Do vs. Jutsu

[Kong Soo Do]

Gee, the best post on the board.... Don't know what to say about that.

Why do you act like that Glenn? Why do you respond with negative or sarcastic comments to those of a different opinion or those that are simply expressing their viewpoint? It isn't polite, constructive or needed on the board. You're not even reading posts with the goal of understanding. For instance, here is what I said;

A lot of seniors on the board (high Dan rank) felt it was the best post in the thread. I'll offer it for the discussion;

The best post in the thread Glenn, not the entire board which at that time had hundreds of members and thousands of threads. I'd really appreciate it if you'd make a concerted effort towards civility, and I'm sure a lot of others would as well. Thank you.

 

[Gemini]

Was it in stars and stripes? The first military student, Dale Drullilard, was stationed in Korea in the army I believe, started learning tang soo do moo duk kwan in 1956, and was awarded his 1st dan in 1957. One of his instructors was GM LEE Moo Yong, who was USTU President in the 1980's.

Again, interesting but not relevant to my point.

I think that is because you do not wish to see it. Which is fine. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

That's true and if your statement was based solely on your opinion, I can respect that, disagree with it though I may. As you say, we're all entitled. However, since you initially made the statement as fact, I merely asked you to support it, which you have not done, nor has anyone else on your behalf. As I stated before, when you opened this thread I felt I was out of my element and listened to what others had to say. If I can do that and all the while "not wish to see", that would make me a truly unique individual indeed. More likely I think, there is nothing there to see. Not one person has supported your "Do" statement in either thread. That's not an opinion. It's there in black and white. At this point, I'd say we're beating a dead horse. I'm done.

 

[puunui]

Again, interesting but not relevant to my point.

It is relevant to the discussion, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up. And I am interested in the article. Do you know where it was published? What newspaper or magazine?

That's true and if your statement was based solely on your opinion, I can respect that, disagree with it though I may. As you say, we're all entitled. However, since you initially made the statement as fact, I merely asked you to support it, which you have not done, nor has anyone else on your behalf. As I stated before, when you opened this thread I felt I was out of my element and listened to what others had to say. If I can do that and all the while "not wish to see", that would make me a truly unique individual indeed. More likely I think, there is nothing there to see. Not one person has supported your "Do" statement in either thread. That's not an opinion. It's there in black and white. At this point, I'd say we're beating a dead horse. I'm done.

It isn't a majority vote type of thing. Just because everyone thinks the earth is flat or that the moon is made up of green cheese, doesn't make it so. I will say that if you are happy training for self defense and are equally happy with your kukkiwon certification, then I am happy for you.

I will say this. When I was your level, I didn't have any opinions, none that I voiced anyway. I just listened to my teachers and seniors and asked a question once in a while. No one asked for my opinion and I didn't volunteer one. Even when I started attending USTU annual national meetings I sat there and just listened for five or ten years. Today, a lot of people ask for my perspective on a lot of different things. I haven't figured out yet if the way I was raised in the martial arts is better or worse than the way students are now. I have to think about it some more.

 

[puunui]

I'd really appreciate it if you'd make a concerted effort towards civility, and I'm sure a lot of others would as well. Thank you.

I was and am civil. But in any event, I don't think that the "best post" that you offered helps your position. In fact I think it cuts against your original proposition. Compare your statement below with the anti "This is koryu, this is gendai, and never the 'twain shall meet" theme of the post you quoted:

I see it as being able to provide proper martial art training to those that need and/or want it. For those that need and/or want training in a martial sport have those venues available. My request is that those that do teach TKD (or any martial sport) as a sport, simply identify it as such for the sake of the student.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

No Glenn, you're not civil. Your sarcastic. You misrepresented my words to make a sarcastic remark. That kind of thing just isn't needed.

I don't think that the "best post" that you offered helps your position

I didn't offer it to support my position. I haven't stated my opinion in this thread. I offered it to be considered as part of the whole of this discussion. At least a couple of people seemed to like it as well. It contained information for the reader to consider one way or the other.

