Claims on the Internet.

[Aegis]

From an easily accessible source on Judo (Judo Information Site):

Dr. Jigoro Kano, founder of modern Judo, was born in the town of Mikage in the Hyogo Prefecture, on October 28, 1860. Shihan Kano never viewed the martial arts as a means to display physical prowess or superiority. As a pacifist, he studied them to find a way to live in peace with other human beings. In his youth Kano studied Jujutsu under a number of different masters. Sensei Teinosuke Yagi was his first teacher, but at the age of 18 he entered the dojo of Tenshin-Shinyo Sensei Hachinosuke Fukuda. Upon graduation from Tokyo University, he studied the Kito tradition under Sensei Iikubo. By his mid-twenties, Shihan Kano had been initiated into the secret teachings of both ryus.

(emphasis mine)

Doesn't sound like he started at 17 now, does it?

See, at the age of 18 he changed masters, which is probably what has people like you confused. If you are concerned about how quickly he got his "inner secret" training within this art, then remember that he had been training for some years in a different style of jujutsu before coming to this master, so wouldn't have had to go as slowly as normal novices.

Remember that what defined Judo wasn't a set of new moves, or an unbeatable new style, it was instead a principle (maximising efficiency). If I recall correctly, this basically meant mastering a few of the old techniques first, then expanding on them, rather than Jujutsu, where you would learn bits of everything and gradually get good at all of them.

Essentially there wasn't much difference initially between Judo and some styles of jujutsu. What changed was the ability to practise Judo at full pace on someone else under controlled circumstances (randori). After a while, the more dangerous elements were reduced to kata form only, and eventually forgotten completely.

Not that I can say for sure, but I believe that a lot of styles of Jujutsu today would almost be Judo in its original form, as they follow the same principals and training methods as judo did at its creation.

His other contribution was the introduction of a set of ethics, which still live on in a lot of martial artists, but have been lost on others: good character, honest conduct, etc.

So, what am I saying? I'm saying that Kano did NOT try to create something new, nor did he do what he did for glory's sake. He revolutionised teaching methods by coming up with safe ways of training while not losing the deadliness of technique. I doubt many people since then can claim to have had such a huge influence on martial arts.


My general advice on creating a new system is this: if you have nothing new to offer, don't start a new system. Until you have attained a level of mastery in one or more arts, you are not likely to have anything new to offer.

 

[yilisifu]

Yes. Dr. Kano had studied jujutsu for quite some time before developing judo.

It is well to remember also that in the "old days", a given "style" was usually tested in battle. If it didn't work, it's creator died. I'm sure there were many "new styles" created back then that we've never heard of because of this.
Nowadays, the law tends to get kind of persnickety about duelling and wars aren't fought with sticks and swords...

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by Aegis

My general advice on creating a new system is this: if you have nothing new to offer, don't start a new system. Until you have attained a level of mastery in one or more arts, you are not likely to have anything new to offer. [/B]

The major differances is that more and more schools are adding some form of ground grappling. Whether it be more defense against a ground grappler, all out ground grappling or a portion of class time "understanding" ground grappling.

People seem to be down on new systems, but the high numbers of martial artists makes new systems some thing that are here to stay.

See this thread:http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=116127#post116127

The way I train is my way, about 65-70% standup and 30-35% ground grappling. Accept it or not, dosen't matter in the least.

But no one system out there can "say", much less "prove" that they teach "what" I teach or the "method of teaching" that I use.


One last note: Before the first UFC I was exposed to but did not practice MMA. Way back in the '70's Mr. Tarow Hayashi was teaching full contact free form martial arts and was also holding competitions in this format. Mr. Hayashi was at that time my brother-in-laws instrucor. My Sensei's teacher. Mr. Hayashi pioneered free form combat and most kickboxers of that time did not fight nor practice in that way.

http://www.hayashismartialarts.com/free_form_combat.htm

I give credit to the UFC for making me think the way I do but when I saw the UFC I already new that Karate and Ju Jitsu could be practiced as one.:asian:

 

[Matt Stone]

Yiliquan.

My teacher teaches it one way.

Chufeng teaches it another way.

I teach it still another way.

