agility, and skill.


----------



## wingchun100 (Feb 7, 2014)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> I still don't buy the jump kick knocking off horsemen story, but you can use them in sport TKD today.



I don't know if I would buy it either...that is why I threw an "if" in there.


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Feb 7, 2014)

> Originally Posted by *Chris Parker*
> 
> Except that a punch to the nose today is a fair bit different to a punch to the nose back then... the effect is largely the same, but the delivery method can be very different. And, as such, in an art developed two centuries ago, it is very likely antiquated and less relevant.



How is a punch to the nose different today than it was back then?  Whether an art teaches the 'punch' as a;


Straight punch 
Corkscrew punch 
Uppercut style punch 
Open hand strike 
Hammer fist 

...or whatever the results today are the same as the results back then i.e. a bloody nose/watery eyes/unconsciousness/etc.  An art may or may not be deemed 'antiquated' based upon it's adaptation to current threats (read firearm) but from a H2H perspective, if the 'punch' works then it works regardless of the art or when it was developed.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 7, 2014)

oftheherd1 said:


> Horsemen or the kick?
> 
> It must be true, I've seen it in Korean movies.
> 
> ...



While there certainly are people who_ could _execute a kick to a mounted rider, the idea that this was some kind of widespread military technique is a dubious one at best.  For one, if wearing any kind of gear (and soldiers generally do), you're unlikely to be doing aerial kicks, and secondly, getting into position to do the kick requires running up to the mounted horseman.  Not a good scenario.  

For another people capable of getting five feet into the air *and* delivering a forceful kick without the aid of a trampoline or a person spring off of are rarities.  More than likely, the kicker would end up pushing himself back to the ground.


----------



## K-man (Feb 7, 2014)

oftheherd1 said:


> Who said I was going to let a boxer get close to me?  Why wouldn't I try to take out his legs before he is in striking range?  That is not what a boxer trains against so he will be more vulnerable.  To say otherwise would sound to me just to nit pick for an answer.


Mmm! Not sure if it's so easy to take out a boxer's legs without coming into his striking range. Certainly not possible for anyone without a high level of training and experience. I would also be going for his legs, but from close range.
:asian:


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 7, 2014)

*Change is natural.*  People change over time, machines have changed, culture's change and yes martial system's change as well.  Really, nothing stays the same in a vacuum.  Not anything with any kind of complexity to it that is!  Take a martial system for instance.  The original founder may practice it a certain way, his disciples may over time add nuances to it and so on and so on withthe future practitioner's.  In regards to self defense we (ie. humans) have the same anatomical system that we have had for a long, long time.  Still, the way *we think* about things and our *expanded knowledge *has changed through the years.  So yes a punch is still a punch *but how it is delivered and in what way based on the culture it is in may be different*.  Violence at it's core is and will be similar.  There are only so many way's to do things.  Yet the method of delivery can differ greatly.  I think every martial practitioner needs to constantly check themselves and what they are doing to make sure they not only understand the violence that may happen in their lives but also how it could be delivered!  Just my 02.


----------



## Kframe (Feb 7, 2014)

oftheherd1 said:


> I was responding to your comment "_So, why is a modern attack different from an antiquated one primarily by it's context and surrounding needs. This context gives different social cues, different senses of distance, different forms of attack, different pre-fight rituals, different restrictions and consequences, and so on" which I think is true throughout time and place."  which since it will apply to all past times and all different places, make them of similar difference and similarity.  Maybe I'm not expressing it well, but I believe those differences involve similarities._
> 
> 
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]

I do not agree with this at all and ill use my own experience.  Boxers are not that clueless.  When I made the switch to mma I went talked to a classmate of mine that did Muay thai. He was in our class working his hand skills. I spent about 15 minutes getting acclimated to the other attacks I was going to face. The most important, for me any ways was seeing them, so I could recognize them. I was shown a basic check and that was it. All in 15 minutes.      I also spent some time on youtube watching muay thai and mma sparring so I could see what to expect and how to deal. 

My first sparring session  in mma went just fine. I had no issues dealing with kicks, and returning fire.  Now Grappling I was screwed, so I made sure to keep distance and fight on the outside, but just inside kicking distance.   All im saying with my story is boxers are not as clueless as your making them out to be.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 8, 2014)

K-man said:


> Mmm! Not sure if it's so easy to take out a boxer's legs without coming into his striking range. Certainly not possible for anyone without a high level of training and experience. I would also be going for his legs, but from close range.
> :asian:



Most  boxers arms aren't as long as my legs.  I don't need to stay standing  to deliver my kick.  Could I run into an incredibly talented boxer and  not be able to do anything against him, maybe.  Any of use who don't  consider that on any given day we might run across someone who is faster  or stronger, or both, is not being realistic.  But in general, boxers  have a different style, expect different rules, and wear gloves.



Kframe said:


> I do not agree with this at all and ill use my own experience.  Boxers are not that clueless.  When I made the switch to mma I went talked to a classmate of mine that did Muay thai. He was in our class working his hand skills. I spent about 15 minutes getting acclimated to the other attacks I was going to face. The most important, for me any ways was seeing them, so I could recognize them. I was shown a basic check and that was it. All in 15 minutes.      I also spent some time on youtube watching muay thai and mma sparring so I could see what to expect and how to deal.
> 
> My first sparring session  in mma went just fine. I had no issues dealing with kicks, and returning fire.  Now Grappling I was screwed, so I made sure to keep distance and fight on the outside, but just inside kicking distance.   All im saying with my story is boxers are not as clueless as your making them out to be.



First, when I referred to boxers, I was talking about western style boxing.  I think one would not want to stand toe to toe with them unless you were also trained as a boxer.  Especially if you must fight by boxing rules.  You need to be a boxer to do that.  Normally when I want to refer to Muay Thai style boxing (very different from western style), I say Muay Thai, so if I confused you, my bad.

Obviously you are very good.  That in itself would make a difference.  But against a western style boxer, I still maintain they are at serious disadvantage against most styles of MA.  If you disagree, fine.  I know my art and I presume you know yours.  In my art, western boxers are at disadvantage.


----------



## Kframe (Feb 8, 2014)

Oftheherd, I was referring to western boxing as well. My coach has 4 golden gloves and 3 AAU championships titles.. In our Western boxing class I had Muay thai students in there training boxing.  

I stand by my statement that western boxers are not that clueless.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 12, 2014)

oftheherd1 said:


> I was responding to your comment "_So, why is a modern attack different from an antiquated one primarily by it's context and surrounding needs. This context gives different social cues, different senses of distance, different forms of attack, different pre-fight rituals, different restrictions and consequences, and so on" which I think is true throughout time and place."  which since it will apply to all past times and all different places, make them of similar difference and similarity.  Maybe I'm not expressing it well, but I believe those differences involve similarities._



Ha, well, that's quite a mess of grammar in my first sentence there... I think I changed my mind on what I was saying half-way through! Hmm... should be a question mark and a new sentence there, I feel. But to the point, I was saying that each art/system has it's approach defined by it's context... and every system has it's own unique context.... both modern and antiquated arts... which makes them all different, as they're dealing with different things. So, while what makes them different is the same, they're still different.



oftheherd1 said:


> Who said I was going to let a boxer get close to me?  Why wouldn't I try to take out his legs before he is in striking range?  That is not what a boxer trains against so he will be more vulnerable.  To say otherwise would sound to me just to nit pick for an answer.



Uh, who says you would "let a boxer get close"? Hmm.... leaving off for a moment the whole "let them get close" bit, well, the boxer, social structure, common set-ups, the realities of violence, and, well, reality. Why wouldn't you try to take out his legs before he's in striking range? Well, you could try... good luck with that. Oh, and the vast majority of violent encounters today start well within the boxers striking range, so you'd need to escape his preferred range first, not avoid him getting close... he's already there. As to what a boxer trains, he trains to be able to hit hard, fast, and with precision from exactly where most violent encounters take place... moving in to engage, and so on. So, uh, no... he won't be more vulnerable. Just for the record.

Out of interest, ever done any boxing?



oftheherd1 said:


> While I think I understand what you are trying to say about clubs vs spears, I disagree.  As you mentioned about machetes, the club is a heavier weapon that relies on blunt force use.  The spear allows the spear bearer to stay out of the range of the club to stride, so the club bearer must strike at the spear if it is thrust, and it may be withdrawn out of the range of the club before it is struck.  While he is recovering, the spear bearer can then thrust with the spear, ending, or hastening the end of the fight.  That will work even with a heavy shafted spear, since the only direction needed for attack would be forward and back.  With a lighter more flexible spear shaft, other uses, defenses and attacks are possible.  Mind you, I not an expert in either clubs or spears, but common sense seems to me to agree with what I say.



Hmm, no, that's not really what I was getting at. 

In close, a club is superior to a spear. In confined environments, a club is superior to a spear. To arrest or restrain, a club is superior to a spear.

I do train with spears and clubs (and batons etc)... quite a bit.



oftheherd1 said:


> While I am at it, you comment on the machete is correct, but doesn't take into account training against the sword.  There are slashes, at the side or top or bottom, as well as the downward cuts.  In Hapkido, one is taught to move into the attack, normally allowing the defender to be inside the arc and unavailable to the sharp edge.  Other methods may be used if one has the short stick available.  I will grant, as you have perhaps heard me comment before, that speed and accuracy are paramount in Hapkido since one so often moves into the attack.  But then aren't speed and accuracy important in all MA?



Er.... some two decades plus of both sword training and sword defence training, so no, I really didn't forget to take anything like that into account. Believe me, training one is not training for the other. As far as speed and accuracy's importance, you're looking at the wrong thing.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Of course there is such a distinction.  And yes, there is a genuine distinction.



Hi Daniel, 

Okay then, we'll try it this way... can you give an example of both an exclusive and an inclusive martial art?



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Yes.  Exclusive.  Which is neither good nor bad, but still exclusive.  You're welcome to disagree, but I stand by my post.



I wasn't making any value judgements, just saying that I don't agree with the perceived distinction... so, yeah, I do disagree. But I'm interested to see if you can show me what you mean a little clearer, I might just be missing exactly what you mean.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Before I say that I agree or disagree with you, please elaborate on this point.



I'm not sure how much I could elaborate... I guess the only thing I could do is give examples.

Think of any art. Let's start with something that's fairly simple... Kendo. Kendo is a training methodology designed to develop skills within the context of a Kendo match. While ostensibly dealing with the usage of swords (kinda), it doesn't deal with a duel, or battlefield combat, or unarmed attacks, throws, spears, or anything else. Boxing deals with a boxing match, not knife defence, anything else. I'm sure you can see these ones. Of course, it's the same with other, seemingly broader arts... you can't even look at a grouping and say "well, they deal with x",  as that changes in large and small ways between systems. One art might teach battlefield tactics and applications... another deals with more "civilian" approaches... and that gives one system a particular set of weaponry it might deal with, which is different to the other system, or a range of tactics and ideas that are different as well... even if everything else (the geographic location, the time of origin etc) are all the same or very close to the same.

There is no such thing as a martial art that trains outside of it's context, as to do so is to no longer be that art. A boxing match is no longer a boxing match when one of the guys pulls a gun or a knife... or goes to a ground-and-pound tactic... or it becomes a group assault... or one guy seeks to escape or de-escalate. By the same token, a traditional, armour based martial art which deals with battlefield style combat might have a large number of highly "effective", powerful techniques... but the reason they've developed the way they have is do with the context... put them in a different context, and the reasons for the art moving the way it does no longer applies... and you've moved away from the system itself.