 

[Gemini]

It is relevant to the discussion, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up. And I am interested in the article. Do you know where it was published? What newspaper or magazine?

The article is not what's irrelevant. What you're continually taking from it is. Regardless, I will continue to look for it and share it with you if I find it.

It isn't a majority vote type of thing.

Apparently not. In your opinion, your opinion is enough. Check.

I will say this. When I was your level, I didn't have any opinions, none that I voiced anyway.

LOL. Wow!....just...Wow! I'll request Bob change my account to "Read OnlY".

 

[puunui]

The article is not what's irrelevant. What you're continually taking from it is. Regardless, I will continue to look for it and share it with you if I find it.

Ok, thanks. I appreciate it. It would be the first article on taekwondo in english, which is significant.

 

[puunui]

No Glenn, you're not civil. Your sarcastic. You misrepresented my words to make a sarcastic remark. That kind of thing just isn't needed.

You're free to interpret what I write the way you want. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

I didn't offer it to support my position. I haven't stated my opinion in this thread. I offered it to be considered as part of the whole of this discussion. At least a couple of people seemed to like it as well. It contained information for the reader to consider one way or the other.

You did state a position earlier (see above), which that post you submitted in this thread, in my opinion, doesn't support. That's all.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I don't see it as win or lose. I thought it was a good post back then, and still has relevant points, which is why I offered it for others to consider. I felt it would be a good contribution to your thread. And I think it is a good thread with many good point.

 

[Ken Morgan]

FWIW an article of Do vs. Jutsu, circa 1998

http://ejmas.com/pt/2010pt/ptart_taylor_1005.html

As the only iaido student who hasn’t commented here….
Listen to my words here folks:
IT DOESN’T MATTER IF YOU CALL IT DO OR JUTSU, what matters is actually getting your *** into the dojo and training. Call it flower arranging if it makes you happy, just get into the dojo. Not one of the 8[SUP]th[/SUP] dans I’ve ever trained with every made it an issue, they shrugged their shoulders and said, it doesn’t matter, just train. All these years later, that’s what I do.

 

[puunui]

IT DOESN’T MATTER IF YOU CALL IT DO OR JUTSU, what matters is actually getting your *** into the dojo and training. Call it flower arranging if it makes you happy, just get into the dojo. Not one of the 8[SUP]th[/SUP] dans I’ve ever trained with every made it an issue, they shrugged their shoulders and said, it doesn’t matter, just train. All these years later, that’s what I do.

I can see your point for iaido. What about for other martial arts? For example, do you agree or disagree with this statement:

[/QUOTE]I see it as being able to provide proper martial art training to those that need and/or want it. For those that need and/or want training in a martial sport have those venues available. My request is that those that do teach TKD (or any martial sport) as a sport, simply identify it as such for the sake of the student.[/QUOTE]

 

[puunui]

I read this article, or post I think it is:

http://ejmas.com/pt/2010pt/ptart_taylor_1005.html

and there was this quote:

Donn Draeger tried to pin down "jutsu" and "do" to stict definitions, and,
if you read him carefully and follow the definitions, they can be useful.

So I think Draeger Sensei agrees with me, but let me confirm it when I go home tonight. I am thinking that he discussed this in his budo bujutsu series of books, which I have.

 

[pgsmith]

What do you see as the differences between Do and Jutsu arts, if any?

The only real relevance I have ever found between 'do' and 'jutsu' is that those that are worried about pinning down exact definitions for them do not have much experience in the Japanese arts. The difference between the usage of the two is extremely subtle, and is more a factor of what the person talking is actually talking about, and who that person's audience is, than anything inherent in the actual words themselves. Japanese is an extremely context-driven language, and the vast majority of Japanese that practice these arts tend to ignore the perceived 'differences' and call it whatever they feel like calling it at the moment, and it changes regularly. So also do the vast majority of those non-Japanese that have been practicing these arts for any length of time. Those that worry about it are either not long time practicioners, or are not actually involved with the Japanese.

That's been my personal experience with the whole do vs. jutsu debate.

P.S. I think Mr. Draeger did the traditional Japanese arts a disfavor when he tried to pin definitions on them. Too many people have become more confused than enlightened from his attempt to explain.

