Interesting thoughts on lineage

[hoshin1600]

In the old days in China and Japan, claiming a lineage, that you were not in, was a bit risky and generally lead to public humiliations or more likely challenges and beatings.

but that was not exactly what i was thinking , maybe i should not have said a fake but just that he was not that good. we tend to have this legendary idea of the martial art masters of old but what if they were not all that great? and not to argue the point but from things i have read it seem it was quite common to claim to be in a lineage that you were not in. many local arts that really had no name would claim to be a branch of a very popular style like say white crane. but back to my point i am sure not all founders of todays popular styles were great martial artists. but does that change the way you look at your art?

 

[JowGaWolf]

Think of it this way. Not all boxing coaches were world champions but knew enough about boxing techniques to train world champions. Read the bio on Mike Tyson's coach

When you say that not all founders of today's popular styles were great martial artists then you'll have to specify which aspect of Martial Arts that you are referring to. A good martial artist and a good fighter are not always the same thing.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

In the old days in China and Japan, claiming a lineage, that you were not in, was a bit risky and generally lead to public humiliations or more likely challenges and beatings.

I have always noticed it's the other way around. If you don't belong to a certain lineage but you claim you are, people may just treat you are bragging and leave you alone. The reason is simple, at least you have shown some respect to that linage. On the other hand, if you belong to a lineage but you declare that you are not, since that indicate you don't respect that lineage and you are a traitor, you will be in big trouble.

Old Chinese saying said, "千金难买进万金难买出 1,000 oz of gold may not be able to buy you way into a certain lineage, 10,000 oz gold will definite not enough for you to buy your way out of that lineage". Most of the time, it may require you to use knife to stab 6 holes (3 stabs make 6 holes) on your leg before you can get out of your lineage. Of course I'm talking about "ancient time".

The same logic also apply to the gang organization.

If you

- don't belong to a gang organization but you say you are, you won't be in big trouble.
- belong to a gang organization but you say you are not, members in that gang organization will hunt you down.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I have always noticed it's the other way around. If you don't belong to a certain lineage but you claim you are, people may just treat you are bragging and leave you alone. The reason is simple, at least you have shown some respect to that linage. On the other hand, if you belong to a lineage but you declare that you are not, since that indicate you don't respect that lineage and you are a traitor, you will be in big trouble.

Old Chinese saying said, "千金难买进万金难买出 1,000 oz of gold may not be able to buy you way into a certain lineage, 10,000 oz gold will definite not enough for you to buy your way out of that lineage". Most of the time, it may require you to use knife to stab 6 holes (3 stabs make 6 holes) on your leg before you can get out of your lineage. Of course I'm talking about "ancient time".

The same logic also apply to the gang organization.

If you

- don't belong to a gang organization but you say you are, you won't be in big trouble.
- belong to a gang organization but you say you are not, members in that gang organization will hunt you down.

Not my experience and not backup by what I have read and been told about old China (Qing into republic) . And in more modern China that Yao brothers did go after someone claiming direct lineage to Wang Xiangzhai. The forced the offending party to recant his claims in a Beijing News paper. Also had the inference from a Chen family member about a person claiming Chen family lineage in the USA, that if it were China it would be dealt with differently. Although in the 1950s I do know of a few that have made the claim and gotten away with it.

And as far as claiming to belong to a gang you are not a member of, don't agree with that at all. That one can and has gotten people hurt and killed, if not by the gang they are claiming to be in then by a rival gang

 

[Xue Sheng]

but that was not exactly what i was thinking , maybe i should not have said a fake but just that he was not that good. we tend to have this legendary idea of the martial art masters of old but what if they were not all that great? and not to argue the point but from things i have read it seem it was quite common to claim to be in a lineage that you were not in. many local arts that really had no name would claim to be a branch of a very popular style like say white crane. but back to my point i am sure not all founders of todays popular styles were great martial artists. but does that change the way you look at your art?

Can't speak for Japan, but you can claim anything you want in China, just as long as those that care do not find out, how far back are we talking>

There are those that do get away with it mainly after the person they are claiming lineage to as died, but this is more recently in the 1950s. There are also other reasons some get away with it as well.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I believe the real value of lineage is to improve understanding of the art. For instance, I know that the primary influence on the development of Nihon Goshin Aikido is Daito-ryu aiki-jujutsu (or, arguably, Daito-ryu jujutsu). If I want to explore the principles in NGA, I can learn more about DRAJJ or other arts descended from it (like Ueshiba's Aikido). Knowing the lineage helps me (and any other student) explore the art from without.