I have, however, noted a particular, well, belief about martial arts... namely that they deal with many, or (in some cases) every combative context. That's not only patently incorrect, it's downright impossible. But it's still a common enough thought... a belief that training in a martial art automatically equals training to deal with all forms of violence (or, more accurately, with the perception held of the forms of violence that might be encountered in the modern world by the student, or even instructor). The actual context of the art in question is almost always ignored in favour of what it's wanted (either consciously or unconsciously) to be. This is what leads to the issues of some instructors thinking that, just because they have a black belt in one or another martial art, they know about self defence, and can teach it. 

There needs to be consistency and congruency between what a martial art is designed for, and what it's looked to for... and that's a rare thing. The mystique of martial arts is gone, for the most part. Go back a few decades, and the idea of being a black belt was quite a thing... it meant something (to the uneducated public)... it meant that you were an "expert at fighting"... people holding such ranks were looked to with a degree of awe. Today, it's just not the case. Movies have shown people what it looks like (or, at least, one image of it)... and it's fancy and flashy... which anyone with any real sense of violence recognizes as unrealistic, impractical, and of little use. It's entertaining... but it's not what a real fight looks like. The advent of MMA is more what people think a fight is supposed to be (particularly the striking... the ground work and submissions, I feel, are still largely lost on many viewers), as it matches things like boxing... but, as it doesn't match what's seen in the movies, it's rarely classified as a martial art... and it's not flashy, fancy, or anything of the like. Just hard work. But still people go to martial art classes wanting to be able to handle modern violence... and they almost never go to a school that has any understanding of what that even is, let alone how far removed it is from the context of what they're actually teaching. It's like going out and watching a Street Latin, or Hip Hop dance contest, and then (wanting to be a part of it), signing up to ballet or Ballroom classes. Sure, there's some cross-over, but one does not equal the other. So you need to look at what you want to address (your context)... and look at the art you're training in... and, the more accurately you see them, the more you'll see that they just aren't dealing with the same thing at all.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> I'd rather thought that that was what I was doing.


 
Okay... but your comments denied the actual context of sword training in the first place. I mean, you cant' even just say "sword fighting"... is it a duelling context (Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, Itto Ryu)? Battlefield application (Yakumaru Jigen Ryu)? Tactical and strategic lessons (Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu)? Principles of physics and movement/ideals (Aikiken, Kashima Shinryu)? Developing spirit and mechanics (Iaido, Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage Ryu)? Competitive training (Kendo)?



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Sure.  There are no doubt many such examples.



Yeah... but my point was that, even in such cases, where outside influences change the way a system does things, it's still not what you're calling an "inclusive" system, and is still just sticking to it's own approach (what you called "exclusive")... to the point that your Bartitsu bicycle example was again just another case of an art just doing what it does, based in it's own context.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> I'm not sure what the relevance of your statement is to this conversation.  Unless you're implying that eastern cultures don't use things like the internet, cell phones, or automobiles, which I don't think that you are.  Those things are pretty well embedded in industrialized eastern cultures.


 
I only used Western as that's where most of us are, and it's opposed to Eastern cultures (particularly historical ones), as that's where many of the arts we train originate from.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Sure.  Apply as appropriate.



Of course, saying you apply as appropriate means that you apply as needed in that arts approach... in other words, it's all just to do with that art (exclusive).



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Regarding punches to the nose, or really punches in general, I disagree with you.


 
Well, I'm familiar with the striking methods of a number of cultures, spanning over a number of centuries, in different contexts and applications, and believe me, they're quite different in distance, preferred targeting, preferred set-ups, tactical usage, mechanical concepts, and more. While you might disagree, it is the reality.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Regarding the relevance of an art developed two centuries ago, that really depends on how adaptable and inclusive the art is.  As I said, inclusive or exclusive.



Hmm, no. It can only be "adaptable" in this sense if that's part of the arts context and methodology already... so it's still part of it's exclusive ideal.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Based on your statement, one could argue that Bujinkan Ninjutsu is very likely antiquted and less relevant (not an argument that I'm making).  Would you say that that is an accurate statement?  Or has the art adapted to address later methods of violence?  If the answer to the second question is no, then you have an exclusive art.  If the answer to the second question is yes, then you have an inclusive art.



See, it's just not that simple. The Ryu-ha (traditional schools) that make up the technical curriculum of the Bujinkan are antiquated (which is really just another way of saying they're developed and designed for a different context to a modern one), the new art that has grown out of those Ryu (Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu) is a modern system, but is not really geared up to address modern violence (despite rhetoric to the contrary). But, and here's where it gets a little more complicated, even if (and, depending on the instructor, when) Budo Taijutsu is adapted to address modern violence, that's not the Ryu-ha... and it is perfectly within the approach of the art itself (which makes it exclusive in your categorisation).



Daniel Sullivan said:


> I made my comment the way that I did for the purposes of brevity.  We trained for defence against more than one bladed weapon, more than one sword type, and attacks to the lower body.  Just to be clear, I am not making the statement that if you can defend against a sword, you can automatically and without prior training handle a machete.  In any cased, based on your statement regarding application of prinicples regardless of context, I would think that you'd get the point that I was making rather than compartmentalizing my statement.  We're speaking on a very broad topic and I'm making, for the most part, fairly generalized statements.



Sure... but brevity can be taken too far, leading to generalizing to the point of inaccuracy. 



MJS said:


> So basically, nothing has to adapt or change?  Am I understanding correctly?  One would think though, that given the fact that change happens all the time, an art would change, even slightly, as well.  I'll use the Bujinkan as an example.  Your teacher trained in it for quite some time, correct?  I understand he left, for reasons that I don't need to know, and you are now training under him.  My questions are: has your teacher made changes to the art that he trained in?  Do you/your teacher feel that the way things are currently taught in the Buj, are effective in todays world? To clarify, I'm talking about unaltered, no changes.  If this is a sensitive topic, please feel free to PM me.



Well, I was training under him when we were still part of the Bujinkan, for the record... As far as things needing to change, again, there's a fair bit to it beyond just that... In short, no, martial arts don't need to adapt or change... and very few actually do, really. What they do do is develop. But even through that development, they remain true to the context and origins of the system itself... they have to. Cultures also develop... they change over time, and occasionally do adapt to changes in their circumstances (not always, of course).

As far as the Bujinkan, do I think that the way things are currently taught there is effective in todays world? Honestly, no. What I won't go into here are my reasons... as for my Chief Instructor, while not addressing the Bujinkan (and I'm not going into that here), this might give you some insight into his take on most martial arts (if not all):
http://www.itsprimalprotection.com/2014/02/what-most-martial-arts-wont-teach-you.html



MJS said:


> Ok, so if it's more a cultural thing...do you feel that things will still change or remain the same?


 
Cultures change. They develop over time. Martial arts are, in one way, a window into the culture that went into the formulation of that art. Of course, when people are studying modern martial arts, it's not so readily apparent, so I will say that... and there's always the filter of the culture you're coming from yourself. That can be a difficult aspect to overcome, as there are often quite a range of influences from your current culture that give you a particular belief/approach that you don't realise is actually different from that which formed the art you're studying...



MJS said:


> Ok, I can accept that.  Of course, until things start to unfold, we might not know who we're facing...the fan or the actual student.



Learn to read the context and environment... that'll give you a big clue...Of course, that's moving awareness to a point that not everyone looks at, I've noted... 



Kong Soo Do said:


> How is a punch to the nose different today than it was back then?  Whether an art teaches the 'punch' as a;
> 
> 
> Straight punch
> ...



I've said a few times that the result of being punched in the face is the same (a fist hits your nose, it doesn't really matter too much how it gets there (from the perspective of the person being hit), but that that's not where the differences are.

I held an Introduction Class on the weekend, which was attended by, amongst others, K-Man here on the forum. I took a while to explain why the punching methods of our art are different to, for example, karate, Wing Chun, boxing, MMA, modern street attacks, and the striking found in Aikido, based on the context of the arts themselves... including demonstrating the physical differences between each as a way of highlighting the contextual hallmarks of each system that can be seen. Hand to hand is far more susceptible to variation and not suiting modern violence than weaponry aspects, to be frank.


----------



## RTKDCMB (Feb 12, 2014)

wingchun100 said:


> Also, there are certain attacks that don't serve the same purpose: if a jump kick used to be for knocking people off horses, how would you use that today?



I don't know about a horse but you could probably kick someone off a hog (motorcycle).


----------



## Kong Soo Do (Feb 12, 2014)

RTKDCMB said:


> I don't know about a horse but you could probably kick someone off a hog (motorcycle).



High kicks were indeed developed specifically for kicking soldiers on horseback.  After the properly applied high kick the kicker would then roll and spring back to his feet to prepare for another kick.  This in turn soiled the belt that was traditionally worn during this era.  The belt, usually white would get darker and darker and thus was the forerunner of the modern black belt.  Hence why a black belt is a highly skilled martial artist.









And yes, I'm just being silly


----------



## MJS (Feb 12, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Well, I was training under him when we were still part of the Bujinkan, for the record... As far as things needing to change, again, there's a fair bit to it beyond just that... In short, no, martial arts don't need to adapt or change... and very few actually do, really. What they do do is develop. But even through that development, they remain true to the context and origins of the system itself... they have to. Cultures also develop... they change over time, and occasionally do adapt to changes in their circumstances (not always, of course).
> 
> As far as the Bujinkan, do I think that the way things are currently taught there is effective in todays world? Honestly, no. What I won't go into here are my reasons... as for my Chief Instructor, while not addressing the Bujinkan (and I'm not going into that here), this might give you some insight into his take on most martial arts (if not all):
> http://www.itsprimalprotection.com/2014/02/what-most-martial-arts-wont-teach-you.html



Well, I suppose we can put this in perspective of what our 'friend' Ras was doing with his Kenpo.  Now, IMHO, it's one thing to totally change a technique and not keep the principles, concepts of what Parker was teaching, and another to simply adapt a tech due to someone being short, having a disability, etc, but still keeping the above mentioned 'rules' of the art.  As for the Bujinkan...well, unless someone is just training for the sake of it, for history, etc, ok.  But if they're looking for SD, well....

As for not going into things...that's fine.  If it's something you want to talk about privately, you know how to reach me.  if not, that's fine too. 

The link...can't disagree with anything mentioned there.  Oddly enough, I noticed they mentioned RBSD.  Usually any time that is mentioned on the forum, you get a mixed bag of results...some saying it's good, others saying it's not.  





> Cultures change. They develop over time. Martial arts are, in one way, a window into the culture that went into the formulation of that art. Of course, when people are studying modern martial arts, it's not so readily apparent, so I will say that... and there's always the filter of the culture you're coming from yourself. That can be a difficult aspect to overcome, as there are often quite a range of influences from your current culture that give you a particular belief/approach that you don't realise is actually different from that which formed the art you're studying...



Ok.





> Learn to read the context and environment... that'll give you a big clue...Of course, that's moving awareness to a point that not everyone looks at, I've noted...



ok.


----------



## Kframe (Feb 12, 2014)

Now not all Bujinkan instructors are teaching methodology unsuited to modern violence.  I know its my opinion, but I  feel that when you do find that good Dojo that you will be well served by what you find there.     Granted its really hard to find the good instructors.  I know what I feel makes mine so good, and I can not get in to specifics but they both have experience with real world, non sporting violence.  It shows in what they do and how they move.   

