How Pure Are The Arts?

[John Bishop]

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

Better tell Uncle Frank his certificate is a forgery.

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

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

 

[Wo Fat]

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

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

 

[John Bishop]

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

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

 

[puunui]

Better tell Uncle Frank his certificate is a forgery.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[puunui]

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

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

 

[puunui]

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

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

 

[puunui]

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

 

[puunui]

Better tell Uncle Frank his certificate is a forgery.

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

 

[Wo Fat]

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

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

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

 

[puunui]

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

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

 

[Wo Fat]

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

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

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

Sorry for wandering off-topic.

 

[puunui]

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

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

 

[Chris Parker]

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

Hi Mark,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not a problem, all separated now.

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

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

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

No, I don't think so.

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

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

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

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

 

[shihansmurf]

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

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

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

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


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


Just a couple of observations.

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

What would you cite as an example then?

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

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

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

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

Most likely.


Mark

 

[islandguy]

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

 

[thanson02]

Hi Mike,

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

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

This.

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

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

 

[Gerry Seymour]

performing a technique a cretin way

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

 

[thanson02]

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

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