We all teach the same material, but we all have our own preferences, our own body types, our own methods of presenting information...

So since I teach it differently than my teacher taught me, presenting the same information in different language, different demonstration, with my own emphasis on certain things, does it really make what I am doing a "new system?"

No.

The material remains the same. The standards of performance remain the same. That's what makes it a system in the first place.

How it is presented is a product of the personality of the teacher, and personality doesn't change the system, just the direction that that instructor's students may take.

Just a thought...

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by Yiliquan1
Yiliquan.

My teacher teaches it one way.

Chufeng teaches it another way.

I teach it still another way.

We all teach the same material, but we all have our own preferences, our own body types, our own methods of presenting information...

So since I teach it differently than my teacher taught me, presenting the same information in different language, different demonstration, with my own emphasis on certain things, does it really make what I am doing a "new system?"

No.

The material remains the same. The standards of performance remain the same. That's what makes it a system in the first place.

How it is presented is a product of the personality of the teacher, and personality doesn't change the system, just the direction that that instructor's students may take.

Just a thought...

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

Thats my point the material is no longer the same.

 

[KennethKu]

To make such criteria as age and number of years of training as indication of qualification to create a new style, misses the boat completely.

To illustrate: You can say if someone is 25 years old and has taken x numbers of years of English Writing courses, then the person is qualified to write novel. Of course, the person can write a novel. This is a free country. But the issue is what kind of quality work he or she can produce.

Anyone, regardless of age and years of training, can create a new style. But the issue is what kind of martial art products he or she is putting together. I would venture a bet that it is either reinventing the wheel, repackaging something that already exist, mix and match bits and pieces from already existing arts or even totally unadulterated junk.

I agree with Aegis that, unless you have something new or volutionary, then you are just recycling the same old same old. And I would bet that the majority of the new styles we see these days, are repacking the same old stuff or remixing bits and pieces from existing arts, and slapping a fancing label on it. God Bless Free Market!

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by KennethKu
To make such criteria as age and number of years of training as indication of qualification to create a new style, misses the boat completely.

To illustrate: You can say if someone is 25 years old and has taken x numbers of years of English Writing courses, then the person is qualified to write novel. Of course, the person can write a novel. This is a free country. But the issue is what kind of quality work he or she can produce.

Anyone, regardless of age and years of training, can create a new style. But the issue is what kind of martial art products he or she is putting together. I would venture a bet that it is either reinventing the wheel, repackaging something that already exist, mix and match bits and pieces from already existing arts or even totally unadulterated junk.

I agree with Aegis that, unless you have something new or volutionary, then you are just recycling the same old same old. And I would bet that the majority of the new styles we see these days, are repacking the same old stuff or remixing bits and pieces from existing arts, and slapping a fancing label on it. God Bless Free Market!

That was a pretty good post.

You could "ALMOST" classify me as "repackaging" but not "reinventing."

Heres a partial quote off of my homepage of my beliefs which is a pretty good explanation of what I represent:

"THE KJJ METHOD OF TRAINING which Is a system of training in all ranges of combat with the belief that all fighting ranges should be understood and practiced together, practicing and understanding all of the KJJ curriculum focusing on what is most useful and specializing on what works best for you."

I really do beleive that the only people out there that possibly "come close" to what I do is "MAYBE" Mr. Hayashis group in El Paso, Texas(but they are much more traditional).
http://www.hayashismartialarts.com/free_form_combat.htm

And the many mixed martial artists along with "SOME" JKD fighters out there.

For the most part, my method is all mine. I teach on an individualized private class format that allows me to groom each student to meet my expectations of what they shold be as an artist and in time they take over this "grooming process" and become the martial artiast that is in them.

One last thing. I think it is to negative to think that things can't be changed. I agree partially with what you see and beleive. But we must evolve and part of that evolution is change.:asian:

 

[KennethKu]

Yes, evolution is a messy business. Nothing is cut and dry nor pre-ordained. Out of 100 new styles, may be only a few that truly has merit and can withstand the test of time and challenge.

 

[A.R.K.]

This thread is shaping up into quite an interesting discussion. Bravo to all involved.