Having said that, I  am willing to believe that not counting a hand full of instructors, Chris parker is likely correct in his feelings regarding the Bujinkan over all and its current teachings. I feel that it is no small part due to crap students being allowed to be crap teachers. I asked why this was, and was told of something one of the Senior Shihan said.  We need the bad instructors so that the bad students go to them.  Not sure I like that policy.

 In the end it is up to you to decide if the instructor and the art he is teaching,  is correct for you. If you feel what is taught is applicable to your views, how ever right or wrong they are, then do what you want and enjoy..  

I wonder though about the Jinekan and the Genbukan. I wonder if the differences in there methodology and teaching styles will lead to something more effective in todays world or if they are plagued with there own issues. 

Ill say this, todays class for me highlighted some serious flaws in my previous training. I for one and seriously glad to have been uke for it.   I love it when he lets me try mma things on him. 

I wonder if, old arts can develop, with in there core principals to better deal with modern violence?  Or if such a development would dilute the art to much. My gut is leaning towards yes/no/maybe but I don't know enough about OLD arts. The only koryu near me is just iajutsu school. http://yobushin.org/iaido/ 

I think that weather or not a art can develop in such a manner as to even attempt to address modern violence is  going to be likely not a factor any way. If what I am reading is correct, many truly old arts such as koryu and what not, are not concerned with it. They just want to survive and to keep going. Any martial benefits you acquire are a fringe benefit. Though ill be honest and wonder openly what it would look like if a Soke of a koryu decided to try and develop  a bit into modern violence.. I wonder how he would  do so.   Just a bit of my imagination at work


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 12, 2014)

First of Chris you and I agree on most things!!!*

However I find it laughable* that in Chris's opinion practitioner's from Budo Taijutsu cannot effectively use it for self-defense or that it is not effective for self-defense in today's world. (that is a joke) I assume that only RBSD can be used in self-defense Chris?  *That would be laughable as well*. (coming from someone who teaches what could easily be labled as RBSD ie. me)  Chris why do you even teach from the various ryu that incorporate what make up Budo Taijutsu if it is so ineffective?  I tell you why because you understand that what is there *is and can be really effective*!  Otherwise you would not teach *it at all* (which is what you do teaching from the ryu) if your were honest with yourself and your students.....
*
While I will admit that some teacher's *(meaning from various martial systems) take a more realistic outlook at what self-defense entails and based on what I have seen I would include Chris and his instructor in that category, myself and a whole score of others.  The idea that an older system cannot be used in self-defense and be effective is ridiculous!  Try telling a Kajukenbo or San Shou guy or any of the guys I grew up with that they cannot use their system for self-defense. Nor does simply a system that has a long lineage mean that instructors *within it* do not teach their students current legal laws applicable to self-defense.  I cannot believe that someone who trained with Ed Parker in Kenpo were not taught some effective self-defense and legal ramifications for their actions.



I personally know people from Tae Kwon Do, Kempo, Silat, Kenpo, Modern Arnis, Balintawak, BJJ, IRT, Budo Taijutsu, Tang Soo Do, boxing, mma, Tai Chi, etc. that have utilized their system and self-defense training in a context that either avoided violence or actively helped them in getting out of a violent situation whether in civilian life or work related.  

What I do feel we have seen is a rise of instructors that are teaching more about awareness, avoidance and action in conjunction with their societies laws and social norms.  A higher understanding in the area of the legal laws of self-defense in their area and this is really good.  *We should promote this at every opportunity*.  However, I would argue that many traditional or older systems also have had this in their teachings albeit better understood or passed on better by individual instructors.  The absolute finest example of this would be a Tae Kwon Do instructor whom I personally knew that made sure his students understood the law, legal ramifications and had it written into his system. (you could not advance without demonstrating knowledge in this particular area)   *He personally did it better than anyone else I have seen to date and he was a Tae Kwon Do guy*.(not one thing wrong with that)  It is not a can or cannot have it situation and one group does not have this area solely as their purview.  Meaning that RBSD guy's simply cannot claim that they are the end all be all of self defense training because frankly there is some RBSD being taught out there that is frankly just plain crap.  Really just crap!!!  I was in a Las Vegas Training Hall just the other day watching an RBSD system being taught and it was awful.  So awful I could not believe the people there were paying for this training.  Having said that I really like most RBSD training that I have participated in as well as the people in it.  Still not all RBSD is the same as all others and there are what I would call scam artists in this area as well!

Chris your not part of the Bujinkan and your instructor is not part of it.  You need to understand that every time you personally take a dish at it that people are simply going to have issues with it.  The old adage if you do not have anything good to say applies here....  You left, your instructor left (a whole lot more to it than that) leave it at that.  You haven't trained in it for a long time (ie. Budo Taijutsu) and if I am correct you never trained in Japan so that obviously has *a lot* of bearing here.  I understand your situation and your organizations situation and your instructors situation as I know the details but stop taking digs at an organization that you are no longer affiliated with!  Bujinkan people have always been rather polite with you on this board by and large but every time I turn around you take a shot at the Bujinkan.  It is getting old!!!  *Your better than this!*


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 12, 2014)

I would add that Bujinkan practitioner's I came up with were a bunch of hard edged guy's typically with ten to fifteen years of hard contact training in another system. (Kickboxing, Shotokan, Kyokushinkai, Boxing, Tae Kwon Do, Arnis, etc.)  Military guys, law enforcement guy's and gals.  Tough guy's, not afraid to get punched in the face, guy's willing to travel very long distances for training and people who put in a lot of time to make their training work.  Michigan was blessed with a great core of Budo Taijutsu practitioners and still is.  I have no doubt these guy's could make their training work in self-defense and many have in work related endeavors.  Plus their was some legal teachings on what you could and could not do.  Just sayin.....


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 12, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> Hi Daniel,


Hi.



Chris Parker said:


> Okay then, we'll try it this way... can you give an example of both an exclusive and an inclusive martial art?


Kendo is an exclusive art, as are, I'd imagine any koryu arts.  Hapkido is an inclusive system.  But instead of going further and rattling off examples, I'm going to respond to the below paragraph.



Chris Parker said:


> I wasn't making any value judgements, just saying that I don't agree with the perceived distinction... so, yeah, I do disagree. But I'm interested to see if you can show me what you mean a little clearer, I might just be missing exactly what you mean.


Okay, I think we may be discussing two different subjects here.

Using hapkido as an example, as I have familiarity with it.  Hapkido started off with a lot of grappling and comparatively little in the way of strikes and kicks.  

As it passed from founder to senior students who opened their own studios and interracted with other KMA practitioners, kicks of all kinds were added, so many that hapkido actually has more kicks that KKW taekwondo, which has a lot of kicks!  But it was still hapkido.

Hapkido has no 'forms' as one sees in taekwondo.  But some orgs and schools have devised such forms.  But it is still hapkido.

Now, you see groundfighting being addressed by some hapkido organizations.  The techniques are most certainly culled from outside of hapkido, probably BJJ.  But it is still hapkido.

As I said, I'm using hapkido because of familiarity with it.  There are other arts that doubtless do the same.  Such changes address a need or a perceived need.  Perhaps those needs arose as the art traveled from place to place.  Choi learned his skills in Japan (I'm not getting into the DRAJ debate; I have no dog in that race).  He took them to Korea.  He taught them, and then as his art spread in Korea, kicks became more prominent.  Now the art is taught in the west.  Groundfighting is more prominent in the west than head kicking (not implying that it has anything like the prominence of kicks in HKD; only that it is being addressed in some organizations and some studios).

Regarding an art addressing virtually every combative context, or even most, I agree with you; they don't.  However, within the context of civilian self defence, an art can develop to address the changing needs of that context and still remain that art, if it is an inclusive art.

Just to clarify, when I say inclusive, I do not by any means refer to an art addressing many or every combative context.

Does that make sense to you?


----------



## K-man (Feb 13, 2014)

Having accepted Chris' invitation to train with him last weekend, I do understand the point he is making. He is teaching material the way it was taught in the past in the context it was taught in the past. Now I have no idea of the politics or otherwise but much of what I saw demonstrated would not be classed as material that I would use for SD. Then he teaches other material specifically for SD.


My training is quite different. I tailor it all to RBSD, but as I said above, I can appreciate where Chris is coming from.
:asian:


----------



## oaktree (Feb 13, 2014)

Hi Kframe,

I find the Koryu arts to be very realistic and brutal. A lot of people see the kata in Koryu and think it is not realistic however because they do not train in the Koryu 
they can not understand the feeling of what is really happening. This does not only apply to Koryu of Japanese arts but also applies to the Chinese arts as well.
I feel being able to train in the Koryu has been a great experience and alot of people I have met doing so have all been nice, humble people. Training in it will change you for the best.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 13, 2014)

K-man said:


> Having accepted Chris' invitation to train with him last weekend, I do understand the point he is making. He is teaching material the way it was taught in the past in the context it was taught in the past. Now I have no idea of the politics or otherwise but much of what I saw demonstrated would not be classed as material that I would use for SD. Then he teaches other material specifically for SD.
> 
> 
> My training is quite different. I tailor it all to RBSD, but as I said above, I can appreciate where Chris is coming from.
> :asian:



*Hey K-Man nice post*.  I would say that in regards to the above Chris learned from his instructor an early pioneer in Budo Taijutsu.  This may be just the way they teach.  Which could be in turn be like with several other early pioneers in the U.S. who had rather limited grasps of the material and went out teaching and adding things in that were not part of the system in the first place. (both physical and mental from books)  This is in regards to that their depth and understanding of what they had may have been very limited and passed on in a much different way than what was intended. (hence eventually issues)  Whether this is the case in Australia with Chris's instructor I can only guess and am not saying that it is but it certainly was this way in the United States.  I would let Australian Budo Taijutsu people comment on that. (unfortunately I do not think we have any on the board)  The very few I have met in Japan from Australia were quite good, with a good approach to reality!  

I would still say that there are a lot of really good self-defense practitioner's and instructors from older systems.  Just like there are some really good ones from systems with a more modern starting date.  Just like there are ones in almost all of them that are not so good!  Just because some things says Modern or RBSD does not mean it is good and the exact same applies to some thing that is older.  I see you practice Systema and Krav Maga and I like and appreciate both of those systems.  Very solid fundamentals and practical on many, many levels.  Yet, within each of those systems there are some really, really good instructors and practitioner's and some others that are not so good. (a few that are even goofballs)  In the US many Krav Maga instructors were an instructor in another system, went to a weekend seminar and became a Krav Maga instructor over night.  Most of those guy's or gal's are jokes in that particular system.  So when training with anyone verify who and what they are, what they know, who they trained with and what depth of training they have had.  This I feel is essential for anyone seeking out martial training whether for fitness, self-defense or personal growth or any other reason.