 

[puunui]

The only real relevance I have ever found between 'do' and 'jutsu' is that those that are worried about pinning down exact definitions for them do not have much experience in the Japanese arts. The difference between the usage of the two is extremely subtle, and is more a factor of what the person talking is actually talking about, and who that person's audience is, than anything inherent in the actual words themselves. Japanese is an extremely context-driven language, and the vast majority of Japanese that practice these arts tend to ignore the perceived 'differences' and call it whatever they feel like calling it at the moment, and it changes regularly. So also do the vast majority of those non-Japanese that have been practicing these arts for any length of time. Those that worry about it are either not long time practicioners, or are not actually involved with the Japanese.

You might be amazed at how "involved" some are with respect to "the Japanese" and their culture. You might even say for some, it's in their blood.

P.S. I think Mr. Draeger did the traditional Japanese arts a disfavor when he tried to pin definitions on them. Too many people have become more confused than enlightened from his attempt to explain.

What was Draeger Sensei's view on do vs. jutsu?

 

[pgsmith]

You might be amazed at how "involved" some are with respect to "the Japanese" and their culture. You might even say for some, it's in their blood.

Blood does not grant instant knowledge of Japanese martial traditions and cultures. I've quite a bit of native american blood in me, and I can't tell you how to make fry bread or track a deer. Your comment is both irrelevant and inflammatory, but that seems to be the nature of your discourse.

What was Draeger Sensei's view on do vs. jutsu?

That jutsu refers to the older combat oriented arts, and do refers to the newer more spiritual version. However, Mr. Draeger was attempting to render foreign ideas and foreign ways of thinking into something he thought that westerners would more easily understand. I doubt that he had any idea how popular the Japanese arts (or the idea of the Japanese arts) would turn out to be in the west, nor how many people would spend so much of their time attempting to place an exact definition on what is essentially a vague ideal.

 

[puunui]

Blood does not grant instant knowledge of Japanese martial traditions and cultures. I've quite a bit of native american blood in me, and I can't tell you how to make fry bread or track a deer.

My suggestion is that we shouldn't necessarily assume that our experiences mirror everyone else's. Some people may be closer to their roots than you are for example, especially asians who are actively involved in the asian martial arts. Personally, even if you say that you cannot fry bread or track a deer, I still wouldn't presume that I have a better understanding of native american culture and traditions than you do.

That jutsu refers to the older combat oriented arts, and do refers to the newer more spiritual version.

we agree then.

However, Mr. Draeger was attempting to render foreign ideas and foreign ways of thinking into something he thought that westerners would more easily understand. I doubt that he had any idea how popular the Japanese arts (or the idea of the Japanese arts) would turn out to be in the west, nor how many people would spend so much of their time attempting to place an exact definition on what is essentially a vague ideal.

I'll go check out what Draeger Sensei has written on the subject. Do you know where those discussions are specifically in his books? In articles?

 

[Chris Parker]

Er, this'll be a long one...

I think we (my iaido friend, you and I) agree more than we disagree. I'm too lazy to call him up to confirm it though.

Possible, but not based on your post. But if you aren't going to seek clarification, not sure where things can go from there on that point...

What do you see as the differences between Do and Jutsu arts, if any? I don't think you really addressed that.

Because the only distinction is what term a particular system decides to use... which can change over time. In other words, the only distinction is artificial and inconsistent, so no "real" distinction can ever be made.

Never said that Daito Ryu or koryu cannot use dan ranks. They can do whatever they want. I would say that if they do adopt such things, that it is a new innovation and not something passed down for hundreds of years, like the techniques are or were.

Just to clear up on ranking systems (the question of Daito Ryu being Koryu being left off for the moment...), there are two different and unrelated ranking systems in place in Japanese martial arts. The first is the Menkyo (licence) system, which is a way of granting permission to certain levels, such as teaching up to a certain section of the curriculum, or permission to open a school, or even up to starting your own branch. Different systems will allow different things at different ranking levels, some won't allow you to teach until you've achieved Menkyo Kaiden (or it's equivalent - full mastery/fully licenced), others allow it from lower ranking levels.