Chufeng,

A question for you. Earlier on page 2-3 you were discussing proof/evidence in terms of credibility for martial experience or LEO status. Or anything really. You had some good points that I would like to go further into.

John Smith has X degree Dan in Y style. Someone here asks for proof. How does he provide that?

Scan and post his certificate? No, any of us can go to Kinco's and have one made up for a few bucks. If it is authentic...is the signature? And if the signature is authentic...does anyone know him? There are millions of martial artists out there, who can know them all? And if the instructor isn't in the lime-light but just an old fashioned, keeps to himself, but highly qualified instructor...does that negate his signature? Does and instructor have to be 'known' to be credible? How many don't want or care for worldly recognition?

Tell you he belongs to Z organization? What does that really accomplish? There are a ton of them out there and quite a few will sell you the rank you want without investigation. The ones that do put you under the microscope...who's to say they do other than themselves or those closely associated with them? Without picking on the Kukkiwon, an merely an example, many would say they are the top of the food chain in terms of credability for many Korean arts. Others would come and say they know those who have bought rank therein. Who's right?

Does Mr. Smith HAVE to belong to organization Z instead of A,B or C? And why? If a membership fee or promotional fee is asked for...isn't that buying rank regardless of the organization? The charge or allegation could be made against it.

Perhaps an organization that doesn't charge but still puts you under the microscope?

How about someone vouching for Mr. Smith that knows his background, training and teaching ability? But couldn't someone simply say there just buddies covering for each other? How about a website? But then anyone can create a website saying anything. What about a verification phone number? But then how would we know who was really on the other end?

You are very correct and on the money with your apprasial regarding verification of LEO credentials. That would be a sure way. But in regards to the martial arts.....? An entity that is not governed by any universally recognized and independent organization that is not dollar motivated. We are back to the subjective and relative terms.

You mentioned that at some point trust needs to come into play. I believe you are correct. Trust in one another and let time tell the complete story. Only that or first hand personal knoweldge will truly suffice in a scenerio such as this.

What is rank? Simply put, it is someone [who presumably has trained longer than you with superior ability] who has recognized you as achieving a millstone in your training. Someone who is willing to even perhaps put their name on the line to publically state this is the case. Perhaps even an organization, any organization of reputable integrity that allows you to become a member or invites you into the fellowship.

But as illustrated above, anyone can come along an use terms such as dubious, unsubstantiated, alleged etc to shed an unfavorable light on anyone's credentials. Perhaps justifiably...perhaps not. To me the bottom line would be if Mr. Smith indeed has knowledge and skill and the ability to pass it on to others who in turn can use it so protect themselves. If Mr. Smith has real world experience to pass on, I consider that a tremendous plus.

My humble opinion.

:asian:

 

[KennethKu]

It isn't a question of whether Mr Smith has to belong to organization Z instead of A, B or C. It is where the RECOGNIZED authoritative organization is organization Z, while organizations A, B, C, all bastard organizations that no one recognizes nor gives a hoot about. Certificates from organizations A, B, C are toilet paper.

Let me use the Kukkiwon example. If I claimed to have a certificate from a Kukkiwon that located in South Africa, that would make the biggest butt of joke. There is only one legitimate Kukkiwon and it is NOT the bastard fake in South Africa.

In Mr Smith's case, if he was a fraud in Kukkiwon, then all you need to do is to ask around. Someone from Kukkiwon would KNOW. It would be very convenient for Mr. Smith to pass himself off as some high dan master in some freaking obscure art and hope that no one really knows the truth about it. That is why it eventually boils down to the good ol fashion of McDojo busting.

 

[chufeng]

Chufeng,

A question for you. Earlier on page 2-3 you were discussing proof/evidence in terms of credibility for martial experience or LEO status.

Wasn't me...my first post was regarding the difference between training in the old days in Japan and how people train today...

My second post was to DAC about beating a dead horse...

This is my third post in this thread...

:asian:
chufeng

 

[A.R.K.]

Ken,

I understand your point. But as I noted above, many would say the Kukkiwon is not the authority, or has lost it's authority an/or credibility due to many 'situations'. One could argue that is why several high rankers broke off and began world organizations of their own. We've all heard the stories of get on the plane as a blue belt and get off as a 6th Dan. We've heard stories of ethnic discrimination. I'm merely pointing out that to one Korean arts practitioner the Kukkiwon might be the world...to another a money grubbing warehouse.