*I personally understand* the point of self-defense being the driving force behind a system or does the system have a driving force behind it that is different.  Really that is not to hard to understand but.... just because some systems may have had a different driving force does not mean that is cannot function in another area particularly if it's instructors understand that area fully and pass it on to their students.  Just because some thing was designed for a battlefield does not mean that it cannot function very effectively in a self-defense encounter particularly if the individual understands the self-defense laws in their country, state, etc.  Similarly a sporting martial system can be really effective in self-defense as well.  Like wise a RBSD practitioner can be effective in self-defense and also probably in a battlefield setting with some additional training and a different mind set.  Heck I know a couple of RBSD guy's that have been effective in the cage or a sporting context.  Everything is not always black or white, quite often there are shades of grey in between!  I have always lived by the idea of "no absolutes" or not letting some thing confine me or my approach to training.  *I think this is essential!!!  *Do not allow anyone to put you or your training in a box.  Instead train but think outside of the box!!!

*"No limitations"*


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 14, 2014)

I think I'm just in this mood... this might be interesting.... 



MJS said:


> Well, I suppose we can put this in perspective of what our 'friend' Ras was doing with his Kenpo.  Now, IMHO, it's one thing to totally change a technique and not keep the principles, concepts of what Parker was teaching, and another to simply adapt a tech due to someone being short, having a disability, etc, but still keeping the above mentioned 'rules' of the art.


 
Sure, agreed.



MJS said:


> As for the Bujinkan...well, unless someone is just training for the sake of it, for history, etc, ok.  But if they're looking for SD, well....



Yeah... the Bujinkan's an odd beast... it's kinda trying to allow itself to be be whatever the person is looking for without dictating too much... which can lead to a lot of identity confusion... but I'll deal with that a bit later.



MJS said:


> As for not going into things...that's fine.  If it's something you want to talk about privately, you know how to reach me.  if not, that's fine too.
> 
> The link...can't disagree with anything mentioned there.  Oddly enough, I noticed they mentioned RBSD.  Usually any time that is mentioned on the forum, you get a mixed bag of results...some saying it's good, others saying it's not.



Honestly, that's because the term is often applied without understanding of the actual meaning... many think that they train "realistically", or "hard" (and they may well do), and think that's the same thing... it's not. As for not going into things, well... we'll see how the rest of this post turns out... 



Kframe said:


> Now not all Bujinkan instructors are teaching methodology unsuited to modern violence.  I know its my opinion, but I  feel that when you do find that good Dojo that you will be well served by what you find there.


 
Thing is, I'm not looking at instructors, I'm looking at the Bujinkan, and what it teaches (and how)... not quite the same thing.



Kframe said:


> Granted its really hard to find the good instructors.  I know what I feel makes mine so good, and I can not get in to specifics but they both have experience with real world, non sporting violence.  It shows in what they do and how they move.



It should show in understanding first and foremost. Movement, honestly, can be developed without such experience.



Kframe said:


> Having said that, I  am willing to believe that not counting a hand full of instructors, Chris parker is likely correct in his feelings regarding the Bujinkan over all and its current teachings.



Observation, rather than feeling, for the record... 



Kframe said:


> I feel that it is no small part due to crap students being allowed to be crap teachers. I asked why this was, and was told of something one of the Senior Shihan said.  We need the bad instructors so that the bad students go to them.  Not sure I like that policy.



Yeah... frankly, that's apologist garbage. 



Kframe said:


> In the end it is up to you to decide if the instructor and the art he is teaching,  is correct for you. If you feel what is taught is applicable to your views, how ever right or wrong they are, then do what you want and enjoy..



Yep, absolutely.



Kframe said:


> I wonder though about the Jinekan and the Genbukan. I wonder if the differences in there methodology and teaching styles will lead to something more effective in todays world or if they are plagued with there own issues.



As they focus far more than the Bujinkan do on the actual traditional material and methodologies, you might be mistaking a training approach (solid, hard training) for "effective"... they're not the same thing. I'll put it this way, you get two groups who are training in sword... one is more a "play" expression of sword, the other is strict, serious, and hard. Neither is therefore more applicable or "effective" in todays world... you'd need to look at what the actual reasons for sword training are to determine which is the better approach.



Kframe said:


> Ill say this, todays class for me highlighted some serious flaws in my previous training. I for one and seriously glad to have been uke for it.   I love it when he lets me try mma things on him.



Ha, cool. Not sure about relevance, though...  



Kframe said:


> I wonder if, old arts can develop, with in there core principals to better deal with modern violence?  Or if such a development would dilute the art to much. My gut is leaning towards yes/no/maybe but I don't know enough about OLD arts. The only koryu near me is just iajutsu school. http://yobushin.org/iaido/



Not without becoming something that's not Koryu, in many cases. Of course, there are many different forms of "effective", and many ways to apply or utilise principles in different contexts to that which it is designed for... I know of a story of a Shinto Muso Ryu (Jo... four foot staff) practitioner who used an evasive footwork from his Ryu combined with an improvised weapon to defend against a knife attack... what he did was almost textbook SMR... but that doesn't mean that the encounter he had was what SMR was designed for, or even that related to it's context. Then you have Araki Ryu, and it's particular approach... and you start to see how hard it can be to generalise in this area... 

But (Katayama) Hoki Ryu? Cool.



Kframe said:


> I think that weather or not a art can develop in such a manner as to even attempt to address modern violence is  going to be likely not a factor any way. If what I am reading is correct, many truly old arts such as koryu and what not, are not concerned with it.



Yep, exactly.



Kframe said:


> They just want to survive and to keep going.



Hmm, not so exactly.... 



Kframe said:


> Any martial benefits you acquire are a fringe benefit. Though ill be honest and wonder openly what it would look like if a Soke of a koryu decided to try and develop  a bit into modern violence.. I wonder how he would  do so.   Just a bit of my imagination at work



He wouldn't. Not in terms of what the Ryu is about, anyway. What he might do is integrate something else in order to fill a purpose (although that would rarely be modern violence... it's more likely to be something related to the existing skill sets of the system they head).



Brian R. VanCise said:


> First of Chris you and I agree on most things!!!


Might not be as much as you think, Brian.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> *However I find it laughable* that in Chris's opinion practitioner's from Budo Taijutsu cannot effectively use it for self-defense or that it is not effective for self-defense in today's world. (that is a joke) I assume that only RBSD can be used in self-defense Chris?  *That would be laughable as well*. (coming from someone who teaches what could easily be labled as RBSD ie. me)  Chris why do you even teach from the various ryu that incorporate what make up Budo Taijutsu if it is so ineffective?  I tell you why because you understand that what is there *is and can be really effective*!  Otherwise you would not teach *it at all* (which is what you do teaching from the ryu) if your were honest with yourself and your students.....


You have completely missed everything I said, Brian. Let's break this down.

I didn't say that Budo Taijutsu practitioners can't effectively use the methods to defend themselves, I said that Budo Taijutsu isn't designed (specifically) for it. You're reading into things by assuming you know what I'm saying, rather than actually reading what I'm saying.

No, RBSD is not the only thing that can be used in self defence, but it is (realistically) the only thing that is designed specifically around the context of modern violence and defence, because, well, that's it's entire context. Then again, I haven't mentioned RBSD at all in this thread. You're reading into things by assuming you know what I'm saying, rather than actually reading what I'm saying.

I never said anything about the material of the Ryu-ha being ineffective, just that they're not designed for modern self defence... effectiveness is always dependant on application and context. They are incredibly effective methods in their context... ignoring it (due to a desire for it to be something it's not) doesn't change anything. But why do I teach it? Because it is a very good way of exploring and ingraining certain lessons, there is historical interest, there is an interest in learning about how things develop, and how context changes the way an art works, and more. I just don't teach it with some false belief that ancient methods are suited for modern application. Mind you, none of this is anything to do with anything I've said, other than you thinking you know what's going on in my mind... in other words, you're reading into things by assuming you know what I'm saying, rather than actually reading what I'm saying.

When it comes to honesty, Brian, you're completely off the mark... teaching non-modern methods and claiming them to be preparation for modern self defence would be dishonest (or, at the very least, delusional). You're aiming that barb the wrong way, mainly, I feel, because you're reading into things by assuming you know what I'm saying, rather than actually reading what I'm saying.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> *While I will admit that some teacher's *(meaning from various martial systems) take a more realistic outlook at what self-defense entails and based on what I have seen I would include Chris and his instructor in that category, myself and a whole score of others.  The idea that an older system cannot be used in self-defense and be effective is ridiculous!  Try telling a Kajukenbo or San Shou guy or any of the guys I grew up with that they cannot use their system for self-defense. Nor does simply a system that has a long lineage mean that instructors *within it* do not teach their students current legal laws applicable to self-defense.  I cannot believe that someone who trained with Ed Parker in Kenpo were not taught some effective self-defense and legal ramifications for their actions.



Oh dear lord... so your defence here is that some instructors go beyond what is taught in their systems to deal with modern realities, and that means that the older systems (which, by definition at this point, don't include such things) are suited for modern realities? Then your examples are modern systems? Really? From there you go on about some connection between long lineages of instructors and modern laws in the teachings? What on earth are you going on about?



Brian R. VanCise said:


> I personally know people from Tae Kwon Do, Kempo, Silat, Kenpo, Modern Arnis, Balintawak, BJJ, IRT, Budo Taijutsu, Tang Soo Do, boxing, mma, Tai Chi, etc. that have utilized their system and self-defense training in a context that either avoided violence or actively helped them in getting out of a violent situation whether in civilian life or work related.



For crying out loud, Brian, point out where I said that practitioners couldn't use skills learnt in a martial art... really, point it out. You're seeing things that aren't said, meant, or intended. I haven't even addressed whether or not things could be used, I've only addressed what things are designed for.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> What I do feel we have seen is a rise of instructors that are teaching more about awareness, avoidance and action in conjunction with their societies laws and social norms.  A higher understanding in the area of the legal laws of self-defense in their area and this is really good.  *We should promote this at every opportunity*.  However, I would argue that many traditional or older systems also have had this in their teachings albeit better understood or passed on better by individual instructors.


 
Well, you've completely missed the point of the comments, then. It's really not necessary unless self defence is a primary aim of the system... and traditional systems didn't often have that much about legalities, but did have a lot about the social conventions and environment they came from. Of course, the fact that traditional systems teach about within the social conventions of their origins and culture simply means that, well, they teach about a culture and social conventions removed from modern requirements... so your point is...? I mean, learning about the social conventions of 17th Century Japan means exactly what when it comes to modern needs?



Brian R. VanCise said:


> The absolute finest example of this would be a Tae Kwon Do instructor whom I personally knew that made sure his students understood the law, legal ramifications and had it written into his system. (you could not advance without demonstrating knowledge in this particular area)   *He personally did it better than anyone else I have seen to date and he was a Tae Kwon Do guy*.(not one thing wrong with that)


 
Which was outside of the teachings of TKD, and brought in as a requirement of his school. It's still not a part of TKD itself, and doesn't mean that the physical aspects are actually designed for or suited to modern violence. And, before you read into that, I'm not saying it can't be used, just that that's not what it's designed for (on a range of levels). And please try to remember that I have a TKD background myself.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> It is not a can or cannot have it situation and one group does not have this area solely as their purview.


 
I really don't know what you think you're arguing against here.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Meaning that RBSD guy's simply cannot claim that they are the end all be all of self defense training because frankly there is some RBSD being taught out there that is frankly just plain crap.  Really just crap!!!  I was in a Las Vegas Training Hall just the other day watching an RBSD system being taught and it was awful.  So awful I could not believe the people there were paying for this training.  Having said that I really like most RBSD training that I have participated in as well as the people in it.  Still not all RBSD is the same as all others and there are what I would call scam artists in this area as well!