The second is the Kyu/Dan ranking system, originally taken from the board game "Go", and adopted and popularized for martial arts by Kano Jigoro, founder of Judo. Kano also instigated the idea of coloured belts as rank indicators. In this ranking system, the rank is more related to levels of experience and competence on a personal level, and as such don't confer any authority the way the Menkyo system did. The main reason the Kyu/Dan system was adopted was simply that, unlike in previous arts where there would only be one dojo, and the instructor knew everyone and their levels quite well, Judo (through Kano's connections to the education sector) was being pushed as part of physical education at quite a number of schools and universities across Japan... and Kano needed a way to quickly know the rough experience and skill level of the students gathered around him (especially for any that he was using as Uke) even if he'd never seen them before.

When it comes to Koryu ranking, to generalize, the larger the organisation, and the wider-spread the dojo, the more likely it is to adopt the Dan ranking system. For example, Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu under Otake Sensei doesn't use the Dan ranking system, as all authority comes from him, and you need to be a student of his to be ranked. The Sugino Dojo, on the other hand, is far more widespread, with dojo around the world, and has adopted the Dan ranking system. So, really, some Koryu will use the Menkyo system exclusively, some will use both, and some are basically just Dan ranking (sometimes with licences given at particular Dan ranking levels, just to make it confusing...)

Really, when was the first documented use of the term karatedo prior to the meiji restoration? I'd like to see that.

Honestly, Glenn, that comment just shows how little your understanding in this area is... there was no Karate in Japan prior to the Showa period (early 20th Century), let alone "Karatedo"... but, for the record, "Karatedo", and, really "Karate" itself, were terms that were adopted after the introduction to Japan in the first place. There was also never a term used "Karatejutsu" either, so looking for that isn't going to help you in finding a distinction between "jutsu" and "do". Early terms used in Okinawa were primarily Te, Tode, Shuri-te, Naha-te etc.

But if you want to look to usage of "Do" versus "Jutsu" from before the Meiji restoration, the term Judo was known to be used in the Jikishin Ryu in the early 18th Century (there is documentation from Inoue Jibudayu using that term from 1724), as well as probably being used earlier, Kendo was used interchangably with Kenjutsu or Kenpo since the late 16th Century, as well as many other examples.

Not in hawaii, where the art is identified as shinkage naginata jitsu. http://www.hawaiinaginata.org/

I really don't know where your argument about the lack of "jutsu" or "do" in Iai systems is by citing a Naginata school...

Additionally, I might point out that the site you linked itself shows some rather obvious errors, such as the use of the incorrect spelling "jitsu", the very odd (elongated) grip on the bokken in the picture on the "history" page, the lack of the term Atarashii Naginata (which is the actual term for the modern Naginata-do, and literally means "new naginata"), instead using the Zennichi Naginata name... which is the grouping that created Atarashii Naginata, not the system itself. I'm not saying anything against the teachings of the instructor there (Miura Sensei), as there isn't anything that looks particularly out of place. The 8th Dan ranking is legitimately used in Jikishinkage Ryu, the mention of Kusarigama and tanto are certainly part of the system, however I might question the "only high ranking instructor outside of Japan"... might need to look into that one. But overall, the site has issues. I wouldn't look to it for support, especially when it doesn't actually have anything to do with the claim you were countering.

But the arts that do use it post meiji restoration are for the most part self discovery focused arts, as opposed to the above art. Kong Soo Do especially as the term was used in Korea during the 1950s was a name used because Dr. YON Kwai Byeong wanted to be associated with Karatedo on mainland Japan, for tournament purposes. When the name issue was raised in 1961, his main point was that the art should be called Kong Soo Do, so it could easily be a part of the internationalization of karatedo and its future as a sport. to that end, he started taking teams from Korea to for exchange matches, in preparation for when karate tournaments did go international, like it is today.