I would like to say that since I'm not into any Korean arts in terms of rank, I have nothing for or against the Kukkiwon. They just happened to be the first one to come to mind for illustration purposes. If a TKD practitioner came to me with Kukkiwon backing great...if he didn't....great. I know far to many involved in the Korean arts/Kukkiwon and know the 'budo gone bad' stories. If the TKD practitioner/instructor has the ability then that is enough for me.

So to some organization Y is the one, the only, the best of the best...to others maybe not. It would seem this in and of itself has caused quite a division amoungst us as practitioners of the
'arts'.

My humble opinion.
:asian:

 

[A.R.K.]

Chufeng,

You are correct, my apologies. It was Yiliquan 1 on page 3 that caught my eye. All you Yili guys look the same Just kidding

However, your comment would be of interest as well if your so inclined.
:asian:

 

[James Kovacich]

Originally posted by KennethKu
Yes, evolution is a messy business. Nothing is cut and dry nor pre-ordained. Out of 100 new styles, may be only a few that truly has merit and can withstand the test of time and challenge.

Of those that withstand the test of time.

How many will withstand the challenge?:asian:

 

[Matt Stone]

Originally posted by akja
You could "ALMOST" classify me as "repackaging" but not "reinventing."

But does "repackaging" really amount to creating a new system? If I put a Big Mac in a paper box instead of a styrofoam one, is the burger really any different?

"THE KJJ METHOD OF TRAINING which Is a system of training in all ranges of combat with the belief that all fighting ranges should be understood and practiced together, practicing and understanding all of the KJJ curriculum focusing on what is most useful and specializing on what works best for you."

So you really are are traditionalist! Everything you wrote in that description is true of living traditional martial arts (as opposed to the dead ones that have stagnated and failed to pass on anything other than mimicked movements). Nothing really new there...

For the most part, my method is all mine. I teach on an individualized private class format that allows me to groom each student to meet my expectations of what they shold be as an artist and in time they take over this "grooming process" and become the martial artiast that is in them.

So if you are "grooming" them according to your expectations, they really aren't any better off than they would be if they went to another school... They should be presented information, techniques, theories and strategies, all of which they should be required to learn, but portions of which they will choose to make "their own" through practice. In this way, "their own" techniques will be put into practice and they will develop their own abilities out of them. By making them conform to your perceptions of what is best is really forcing them to conform to your beliefs and abilities, not necessarily theirs.

When I learned Yiliquan from Sifu Starr, he really didn't emphasize one part over any other. He presented the entire package to us for us to digest and internalize. I prefer to hammer away at someone, punishing them before turning out the lights. That's my preference, and it goes along with my physical stature. One of our other instructors prefers throws and joint locks, nearly to the exclusion of other techniques. That fits his body type and mentality. But we all teach exactly the same material. We may have our own unique way of approaching the communication of it, but we leave nothing out. That way, the student can decide what their likes and dislikes are, and where their natural abilities lie...

One last thing. I think it is to negative to think that things can't be changed. I agree partially with what you see and beleive. But we must evolve and part of that evolution is change.:asian:

Just because we can change a thing doesn't necessarily mean we should. Just a thought...

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by chufeng
DAC,

See the horse?

Run horse, run.

See the horse fall?

Get up horse, get up!

See the people crying? Poor horse...dead horse.

See the idiot with a stick beating the horse?

Stop! The horse is dead...Stop!!!

But the idiot has no ears...the horse will be beaten until someone grabs the bad boy with the stick by the scruff of his neck...

Who will grab the bad boy?

???

a fable told by chufeng...

Originally posted by chufeng

Wasn't me...my first post was regarding the difference between training in the old days in Japan and how people train today...

My second post was to DAC about beating a dead horse...

This is my third post in this thread...


chufeng

Personal Post - Not as a Moderator

chufeng,

Thank you for bringing to everyones' attention that this is a dead horse and that you all are beating it. I just do not understand why every thread you guys get involved in has to break down into this type of discussion or arguement. If I was not required to read this as a moderator, I would ignore you all. I think you mioght be lossing the respect of others here, if you are trying my patience as well. I understand your point of tradition and valid testing, yet, I see no way to make you and others happy.