And... this means what? Pick any martial art, and you'll find bad examples....



Brian R. VanCise said:


> Chris your not part of the Bujinkan and your instructor is not part of it.  You need to understand that every time you personally take a dish at it that people are simply going to have issues with it.  The old adage if you do not have anything good to say applies here....  You left, your instructor left (a whole lot more to it than that) leave it at that.  You haven't trained in it for a long time (ie. Budo Taijutsu) and if I am correct you never trained in Japan so that obviously has *a lot* of bearing here.  I understand your situation and your organizations situation and your instructors situation as I know the details but stop taking digs at an organization that you are no longer affiliated with!  Bujinkan people have always been rather polite with you on this board by and large but every time I turn around you take a shot at the Bujinkan.  It is getting old!!!  *Your better than this!*



Okay, I'm going to quote directly my only comments about the Bujinkan here, Brian, and point out that I didn't bring the Bujinkan into this. Please point out an attack or diss on it:



Chris Parker said:


> See, it's just not that simple. The Ryu-ha (traditional schools) that make up the technical curriculum of the Bujinkan are antiquated (which is really just another way of saying they're developed and designed for a different context to a modern one), the new art that has grown out of those Ryu (Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu) is a modern system, but is not really geared up to address modern violence (despite rhetoric to the contrary). But, and here's where it gets a little more complicated, even if (and, depending on the instructor, when) Budo Taijutsu is adapted to address modern violence, that's not the Ryu-ha... and it is perfectly within the approach of the art itself (which makes it exclusive in your categorisation).
> 
> ......................................................................
> 
> ...



Read those comments again, Brian. Then read them again. Recognize that I was asked specifically if the Bujinkan's methods are "antiquated", to which I replied that the Ryu-ha material certainly is (and, if you think it isn't, bluntly, you don't have a clue about it), and immediately followed by saying that Budo Taijutsu is actually a modern system, which draws from the methods of the Ryu-ha, but that's it's just not geared up (designed for) handling modern violence. There are many reasons for this, primarily the fact that it's a Japanese art, and the aim is to explore the essence of martial arts as Hatsumi understands it, not to deal with modern violence in a society that has practically none. That's not an attack, Brian, it's an observation of reality.

My second comments are simply my answering MJS who asked if I think that the way things are taught in the Bujinkan are effective in todays world, and I answered honestly. Again, it's not a slight or an attack, it's an observation... perhaps you should take a better look at what exactly is being shown, and compare it against what would be needed for it to be effective today... frankly, the reason it is the way it is is because that's the way Hatsumi wants it. Being effective in todays world just isn't the focus of the Bujinkan... thinking that saying that equals an attack is just you showing a persecution complex here. 

And quit with the whole "you're not a part of the Bujinkan anymore, you can't say anything about it!" angle, it's flawed, incorrect, irrelevant, and just really bad debating practice. It makes you look like you don't have an argument or answer to any criticisms that might be there (there weren't any, despite you wanting to see them), and worse.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> I would add that Bujinkan practitioner's I came up with were a bunch of hard edged guy's typically with ten to fifteen years of hard contact training in another system. (Kickboxing, Shotokan, Kyokushinkai, Boxing, Tae Kwon Do, Arnis, etc.)  Military guys, law enforcement guy's and gals.  Tough guy's, not afraid to get punched in the face, guy's willing to travel very long distances for training and people who put in a lot of time to make their training work.  Michigan was blessed with a great core of Budo Taijutsu practitioners and still is.  I have no doubt these guy's could make their training work in self-defense and many have in work related endeavors.  Plus their was some legal teachings on what you could and could not do.  Just sayin.....



So damn what? How does them being "hard edged guys" mean that throwing techniques designed to take advantage of armour, targeting specifically to fight against armour, archaic weaponry, distancing concepts not matching modern violence, use of seiza and other postural concepts from another culture and time are all suddenly actually suited to modern situations in a completely different culture altogether? There was no mention of people not being able to use anything, there was comment on how things are taught and what the make up of the system is. No doubt was ever given for "toughness" of any practitioner at all. Seriously, get over this persecution complex... otherwise, I'm more than happy to actually start with genuine critiques and criticisms, so you do have something to complain about... but realize that they will all be backed up and illustrated quite completely (not that I'd expect to change the mind of any "true believers" out there... if it hasn't happened yet, it's not likely to now).



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Kendo is an exclusive art, as are, I'd imagine any koryu arts.  Hapkido is an inclusive system.  But instead of going further and rattling off examples, I'm going to respond to the below paragraph.



You might be surprised... but let's see about the rest.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Okay, I think we may be discussing two different subjects here.



Possible.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Using hapkido as an example, as I have familiarity with it.  Hapkido started off with a lot of grappling and comparatively little in the way of strikes and kicks.
> 
> As it passed from founder to senior students who opened their own studios and interracted with other KMA practitioners, kicks of all kinds were added, so many that hapkido actually has more kicks that KKW taekwondo, which has a lot of kicks!  But it was still hapkido.
> 
> ...



No, I'd say that each of these senior students created their own forms of Hapkido, some of which had a greater focus on kicking, some had forms, some have ground work. In the end, it's still all Hapkido, and all has to fit within that framework, as well as be appropriate to the aims, ideals, principles, and context(s) of Hapkido.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> As I said, I'm using hapkido because of familiarity with it.  There are other arts that doubtless do the same.  Such changes address a need or a perceived need.  Perhaps those needs arose as the art traveled from place to place.  Choi learned his skills in Japan (I'm not getting into the DRAJ debate; I have no dog in that race).  He took them to Korea.  He taught them, and then as his art spread in Korea, kicks became more prominent.  Now the art is taught in the west.  Groundfighting is more prominent in the west than head kicking (not implying that it has anything like the prominence of kicks in HKD; only that it is being addressed in some organizations and some studios).



Sure... which is all part of natural development of a relatively new art. The changes in the early generations of other arts I know are far more dramatic, but they all still stick to the way the art is at it's core.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Regarding an art addressing virtually every combative context, or even most, I agree with you; they don't.  However, within the context of civilian self defence, an art can develop to address the changing needs of that context and still remain that art, if it is an inclusive art.



If part of the idea of the art is that it looks to address such needs, and therefore constantly looks to keep up to date and cover what is felt to be needed, well, that's still just an art staying true to itself.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Just to clarify, when I say inclusive, I do not by any means refer to an art addressing many or every combative context.



Oh, I got that.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Does that make sense to you?



Yeah, still disagree, though. I think we're just addressing it from different perspectives, though.



oaktree said:


> Hi Kframe,
> 
> I find the Koryu arts to be very realistic and brutal. A lot of people see the kata in Koryu and think it is not realistic however because they do not train in the Koryu
> they can not understand the feeling of what is really happening. This does not only apply to Koryu of Japanese arts but also applies to the Chinese arts as well.
> I feel being able to train in the Koryu has been a great experience and alot of people I have met doing so have all been nice, humble people. Training in it will change you for the best.



Hi Oaktree,

I didn't know you'd trained in Koryu... which Ryu-ha, out of interest?

I agree that Koryu can be very brutal and realistic... but, then again, they can be quite the opposite as well. It depends on the Ryu-ha in question. Additionally, I wouldn't say that Koryu training (which Kframe isn't doing, for the record) will change anyone for the best... it's more that Koryu is a little more, uh, particular about who stays, in the main.

And, with that, back to Brian...



Brian R. VanCise said:


> *Hey K-Man nice post*. I would say that in regards to the above Chris learned from his instructor an early pioneer in Budo Taijutsu. This may be just the way they teach. Which could be in turn be like with several other early pioneers in the U.S. who had rather limited grasps of the material and went out teaching and adding things in that were not part of the system in the first place. (both physical and mental from books) This is in regards to that their depth and understanding of what they had may have been very limited and passed on in a much different way than what was intended. (hence eventually issues) Whether this is the case in Australia with Chris's instructor I can only guess and am not saying that it is but it certainly was this way in the United States. I would let Australian Budo Taijutsu people comment on that. (unfortunately I do not think we have any on the board) The very few I have met in Japan from Australia were quite good, with a good approach to reality!



Brian, one question... what the hell are you basing that on at all? "Added things in"?!?! What basis do you have for that idea at all? Frankly, and you might not like to hear this, the entire Bujinkan adds stuff in... from Hatsumi on down. In fact, he's constantly ignoring the material in the systems he heads in order to come up with completely different methods (which is what Budo Taijutsu really is)... so you're aiming that in exactly the wrong direction. Do you know what I taught at the class K-Man attended? It was only traditional material... I taught Ichimonji no Kamae, Jumonji no Kamae, Shizen no Kamae, and Hoko no Kamae... there were fundamental strikes (Fudo Ken, Omote Shuto Ken, and Ura Shuto Ken), Ude Uke as a fundamental "block", two basic movement patterns based on Ichimonji no Kata (Kihon Happo), one form with a Ken Kudaki aspect to it, some fundamental Gyaku Waza (Omote Gyaku, Ura Gyaku, Muso Dori and Oni Kudaki), two throws (Ganseki Nage and Osoto Gake), then some basic weapon handling for Hanbo and Ken, with a form of Koshi Ori and Tsuke Iri for Hanbo, and variations of Kocho Dori and Kiri Age Sayu Gyaku for sword... it covered the reasons for our stepping punching method, why the distance is so different to modern violence, understandings of the effect that different clothing and gear has on the mechanical methods, and so on. There was nothing added (I don't add anything, Brian... to do so is to miss the point of training in the traditional systems), and the traditional methods are not suited for modern violence... that's just the reality. If you think they are, then there's a real gap in your understanding of either the traditional methods or modern violence.

Tell you what, when you can match me in my discussions of the Ryu-ha, or traditional martial arts at all, then you can talk about who has limited grasps on things. In other words, your entire comment here is off base, baseless, and ignores what has actually been said by both myself and K-Man (you know, the guys who were there). I really don't need you to offer any form of "apology" for what you think I was showing, as you don't have the first clue what I presented.



Brian R. VanCise said:


> I would still say that there are a lot of really good self-defense practitioner's and instructors from older systems. Just like there are some really good ones from systems with a more modern starting date. Just like there are ones in almost all of them that are not so good! Just because some things says Modern or RBSD does not mean it is good and the exact same applies to some thing that is older. I see you practice Systema and Krav Maga and I like and appreciate both of those systems. Very solid fundamentals and practical on many, many levels. Yet, within each of those systems there are some really, really good instructors and practitioner's and some others that are not so good. (a few that are even goofballs) In the US many Krav Maga instructors were an instructor in another system, went to a weekend seminar and became a Krav Maga instructor over night. Most of those guy's or gal's are jokes in that particular system. So when training with anyone verify who and what they are, what they know, who they trained with and what depth of training they have had. This I feel is essential for anyone seeking out martial training whether for fitness, self-defense or personal growth or any other reason.



And, again, what on earth does this have to do with anything? It really doesn't matter if an art has both good and bad teachers, good and bad practitioners, or whatever... if it teaches for a context, it's not teaching for another one. That's it. This type of forced diplomacy just sounds either ignorant or disingenuous, honestly. Your advice at the end there, for the record, although common enough is largely unrealistic, and not quite of the importance you're giving it (and I do hope it's not a veiled reference to my teacher).