Nope, I'd pretty much disagree with that entirely. Some arts that use the term "do" post Meiji are concerned with self discovery, or personal development, but others aren't in the slightest. Jukendo, for instance, developed in the early 20th Century out of sojutsu (spear fighting) primarily to give the Japanese military methods of killing people with bayonets when they invaded Manchuria and other areas. No real spiritual ideal there, just stabbing (in some cases) unarmed populaces, women, children, surrendering and malnourished prisoners, and so on.

Then you have systems pre-Meiji which did deal with personal development. Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu is a system of sword combat which came directly out of bloody experience and is one of the most direct, straight-to-the-point (ha!) kenjutsu systems I've come across... but it is also deeply imbued with the Buddhist Sutras, to the point where it is considered that unless you understand them, you won't (and can't) understand the system. Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu was also deeply concerned with such things. And then there are many that run the gamut from one end of the scale to the other, in both Jutsu and Do disciplines.

In short, "Do" does not imply sport, it does not imply "personal development over efficacy", all it implies is that the term used is "Do".

And part of that polarization was in the form of a competitive or tournament orientation, as opposed to battlefield weapons, tactics and strategies. No one believed that they would be taking a kendo bamboo shinai into war for example.

Oh boy... you really should see what "Kendo" was like in the time you're discussing here... it included a range of other weapons (such as kusarigama), striking, grappling, groundfighting, and more. Oh, and the idea of "jutsu" only referring to "battlefield" as opposed to "competition, or tournament"? Nope, not in the slightest. It really depends on the system itself.

I agree. This discussion came about because Kong Soo Do stated that Taekwondo practitioners who concentrate on "sport" should at least identify themselves as such, no doubt to separate them from the "real" taekwondoin who are concentrating on self defense. But if people spent more time analyzing names, words and history, then things wouldn't blend together and they wouldn't become indistinguishable from one another, to the point where those who never did such study now claim that those who use the Do suffix are not entitled to use that anymore.

You know how to distinguish, using terminology, between TKD practitioners who focus on sport and those who don't? Easy. They say they're training in, you'll love this, "sport Tae Kwon Do". Or not. The "Do" suffix really doesn't mean it at all, honestly.

I don't believe I said this is gendai this is koryu, and never the twain shall meet. I think people train in the martial arts, specifically taekwondo, for lots of reasons, all of which is valid. And I do not believe that those to train for competition should be separated from those who train for other reasons, which is what Kong Soo Do is advocating, because that would be a case of "This is koryu, this is gendai, and never the 'twain shall meet"

To be frank, I'm having a hard time seeing how the idea of Koryu or not is even partially related to Tae Kwon Do at all... from a number of levels.

Not in hawaii. I don't think I have ever heard of someone calling is simply "aiki". I have heard of aikido, aikijutsu and aikibudo though. I have heard of iai, iaido and iaijustu, and here in hawaii, they call it naginata jutsu.

So you're basing your understanding of terminology in Japanese martial traditions on what is around the corner from you, and nothing else? You do realize that there are more than one form of, say, Iai, or Naginata, or Ken, yeah? And yes, sometimes just the term "Ken" is used to refer to a sword art. Oftentimes it's just a form of shorthand, but it does show the lack of importance for the suffix itself.

I don't know which one produces "superior people". I do know that there is no need for taekwondo competitors to designate themselves in any special way like kong soo do wants, which was the original topic of discussion.

"Superior people"? Even the most ardent Koryu snobs don't really think that way... the IHS included. What they are is very serious about what they do, but that's a different issue entirely. I will say that I don't agree with Kong Soo Do in a number of his comments, such as there even being a distinction between "jutsu" and "do", that "jutsu" refers to systems concerned only with technicalities, and so on... and most importantly that he is going to a dojo and studying Bu(do or jutsu), as he is training in a Korean system, so, by definition, he's not in a dojo or training in Budo or Bujutsu. Yeah, it sounds pedantic and picky, but it's like saying that my Japanese arts are being taught in a kwoon and training kung fu. Nope, not at all.