I apologize for if I upset you for my post, but I think you are all being childish. Just my point of view.

And just so that you know, I expect to get a warning, etc, for talking to you like this. I personally do not think it is respectable for this continued break down.

My Apologies
:asian:

 

[Matt Stone]

I thought everyone involved in the bickering had been doing a good job of putting it down and walking away... Other folks have been bringing it back up, and Chufeng and I have both commented to them to let it die... But you say we are the ones bringing it back up?

As for being childish, again, that is more on the part of the folks that keep trying to bring this thing back to life...

 

[Rich Parsons]

Originally posted by Yiliquan1
I thought everyone involved in the bickering had been doing a good job of putting it down and walking away... Other folks have been bringing it back up, and Chufeng and I have both commented to them to let it die... But you say we are the ones bringing it back up?

As for being childish, again, that is more on the part of the folks that keep trying to bring this thing back to life...

Sir,

I address chufeng for he brought up the dead horse.

I was personally addressing everyone involved on both sides.

I apologize for not making that clear.

I am not taking sides. I am just stating my opinion, as it seems everyone else is doing.

If it is Dead, then Great ignore me and my post(s). Just to me it is a boring subject, that has been discussed, and it seems that it keeps going and going and going, and neither side will let it go with out getting in the last word or the last shot.

Personally, I think you are all acting very poorly. Step back and just breath and then take a second look everyone.


So, No I am not ganging up on you. I am not using my Authority, I am giving an opinion. If you feel like that then I am sorry, I did not mean to come across that way, yet if you do feel guilty, then maybe you and everyone should take that step back like I said.

If you wish, report this thread and list this as an issue if you feel like I am coming down hard on you and your friends and or your opponents.

Have a nice day

 

[MartialArtist]

Originally posted by Aegis
From an easily accessible source on Judo (Judo Information Site):



(emphasis mine)

Doesn't sound like he started at 17 now, does it?

See, at the age of 18 he changed masters, which is probably what has people like you confused. If you are concerned about how quickly he got his "inner secret" training within this art, then remember that he had been training for some years in a different style of jujutsu before coming to this master, so wouldn't have had to go as slowly as normal novices.

Remember that what defined Judo wasn't a set of new moves, or an unbeatable new style, it was instead a principle (maximising efficiency). If I recall correctly, this basically meant mastering a few of the old techniques first, then expanding on them, rather than Jujutsu, where you would learn bits of everything and gradually get good at all of them.

Essentially there wasn't much difference initially between Judo and some styles of jujutsu. What changed was the ability to practise Judo at full pace on someone else under controlled circumstances (randori). After a while, the more dangerous elements were reduced to kata form only, and eventually forgotten completely.

Not that I can say for sure, but I believe that a lot of styles of Jujutsu today would almost be Judo in its original form, as they follow the same principals and training methods as judo did at its creation.

His other contribution was the introduction of a set of ethics, which still live on in a lot of martial artists, but have been lost on others: good character, honest conduct, etc.

So, what am I saying? I'm saying that Kano did NOT try to create something new, nor did he do what he did for glory's sake. He revolutionised teaching methods by coming up with safe ways of training while not losing the deadliness of technique. I doubt many people since then can claim to have had such a huge influence on martial arts.


My general advice on creating a new system is this: if you have nothing new to offer, don't start a new system. Until you have attained a level of mastery in one or more arts, you are not likely to have anything new to offer.

Very informative posts.

And you bring up a good point... It's not like Kano formulated a brand-new revolutionary art, but rather took jujitsu into a different light.

 

[chufeng]

Rich,

Thank you so much for stirring the pot, once again...
With moderators like you, things should calm down in a hurry

My post was directed to ONE individual who, like you, wanted to stir the pot...

So, Rich, if you can't follow the thread and its intent, I'll give you the bottom line:

I am through commenting about A.R.K.'s (his new name) credentials...the frickin' horse is dead...Now drop YOUR stick...if you weren't beating the horse, you might actually see what's going on here.

:asian:
chufeng