Brian R. VanCise said:


> *I personally understand* the point of self-defense being the driving force behind a system or does the system have a driving force behind it that is different. Really that is not to hard to understand but.... just because some systems may have had a different driving force does not mean that is cannot function in another area particularly if it's instructors understand that area fully and pass it on to their students. Just because some thing was designed for a battlefield does not mean that it cannot function very effectively in a self-defense encounter particularly if the individual understands the self-defense laws in their country, state, etc. Similarly a sporting martial system can be really effective in self-defense as well. Like wise a RBSD practitioner can be effective in self-defense and also probably in a battlefield setting with some additional training and a different mind set. Heck I know a couple of RBSD guy's that have been effective in the cage or a sporting context. Everything is not always black or white, quite often there are shades of grey in between! I have always lived by the idea of "no absolutes" or not letting some thing confine me or my approach to training. *I think this is essential!!! *Do not allow anyone to put you or your training in a box. Instead train but think outside of the box!!!
> 
> *"No limitations"*



So your answer is that all arts can do whatever you want them to, regardless of what they're actually designed to do? Seriously? You prefer to just ignore reality in favour of your idealised version? 

No. It just doesn't work that way. And the argument "hey, you can still probably use it" is completely missing the point of the argument... which is to do with what it's designed for, and how that manifests itself (as well as how it might need to be altered for a different context and need). You're arguing something that no-one else has. Again.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 14, 2014)

Sometimes, reading these boards, I'm reminded of a quote attributed to Winston Churchill...  that the US and England are "two countries divided by a common language."  I can't help but think we could safely say the same about Australia and the US.  I also think that sometimes, we don't take advantage of some of the benefits of textual communication: we can SEE exactly what someone actually said, which should make it easier to actually respond to their words, not what we believe we heard, and that we have time to double check what we thought we "heard" and make sure that we're actually answering it.

Of course, sometimes, I also wonder if messages aren't being lost in huge replies to multiple posts, where it can be kind of tricky to keep straight what was responding to what...


----------



## oaktree (Feb 14, 2014)

Hi Chris, 

 I practice Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu under the main line Kondo Katsuyuki. so far for a year I am working on the Hiden Mokuroku Ikkajo I finished the standing form(Tachiai)  and just starting the kneeling form(Idori) I will say that the book that the english copy that Stanley Pranin has produced is great reference however some things shown are the "public" version vs from learning from a teacher version.
I also practice Tenshin Katori Shinto ryu for about 3 months so far. Sensei told me who he first started off with in Tenshin Katori Shinto ryu, but I forgot however I do remember that he told me Kondo sensei saw him(my sensei) doing sword at Kondo sensei school in Japan and he gave my sensei a card with Otake sensei address and my sensei went to see Risuke Otake.  Sensei has said Otake sensei is his sensei in the arts. 

  My introduction into Japanese sword happen by chance actually, I met someone who was part of the  Tenshinsho Jigen ryu and he gave me his contact of his teacher. The Jigen ryu was hosting a seminar with Ueno Kaganori and invited me to come. I met Ueno Kaganori and the  Tenshinsho Jigen ryu sensei both invited me to join. Ueno sensei even invited me to his dojo in Saitama when I come to Japan. I have not been able to train in Jigen ryu yet as my work schedule is a little hectic however when things open up I would like to as my sensei and the sensei of Jigen ryu are friends.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 14, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> No, I'd say that each of these senior students created their own forms of Hapkido, some of which had a greater focus on kicking, some had forms, some have ground work.


In other words, yes.  As you said, "forms of hapkido."  Still hapkido.



Chris Parker said:


> In the end, it's still all Hapkido, and all has to fit within that framework, as well as be appropriate to the aims, ideals, principles, and context(s) of Hapkido.


Yes.  But context is not what I mean by inclusive/exclusive.



Chris Parker said:


> Sure... which is all part of natural development of a relatively new art. The changes in the early generations of other arts I know are far more dramatic, but they all still stick to the way the art is at it's core.


Agreed.  But my inclusive/exclusive categorization is not about an art straying vs. staying true to itself.  Within the context of an inclusive art, the art must as you say, stay true to itself, or it really becomes something else.



Chris Parker said:


> If part of the idea of the art is that it looks to address such needs, and therefore constantly looks to keep up to date and cover what is felt to be needed, well, that's still just an art staying true to itself.


This is essentially what I mean by an inclusive art.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 14, 2014)

Ah Chris it is always interesting chatting with you here on this forum.  You are the master at breaking everything down.  Like you I am in a mood and will elaborate on it following and try to remain PC.

*Unfortunately over the last five or so years *there has been a noticeable change in the way you post and you have repeatedly sniped at the Bujinkan.  Whether a snide comment hear or a snide comment there and frankly your actually limited in knowledge in regards to the Bujinkan and Budo Taijutsu.  Really well *book learned* but unfortunately you learned from an early pioneer who missed out on Hatsumi Sensei's teachings over the last twenty years or so.  Sorry that is just the way it is.  It was the same in the U.S. and when people found out how they had been manipulated and lied to they were really, really angry. (not saying your instructor did the same at all)  Just that he hasn't been around.  *No other system's practitioner's *on this board would tolerate this....  

While we actually do agree on a lot of things. (yes we do based on the way you post some times)

However you are really right we don't agree on your opinions of Budo Taijutsu and how you some times go out of your way to disparage the Bujinkan right up to Hatsumi Sensei.  Frankly, what bothered me was your comment that what is being taught in the Bujinkan is not effective in today's modern world. (pretty much the last straw)  *T**hat itself is a ridiculous statement on your part and shows a very lack of understanding of Budo Taijutsu the principles and the ryu-ha that make it up.*  Why, because they can be effective and have been effective in self-defense. (I am sure you will tell me now that you did not say this or mean it) They are taught effectively by many instructors around the world in a modern self-defense context.  Budo Taijutsu itself is a modern system with roots back to the ryu-ha that make it up. (you, yourself have even said this but must have forgotten that)   Heck, most systems around the world have a level of modernity to them in that they have ancient origins but modern applications. (ie. they are being taught by modern people in today's modern times)  Though of course a few preserve their teachings very well in a vacuum.

Over the last several years now you personally have gone out of your way to slowly discredit the Bujinkan, Budo Taijutsu and even Hatsumi on this board.  One small word or two at a time.  One only needs to go back and look through the posts.  Why, I don't know because you attempt to teach from the ryu-ha that make it up.  Or maybe it is because of how your group, your instructor is not part of the Bujinkan after what happened with your instructor.   I think people need to understand that you personally have issues with the Bujinkan which was the core of your system because frankly you guy's are out of the Bujinkan.   So you take a swipe at it regularly.  People wonder and I am sure the owner and current moderators wonders why there are not many Bujinkan people on this board? (there used to be)  Frankly they cannot call out people regularly on this board without getting into trouble.  So limited truths, half truths can be posted as fact when they are not by someone who may or may not have knowledge in the area. (not saying you do not have some knowledge)  Instead those same people in the Bujinkan, Genbukan and Jinenkan frequent other boards where they can get after it (ie. call someone out especially neo-ninjas with no direct link to Japan) and where someone would not post like this because it won't be tolerated.  

However, this is just not a Bujinkan related thing as how many new people have also been run off.  How many people have been called son in a derogatory manner. (which is very, very, very rude)  How many people on this board have been told that they were wrong. (even though most of them were not they just had a different opinion)  I have seen it done dozens of times! (way to many to count) This is not friendly and goes against what this board is about.

MartialTalk is a friendly board but it is hard to be friendly with someone when they go out of there way to discredit others and or let them know they are wrong for expressing their opinion.  Or go around calling grown men son.  Personally I think Bujinkan members and some other practitioners on this board are owed an apology!  My o2........


----------



## K-man (Feb 14, 2014)

jks9199 said:


> Sometimes, reading these boards, I'm reminded of a quote attributed to *William* Churchill...  that the US and England are "two countries divided by a common language."  I can't help but think we could safely say the same about Australia and the US.


Ouch! On behalf of my Pommy mates who have become thinner on the ground over the years, could I point out that referring to their Winnie as "William" is akin to me calling that well regarded American figure "Geoffrey" Washington.


----------



## Kframe (Feb 14, 2014)

I think brian, that while the actual as shown kata of the Bujinkan may not be modern but they are not the sole method of teaching.  As you know, around here (im part of that core group in the Michigan area, they all train together)  that the teachers are also responsible for teaching application out side of the kata.  Just look at the videos of soke. He is not doing just simple kata, he is applying the methods in the ryu.     

I feel that  there is not much that is not applicable to real modern defense. I have come to appreciate the distancing of this art, and while that distance is the one we practice the most, we do practice in the other ranges as well.  I am not totally sure about the step punch , but  that dos not mean it does not work. I am just used to a more boxing style. There is something to be said about well placed precision strikes over a barrage of  missed ones. 


Brian I think you and I will agree that at current time, it is intended that as Bujinkan members(I don't remember if your still a member or not, forgive me if im wrong), we are expected to learn the classical ryu-ha material and then learn how to apply it.  So far my understanding and the feeling im getting from those  around me is that we practice applying the material in both the old context and the context of our modern lives and modern violence.   I just don't see much that isn't or cant be used for modern self defense or violence.  

I feel just because some of the arts were designed for a older context, does not mean that the material taught with in them is not able to be used for modern defense or violence. 

Now ill throw out my own critique, a small one. As im being taught it, I find the various parries to be more use full then the jodan uke.  I find it to slow to get into deployment vs faster striking. Now it might just be my  low level of understanding  and that im only at the beginner stage of learning it(learning it in a bigger more exaggerated form right now) , but I feel that right now it is just to slow.. Now im sure as I learn the move more correctly as time goes on, in a more compact form I may find my view change. 

Even then the various parries we are taught I feel would be better suited to modern violence.


----------



## jks9199 (Feb 14, 2014)

K-man said:


> Ouch! On behalf of my Pommy mates who have become thinner on the ground over the years, could I point out that referring to their Winnie as "William" is akin to me calling that well regarded American figure "Geoffrey" Washington.



My apologies.  Written after a very long day...  We've had a bit of weather in these parts, and it had a bit of impact on work over the last few days.   I should know that it was Sir Winston Churchill.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 14, 2014)

Kframe said:


> I think brian, that while the actual as shown kata of the Bujinkan may not be modern but they are not the sole method of teaching.  As you know, around here (im part of that core group in the Michigan area, they all train together)  that the teachers are also responsible for teaching application out side of the kata.  Just look at the videos of soke. He is not doing just simple kata, he is applying the methods in the ryu.
> 
> I feel that  there is not much that is not applicable to real modern defense. I have come to appreciate the distancing of this art, and while that distance is the one we practice the most, we do practice in the other ranges as well.  I am not totally sure about the step punch , but  that dos not mean it does not work. I am just used to a more boxing style. There is something to be said about well placed precision strikes over a barrage of  missed ones.
> 
> ...



Hi KFrame,

I am a Bujinkan member and while I am heavily invested in what I do in Instinctive Response Training and the FMA I will always be a Bujinkan member and have affiliation and training with my teachers and the Japanese Shihan and Sensei when I can.  Budo Taijutsu is a system that is very near and dear to my heart!  That is why I have an issue with anyone trying to paint it in a negative light!

With Jodan Uke your footwork, angle and distancing needs to be efficient and is best utilized against a committed attack. (ie. not a jab though it can work there as well if your timing is sharp)  Once footwork, angling and distancing are efficient and timing gets worked out you will find it works really well against a committed attack.