FWIW an article of Do vs. Jutsu, circa 1998

http://ejmas.com/pt/2010pt/ptart_taylor_1005.html

As the only iaido student who hasn’t commented here….
Listen to my words here folks:
IT DOESN’T MATTER IF YOU CALL IT DO OR JUTSU, what matters is actually getting your *** into the dojo and training. Call it flower arranging if it makes you happy, just get into the dojo. Not one of the 8[SUP]th[/SUP] dans I’ve ever trained with every made it an issue, they shrugged their shoulders and said, it doesn’t matter, just train. All these years later, that’s what I do.

And that really just sums it up. Nicely put, Ken.

I can see your point for iaido. What about for other martial arts? For example, do you agree or disagree with this statement:

I see it as being able to provide proper martial art training to those that need and/or want it. For those that need and/or want training in a martial sport have those venues available. My request is that those that do teach TKD (or any martial sport) as a sport, simply identify it as such for the sake of the student.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Not wanting to answer for Ken, but I really don't see the relevance. The "jutsu/do" argument really has nothing to do with Tae Kwon Do, sport applications or not at all. There is no connection, there is no distinction, and there is no terminology issue that isn't solved with adding the word "Sport" to TKD if applicable.

I read this article, or post I think it is:

http://ejmas.com/pt/2010pt/ptart_taylor_1005.html

and there was this quote:

Donn Draeger tried to pin down "jutsu" and "do" to stict definitions, and,
if you read him carefully and follow the definitions, they can be useful.

So I think Draeger Sensei agrees with me, but let me confirm it when I go home tonight. I am thinking that he discussed this in his budo bujutsu series of books, which I have.

Draeger Sensei was instrumental in the popularization and education of the classical Japanese martial arts by introducing them to a Western audience who were largely ignorant of the very fact that there was anything older than Judo in Japan. As such he was attempting to find a way to explain a range of things, and some things (such as the jutsu/do distinction) were largely simplified to the point of inaccuracy (compared to the way they were seen and used in Japan). One other factor that has been put forth is that Draeger Sensei was not American by birth (although he was a Marine in the US Military), he was German. And German was his first language, with English being second, and Japanese third (in fact, his Japanese level has been described as "adequate, but not fluent"). The over specificity of German terminology and culture could very easily be a factor in his attempts to completely pigeonhole the terms he came across in Japan. He also made a number of other generalizations which aren't really accurate, such as the idea that all Koryu systems are based in spiritual visions or similar, as opposed to actual experience and development. While both his two Koryu systems (Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu and Shinto Muso Ryu) feature such things in their histories, it is not a universal truth.

So while his place in the understanding and development of Koryu in the West is very highly regarded, some of the information he put out is not considered accurate. It's a matter of learning what to listen to, and what to ignore.

The only real relevance I have ever found between 'do' and 'jutsu' is that those that are worried about pinning down exact definitions for them do not have much experience in the Japanese arts. The difference between the usage of the two is extremely subtle, and is more a factor of what the person talking is actually talking about, and who that person's audience is, than anything inherent in the actual words themselves. Japanese is an extremely context-driven language, and the vast majority of Japanese that practice these arts tend to ignore the perceived 'differences' and call it whatever they feel like calling it at the moment, and it changes regularly. So also do the vast majority of those non-Japanese that have been practicing these arts for any length of time. Those that worry about it are either not long time practicioners, or are not actually involved with the Japanese.

That's been my personal experience with the whole do vs. jutsu debate.

P.S. I think Mr. Draeger did the traditional Japanese arts a disfavor when he tried to pin definitions on them. Too many people have become more confused than enlightened from his attempt to explain.

Just quoted for accuracy, really. So yeah, what Paul said.

You might be amazed at how "involved" some are with respect to "the Japanese" and their culture. You might even say for some, it's in their blood.

Then you might be amazed at how little most of the Japanese in Japan know or care about such aspects as the terminology in martial traditions. Blood doesn't mean as much as knowledge and interest.

What was Draeger Sensei's view on do vs. jutsu?

Well, Draeger Sensei died in 1982, so it might be hard to get a definite answer... but, as said, his take on jutsu/do is not considered the most accurate that you can find.