Classical throws from Budo Taijutsu work great when modified and if someone has trained extensively and with lots of henka they will have absolutely no problem utilizing them.  Even better certain throws utilized versus armor in Japans feudal past work great against certain western clothing ie. suits, winter jackets, etc.  Not to mention they are fantastic in training military personnel in full combat gear and anyone wearing body armor.  Very practical, very efficient and great structural alignment!  Mind that some people have not seen them in there finest combative applications unless they trained in Japan or there instructor did.

I would add that we are blessed to have trained in Michigan but..... there are many fantastic Bujinkan practitioner's around the world.  Many who have trained very hard and sought out the best training in Japan and or had a link with an instructor who trains in Japan.  In the Bujinkan or any of the Takmatsuden arts this is very important.  When I have been in Japan the level of training was fantastic and the commitment of the practitioner's there to their training was without question!  Imagine the commitment to go regularly or move to Japan for training.  That is some thing very special.  I just had the opportunity today to make contact with a European Shihan whom I met and observed train, teach in Japan.  He is without question very good at what he does!  Lots of really, really good people in the Bujinkan as well as other Takamatsuden arts like the Jinekan and Genbukan.  Lots of really good practitioner's there as well.

*This is a big system, think really big, a grand system.*  There are almost no systems on earth the size of the Bujinkan that are run by one individual.  Hatsumi Sensei is one of the worlds great martial practitioners.  He is also probably the most video taped martial practitioner this world has ever seen.  He teaches principles and that can include looking absolutely amazing and also looking average.  There is always a lesson to be learned from his movement  Why, because he is not afraid to show anything because he is very unique and confident in his approach!  He is also a national treasure in Japan and has received some incredibly prestigious awards for his efforts to propagate Japanese martial arts.  

I am glad you are enjoying your training and while I have not met your instructor (though we may have been in the same room) I personally know who taught him and he is absolutely very, very good at what he does!  I had him regularly up to my Training Hall in Michigan and we of course learned initially from the same teacher during that same time frame a long time ago.  That time was an amazing time with Doron Navon coming regularly as well as a slew of great practitioners. (tough hard edged guys)

Keep training and enjoy!


----------



## Kframe (Feb 15, 2014)

Thank you Brain for the Insights! Just using my own past mma experience I can see your point about the jab it is incredibly hard to deal with.  How ever that is not the same for the cross. This very thing is why we have more then just a few ways to defend a punch. One set way is not enough.   I wonder though with enough practice and condensing of the form if you can get Jodan compact enough to use it on more faster striking styles.  I was told a story about the way Nagato Shihan throws his in practice and that his form is so compact and fast that I can be hard to pick out the movement, yet still hit like a hammer.   

Things may have to be modified, but that modification may not have to be large. Say a shift in weight, or a bend in the knee or some thing small. I Like the fact that I don't bend over to far, or in a lot of cases don't turn my back to my opponent..   I also know that, a quality trained Bujinkan member who doesn't want to be thrown, will be hard to throw. (as I found out recently.) I think in some cases, they don't need much modification, which is still that same technique, just henka! 

I am starting to move away from set in stone, black and white views of this art. Thanks in large part to the discussion and teachings from my teachers.  I am starting to feel that here is no black and white, nothing set in stone.  It seams, at least  were I am, everything can be varied in a way as to be made applicable to any marital situation.  Which I feel is what, maybe is the point of this art. 

Either way right or wrong, it doesn't matter.  What happens when the hammer drops is up to you.


----------



## KydeX (Feb 15, 2014)

Not being set in stone is at the core of the Bujinkan. My main instructor says Hatsumi him self has said "do everything halfway". Meaning you should'nt be so dedicated in your techniques that you can't alter it in a split second to accommodate a change in the situation. This is also the reason for doing all the henkas/variations. It will train you to be able to adapt your techniques to the situation at hand, so you always will find something that works. Not all techniques or tactics work against all adversaries. You must be able to adapt.


----------



## Kframe (Feb 15, 2014)

Kydex I to have heard that very statement. I heard it on my second or third class.  I think its funny that you heard it, in almost the exact same way as I did.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 19, 2014)

oaktree said:


> Hi Chris,
> 
> I practice Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu under the main line Kondo Katsuyuki. so far for a year I am working on the Hiden Mokuroku Ikkajo I finished the standing form(Tachiai)  and just starting the kneeling form(Idori) I will say that the book that the english copy that Stanley Pranin has produced is great reference however some things shown are the "public" version vs from learning from a teacher version.
> I also practice Tenshin Katori Shinto ryu for about 3 months so far. Sensei told me who he first started off with in Tenshin Katori Shinto ryu, but I forgot however I do remember that he told me Kondo sensei saw him(my sensei) doing sword at Kondo sensei school in Japan and he gave my sensei a card with Otake sensei address and my sensei went to see Risuke Otake.  Sensei has said Otake sensei is his sensei in the arts.
> ...



Ah, quite an interesting mix there! Very nice!



Daniel Sullivan said:


> In other words, yes.  As you said, "forms of hapkido."  Still hapkido.



No, in other words, still no. If it all stays Hapkido, and simply has different emphasis' for different forms of Hapkido, it's still just the single art, not one art that then adds and includes from outside.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Yes.  But context is not what I mean by inclusive/exclusive.



No, it isn't, and it isn't the only thing I put down either... however, if the methods that are added/developed (a higher emphasis on kicking, expanding to ground work etc) doesn't fit the context, then it stops being Hapkido in the first place.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> Agreed.  But my inclusive/exclusive categorization is not about an art straying vs. staying true to itself.  Within the context of an inclusive art, the art must as you say, stay true to itself, or it really becomes something else.



All arts must stay true to themselves, or they cease to be that art, and become something else, whether a completely new art, or just a new version of an existing one.



Daniel Sullivan said:


> This is essentially what I mean by an inclusive art.



Yeah, I got that... but I'm still not convinced that such distinctions actually exist.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 19, 2014)

I'll come back to Brian's other posts, but to look at the second conversation going on here first...



Kframe said:


> I think brian, that while the actual as shown kata of the Bujinkan may not be modern but they are not the sole method of teaching.  As you know, around here (im part of that core group in the Michigan area, they all train together)  that the teachers are also responsible for teaching application out side of the kata.  Just look at the videos of soke. He is not doing just simple kata, he is applying the methods in the ryu.



Hmm... To be honest, Kframe, this is a bit above your pay grade still, but this isn't exactly true... it can be quite a mistake to confuse training in the Bujinkan with training in the methods of the Ryu... or to mistake what Hatsumi shows as being the methods of the Ryu themselves as well. In short, kata are the primary method of teaching/training in the Ryu-ha of the Bujinkan, however henka (variations) are a more common teaching/training method of the Bujinkan itself... and there is no application outside of the kata, as the kata is very specifically the application itself. To apply methods that are found in the kata outside of the kata is to not be training the kata, but something else... and what Hatsumi shows is different again, as it is less about what is found in the Ryu, or even in the kata, but are more about exploration of the essence of martial arts as he understands it, from many decades and wide-reaching experiences across a number of arts.



Kframe said:


> I feel that  there is not much that is not applicable to real modern defense.



Sojutsu, Naginatajutsu, Kusarigama, Bisento, Suwarigata (from seiza), huge numbers of the traditional kata, sword work, jutte, shinodake, shuko, and much, much more... My point is that, well, you've seen pretty much nothing of the scope of the art yet, so saying that you don't feel there's much that's not applicable to real, modern self defence might not be the most informed statement you could make. I'll put it this way: I know and am familiar with all of the kata from all of the commonly taught Ryu-ha within the Bujinkan, as well as a large number of related systems not officially taught within the auspices of the organisation, armed, unarmed, and non-combative, as well as quite a bit of the non-kata material from each as well. Additionally, our organisation has a great focus on understanding and having awareness of the realities of modern violence, which affords me access to a lot of information and insight into that side of things as well... which is where I'm coming from. When I say that the traditional material isn't suited to modern self defence, I'm not saying that as an attack or insult, but a recognition of the reality of the situation (on both sides).



Kframe said:


> I have come to appreciate the distancing of this art, and while that distance is the one we practice the most, we do practice in the other ranges as well.  I am not totally sure about the step punch , but  that dos not mean it does not work. I am just used to a more boxing style. There is something to be said about well placed precision strikes over a barrage of  missed ones.



Okay, then, how would you describe the distancing of the art? And, when you've done that, can you contrast it with the distancing that common assaults take place from? There's a reason that the distancing is different between a modern assault, traditional Taijutsu, and boxing (as well as others)...



Kframe said:


> Brian I think you and I will agree that at current time, it is intended that as Bujinkan members(I don't remember if your still a member or not, forgive me if im wrong), we are expected to learn the classical ryu-ha material and then learn how to apply it.  So far my understanding and the feeling im getting from those  around me is that we practice applying the material in both the old context and the context of our modern lives and modern violence.


 
I don't think you're expected to learn the classical Ryu-ha material, really, unless you're interested in it... there just isn't any such dictate in the organisation, nor does Hatsumi's methodology support such an idea. To learn from it, to explore martial arts using the classical material as a starting point, that I'd agree with...

Oh, but for the record, learning the classical Ryu-ha and it's methods is learning it's application... giving a different application in a different context is not learning the Ryu-ha.



Kframe said:


> I just don't see much that isn't or cant be used for modern self defense or violence.



See above.



Kframe said:


> I feel just because some of the arts were designed for a older context, does not mean that the material taught with in them is not able to be used for modern defense or violence.



Hmm. Actually, that's exactly what it means. What it doesn't mean is that the principles and concepts/ideas there can't be adapted to modern application, but that's something else again.



Kframe said:


> Now ill throw out my own critique, a small one. As im being taught it, I find the various parries to be more use full then the jodan uke.  I find it to slow to get into deployment vs faster striking. Now it might just be my  low level of understanding  and that im only at the beginner stage of learning it(learning it in a bigger more exaggerated form right now) , but I feel that right now it is just to slow.. Now im sure as I learn the move more correctly as time goes on, in a more compact form I may find my view change.
> 
> Even then the various parries we are taught I feel would be better suited to modern violence.



Jodan Uke simply means "High Level Receiving", and can refer to a range of different actions within the curriculum of the Bujinkan's methods... it can be a forearm deflection, a circular counter-strike (sometimes called a "knuckle block"), a gentle "checking" action, or a range of others... and even within this short list, there are a range of different ways they're done, depending on the Ryu that it's being taken from (Gyokko Ryu has a preferred method, Koto does it differently, it's quite different again for Kukishinden and so on)... so without seeing exactly what it is you're being shown as "Jodan Uke" in this instance, it's hard to say what it's best applied for, or how it should be altered for other situations. The reason that it's done differently is, well, because each of the systems has a different context itself (there is no single "Bujinkan Ryu" context)... Kukishinden's version of Jodan Uke is due to the attacks it faces... Shinden Fudo's is due to the "natural movement" ideals of the system... Takagi Yoshin is based on a closer, faster form of attack (non-battlefield, unarmoured), and so on. The "slower" versions are commonly found in systems with armoured combat at their core, so you know... 



Kframe said:


> Thank you Brain for the Insights! Just using my own past mma experience I can see your point about the jab it is incredibly hard to deal with.  How ever that is not the same for the cross. This very thing is why we have more then just a few ways to defend a punch. One set way is not enough.   I wonder though with enough practice and condensing of the form if you can get Jodan compact enough to use it on more faster striking styles.  I was told a story about the way Nagato Shihan throws his in practice and that his form is so compact and fast that I can be hard to pick out the movement, yet still hit like a hammer.


 
Depends on the form of Jodan Uke you're talking about when it comes to jabs... some adapt pretty nicely (small forearm deflections), others not so much. As far as Nagato's Jodan Uke still "hitting like a hammer", that's because it's not his arm doing the hitting...   



Kframe said:


> Things may have to be modified, but that modification may not have to be large. Say a shift in weight, or a bend in the knee or some thing small. I Like the fact that I don't bend over to far, or in a lot of cases don't turn my back to my opponent..   I also know that, a quality trained Bujinkan member who doesn't want to be thrown, will be hard to throw. (as I found out recently.) I think in some cases, they don't need much modification, which is still that same technique, just henka!



No, it's both more and less than that... what is needed is a complete change of context... which might mean a slight change to mechanics, or a large one, or anything in between. 



Kframe said:


> I am starting to move away from set in stone, black and white views of this art. Thanks in large part to the discussion and teachings from my teachers.  I am starting to feel that here is no black and white, nothing set in stone.  It seams, at least  were I am, everything can be varied in a way as to be made applicable to any marital situation.  Which I feel is what, maybe is the point of this art.



Okay. 



Kframe said:


> Either way right or wrong, it doesn't matter.  What happens when the hammer drops is up to you.



Well, sorta, but not necessarily. The training has to be geared towards the intended result... if it's not, there's no point saying "well, it was up to you to make it work" if it just wasn't intended to do the job you expect.


----------



## Chris Parker (Feb 19, 2014)

I'll come back to deal with Brian's posts tomorrow.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Feb 19, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> No, in other words, still no. If it all stays Hapkido, and simply has different emphasis' for different forms of Hapkido, it's still just the single art, not one art that then adds and includes from outside.
> 
> No, it isn't, and it isn't the only thing I put down either... however, if the methods that are added/developed (a higher emphasis on kicking, expanding to ground work etc) doesn't fit the context, then it stops being Hapkido in the first place.


You just disagreed and then made the same point with different wording. 



Chris Parker said:


> All arts must stay true to themselves, or they cease to be that art, and become something else, whether a completely new art, or just a new version of an existing one.


Again, you're simply repeating point that you quoted.  I cannot tell from the tone of your writing if you're attempting a correction or agreeing.  Please clarify.



Chris Parker said:


> Yeah, I got that... but I'm still not convinced that such distinctions actually exist.


Yeah, I get that.  But I'm not really interested in convincing you.  I shared my viewpoint.  If you agree, that's nice.  If you don't, that's nice too, but I don't depend upon other posters for affirmation of my viewpoint.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Feb 19, 2014)

Chris, 

It really looks like you are trying to make the Bujinkan and Budo Taijutsu specifically into an antiquated martial art.  However, that is not how Hatsumi Sensei teaches or does things.  His approach is very modern and adaptable.  That is actually a core strength of his teaching and why Budo Taijutsu is effective in modern times.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Feb 19, 2014)

Chris, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anything you've written in this thread but I'm going to play devil's advocate by suggesting an alternate perspective.

The perspective that you have consistently voiced in this and other threads seems to be that a martial arts style is a discrete, static thing in itself - an integrated collection of principles, tactics, techniques, and training methods formed for a specific purpose in a specific historical context.  From this perspective, new material brought in by an instructor which isn't tied to that original context isn't actually part of the system.  From this perspective, making any significant changes to the principles or tactics of the style means that you've basically made a new style and abandoned the old one.  

This is a valid perspective and useful for many purposes.

Another valid perspective is that this Platonic ideal of a martial art doesn't actually exist anywhere in reality.  There are only individual human beings doing whatever it is they do at different points in their lives and choosing to call it by various names.  Without those individuals, there is nothing in the real world that you can point to and say "this is Goju Ryu, this is Tai Chi."

From this perspective, you start to realize that a "style" can evolve in its techniques, principles, tactics, and training methods while still retaining the same name.  It can evolve in the practice of a single practitioner over years of study.  It can evolve as a series of teachers and students adapt the art to their individual needs and sensibilities.  This evolution doesn't have to be linear, it can be branching in different directions - within a community of practitioners of a given "style" there may be individuals applying different principles to the "same" art.  Conversely, there may be individuals who are training in essentially the same way as each other but calling their system by a different name because of political splits between teachers.

Realizing that humans are often inconsistent helps to understand why some styles are not truly integrated in their principles, tactics, techniques, and training methods.  I've seen schools where the kata used one set of movement principles, sparring used a different set, and the "self-defense" techniques used still another.  Being descriptive rather than prescriptive, I'm not going to claim that these people aren't practicing a real style (or that they're practicing 3 styles under one name).  People do what they do and they can call it what they like.

To put all this in concrete terms, I'll look at my current primary art, BJJ.  Putting aside Gracie family spin as much as possible, here's my current understanding of BJJ history:

BJJ started in the 1920's with Carlos Gracie, who had a foundation of only around 3 years of judo training.  In the ensuing decades, the Gracie family (especially Carlos's brother Helio) and their students developed the art into something uniquely their own.  The primary crucible for this development was fighting.  Specifically, it was fighting (for the most part) unarmed, one-on-one challenge matches in a culture heavily influenced by concepts of honor and machismo.  In this context, Gracie Jiu-Jitsu practitioners fought thousands of fights in the ring, in the streets, in dojos, and on beaches.  Most of these fights were against non-jiu jitsu practitioners (either street fighters or exponents of other martial arts).  A large part of these would fall into the category of "social" violence for status and dominance.  Rules were largely informal and socially enforced.  (If we're fighting and your friends jump in to help you, then my brothers will jump in on my side.  If you bite or eye-gouge me, then I'll get a dominant position and bite and eye-gouge you back.)

From this experience, the Gracie family developed an art with a coherent set of principles (relaxation, leverage, patience), tactics (control the distance, clinch, takedown, finish with ne-waza, staying safe from strikes all the time), techniques (originally from judo, but refined from experience, with more techniques added over time from other sources), and training methods (heavy on the sparring) for a specific context (challenge fighting in the macho Brazilian culture).

Even at this time, however, there was more to the art.  The Gracie curriculum included a number of self-defense* techniques for dealing with unarmed and armed assaults in a non-challenge setting.  Though not as well documented as the challenge matches, we have anecdotal testimony that these techniques were used successfully on a number of occasions.  These used the same physical principles as the rest of the curriculum, but did not necessarily rely on the same tactical doctrines as were used for challenge matches.  Strikes were part of the art. (Helio Gracie won one match by knocking out his opponent with a side kick.)  In addition, over time a number of high-level practitioners started viewing jiu-jitsu as a vehicle for developing moral character.

*(By self-defense in this context I mean just the physical methods for dealing with an assault, not the larger study of avoiding the assault in the first place.)

In 1967, sport BJJ competition was introduced with rules and a point system.  Originally the points were intended to reward actions that would be effective in a real fight.  Over time, competitors began focusing on tactics that were effective within the confines of the rules without regard to combat effectiveness.  As more and more practitioners began preparing for competition, many of them began neglecting major aspects of the art such as throws, striking, and striking defense.  Instead they devoted that time and energy into perfecting increasingly sophisticated grappling maneuvers which are effective under the rules of the sport, but questionable for real fighting.

At the start of the modern MMA era, BJJ practitioners were able to win fights by using the classic Gracie jiu-jitsu tactical doctrine - control the distance and then get the clinch and takedown without ever having to engage in the striking range.  Over time opponents learned and grew adept at distance management, takedown defense, and regaining the feet after a takedown.  Nowadays that doctrine has been largely abandoned in high-level competition.  MMA fighters train to handle all ranges and regard BJJ as something to use only while on the ground.  (This approach is not limited to MMA competitors.  I've had at least one high-level BJJ black belt tell me that he would never choose to go to the ground in a real fight - but that if someone takes him down they have a surprise waiting for them.  Mind you, that individual is highly skilled at stand-up methods.)

This is turning into a long essay, so I'll omit details about methods from other arts which have migrated into BJJ and the adaption of BJJ methods for law-enforcement.

So all that said, what is BJJ?  What is its purpose and context?  What are its tactical doctrines?

Is it a complete method for fighting challenge bouts?
Is it a complete method for physical self-defense?
Is it a sport with a specific rule-set?
Is it a component in a larger set of skills for MMA or self-defense?
Is it a fun way to exercise?
Is it a vehicle for personal self-improvement?

My answer is that it can be any and all of these, depending on who is practicing it.  I teach my beginners class largely from a self-defense standpoint (including some basics of avoidance and escape), but I try to lay the foundation for students who want to explore the rest of the art.  I practice myself primarily for enjoyment and self-improvement, but I'm exploring the sport aspect for the sake of grasping the art as a whole.

I suspect that you could examine a lot of arts meaningfully from this sort of perspective.


----------



## MJS (Feb 19, 2014)

Chris Parker said:


> I think I'm just in this mood... this might be interesting....
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, agreed.



Ok.





> Yeah... the Bujinkan's an odd beast... it's kinda trying to allow itself to be be whatever the person is looking for without dictating too much... which can lead to a lot of identity confusion... but I'll deal with that a bit later.



I guess, to be a bit more clear, my point was kind of along the lines of Brian's post.  Unless someone is training JUST for historical purposes, and IF the Bujinkan isn't for SD, then why train in it?  Personally, I think that the majority of the arts out there, were designed for SD.  Its the watered down crap that we see today, that sucks as SD.  





> Honestly, that's because the term is often applied without understanding of the actual meaning... many think that they train "realistically", or "hard" (and they may well do), and think that's the same thing... it's not.



IMHO, I think that those guys who train in those systems, most likely do train hard, realistically, and also cover the non physical things, ie: avoiding a situation before it happens, talking your way out, etc.



> As for not going into things, well... we'll see how the rest of this post turns out...



Ok.





> Thing is, I'm not looking at instructors, I'm looking at the Bujinkan, and what it teaches (and how)... not quite the same thing.



On the flip side, we all know that the Buj does not have a standard set of things to teach for each rank.  I believe the Genbukan and jinenkan are much more structured in what's taught for each kyu/dan grade.


----------



## MJS (Feb 19, 2014)

> So damn what? How does them being "hard edged guys" mean that throwing techniques designed to take advantage of armour, targeting specifically to fight against armour, archaic weaponry, distancing concepts not matching modern violence, use of seiza and other postural concepts from another culture and time are all suddenly actually suited to modern situations in a completely different culture altogether? There was no mention of people not being able to use anything, there was comment on how things are taught and what the make up of the system is. No doubt was ever given for "toughness" of any practitioner at all. Seriously, get over this persecution complex... otherwise, I'm more than happy to actually start with genuine critiques and criticisms, so you do have something to complain about... but realize that they will all be backed up and illustrated quite completely (not that I'd expect to change the mind of any "true believers" out there... if it hasn't happened yet, it's not likely to now).



So Chris, wouldn't this mean then, that things should change with the times, despite culture?  Are people running around Japan with armor at this current time?  I doubt it, no more than they are doing that here.  Adapt, modify, adjust, to the current times.


----------