Blood does not grant instant knowledge of Japanese martial traditions and cultures. I've quite a bit of native american blood in me, and I can't tell you how to make fry bread or track a deer. Your comment is both irrelevant and inflammatory, but that seems to be the nature of your discourse.

You've noticed, huh Paul?

That jutsu refers to the older combat oriented arts, and do refers to the newer more spiritual version. However, Mr. Draeger was attempting to render foreign ideas and foreign ways of thinking into something he thought that westerners would more easily understand. I doubt that he had any idea how popular the Japanese arts (or the idea of the Japanese arts) would turn out to be in the west, nor how many people would spend so much of their time attempting to place an exact definition on what is essentially a vague ideal.

You may note, Glenn, that this is not saying even that Draeger was correct, just Paul telling you the stance that he took.

My suggestion is that we shouldn't necessarily assume that our experiences mirror everyone else's. Some people may be closer to their roots than you are for example, especially asians who are actively involved in the asian martial arts. Personally, even if you say that you cannot fry bread or track a deer, I still wouldn't presume that I have a better understanding of native american culture and traditions than you do.

You did miss the point, didn't you Glenn...

Tell you what, let's spell it out. The structure that Don Draeger employed to distinguish why he was using separate terms (Bujutsu and Budo) does not match the usage of such terms in Japan, let alone Japanese martial arts... but the average Japanese would most likely not even be aware of that.

we agree then.

I might point out that you are then agreeing with an outdated and inaccurate interpretation of the Japanese arts.

I'll go check out what Draeger Sensei has written on the subject. Do you know where those discussions are specifically in his books? In articles?

Other than the books you've already got, I'd visit www.koryu.com, chat with Meik Skoss (who knew Draeger sensei himself), and the IHS. See what they say now, rather than what was written 30 years ago.

 

[punisher73]

I agree with Mr. Parker on this, a name is just a name for what the founder wanted to call it. Going with a non-sport martial art (to clear up ANY ideas that -do is equated to sport and -jutsu isn't). Ueshiba changed the name of his art at least a couple of times, including changing the name from aikijutsu to aikido. Why? Because he wanted to, that's why. He could have just as easily kept it the same and still had the same ideas, techniques and philosophy.

Mr. Parker is more well read on this, so maybe he can shed some light on it. I have read that one of the reasons for the "-do" vs. "jutsu" labelings was that after WW2, the US banned the practice of the martial arts. The styles that said that they were "-do" and focused on character development were allowed to be practiced, but not the "jutsu" styles. So many changed their name or added it to their name to continue. I don't know if this is urban legend or not, but interesting idea.

 

[frank raud]

Modern Judo for many schools trains only the sport aspects of the art and may or may not pass on the original system. By that, I mean they may train the throws and groundwork but don't pass on the Judo Katas or the pressure points or strikes that were also a part of it.

Here is a link to an old book by Irving Hancock called "Kano Jiu-Jitsu" from the early 1900's. I have heard that it was labeled as Kano's Judo, but I have also read other people state that it was just from JJ in general. Either way, look at the stuff listed and see if ANY of this is praticed in most Judo schools now.
http://judoinfo.com/books/kuatsu.pdf

I think that "jutsu" and "do" don't have different techniques etc. just that a "do" art usually places emphasis on character development first and self-defense second.

Hancock's books(including The Complete Kano Jiu-Jitsu) do not show judo , so it is difficult to compare if any of this is practiced in most judo schools. There are books from that same era(1900-1910) that do show judo as it was taught in the early ears, which would be better for comparison between "the good old days" and the current practice of judo. The Book Judo Kyohan comes to mind.

 

[Sukerkin]

Mr. Parker is more well read on this, so maybe he can shed some light on it. I have read that one of the reasons for the "-do" vs. "jutsu" labelings was that after WW2, the US banned the practice of the martial arts. The styles that said that they were "-do" and focused on character development were allowed to be practiced, but not the "jutsu" styles. So many changed their name or added it to their name to continue. I don't know if this is urban legend or not, but interesting idea.

I have read the same and would also be interested to hear if we have any definitive or compelling evidence one way or the other.