At the same time, for arts where the lineage is hard to demonstrate (again, NGA is a prime example), it gets tedious when the lineage wonks demand proof. We know who the creator of our art was. We know he explained that Daito-ryu was a primary influence (and it's pretty clear in many of the techniques, as is the Judo influence), but we don't have a lot of documentation because the art died off in Japan in the 60's or 70's when the second head of the art closed his dojo. I never really feel a need to defend the lineage claims, since I don't know any who use them other than to help folks understand where the art came from.

Misunderstandings of lineage actually cause me more headaches where the term Aikido is brought up, since Ueshiba chose to use the term - without modifiers - as the name of his art. The term, as best I can establish, originates from the Dai Nippon Butokukai to refer to the family of arts using aiki principles, and Ueshiba opted to use it as the name of his art. While I don't think there was any reason he shouldn't have done so, today many people feel that term belongs to Ueshiba's art, and anyone using the term is claiming lineage. I've even seen a few instructors in NGA get confused by this term, assuming our art is descended from Ueshiba's. I can only assume this is because their instructors either didn't teach any history o the art (many don't), or someone simply chose to claim the lineage for reasons of their own.

 

[Buka]

I believe that the true Masters that came before us, regardless of their Art, had an attitude of train your *** off and constantly test what you train, because.....

 

[Koshiki]

I believe that the true Masters that came before us, regardless of their Art, had an attitude of train your *** off and constantly test what you train, because.....

I believe that any true masters that are living today have the attitude of, "Train your *** off and test that ****."

And frankly, most things improve with time, as the learning, study, training, practice, research, and development of each successive generation of students builds upon that of their teachers. Sure, most students never stick with it long enough to come close to equaling their teachers, but we all know students whose understanding and knowledge surpass their own instructor. Someday, if they teach, they will have students so dedicated that they themselves are in turn surpassed.

So yeah, lineage is fun, lineage can be helpful if transmission of knowledge has been relatively complete, but in the end, styles change, they do it rapidly, lineages spread as quickly and widely as genetics, every student and teacher in a given lineage is going to be of a different level knowledge, comprehension, and teaching ability, and in the end, it's more about the student and the teacher than it is about the lineage.

DISCLAIMER: As an unaffiliated TKD/Korean Karate guy in the states, I guess I kind of have to take that mindset or acknowledge that what I've been practicing for two thirds of my short life is crapola...

 

[JowGaWolf]

I believe that the true Masters that came before us, regardless of their Art, had an attitude of train your *** off and constantly test what you train, because.....

The guys before us probably fought more than we did so their attitude for training was geared towards fighting. As people we get mugged, robbed, assaulted, kidnapped, and murdered daily. Back then it was probably even more of an issue. Sort of like tribal warfare in certain parts of Africa, If they didn't have modern day weapons then they would fight with spears, arrows, knives, swords, clubs and bare hands. If you live in any of the tribes that are constantly fighting then your training of a fighting system isn't going to be focused on "I just do it for exercise." I think people in those situations would be using the fighting system more than testing. Testing a new technique in the heat of battle could result in death. If I was in an environment like that, then I would test any new technique on an enemy prisoner with the comfort of knowing that I would have my boys with me to help pull him off when the technique fails. If I didn't test it that way then I would just get into fights with people aka be a bully, where all of my disagreements end with "I'll punch you"

 

[Koshiki]

Testing a new technique in the heat of battle could result in death. If I was in an environment like that, then I would test any new technique on an enemy prisoner with the comfort of knowing that I would have my boys with me to help pull him off when the technique fails.

Interesting speculation, although at least in my shaky knowledge of history, I've really only heard of that practice anecdotally in one culture among one warrior-elite social class famed for their swords...

I think too, that it's generally believed that, at least among the mainly empty hand styles which the majority of us seem to primarily train, that they were designed and evolved not for the "heat of battle," or with access to "enemy prisoners," but rather among and for civilians more for, as you first speculate, robbers, muggers, and general noisome brigands and ruffians...

I would also guess that nowhere in the span of quiiite a few generations has there been an individual to have truly tested all the possible iterations and applications of even the simplest of art forms. The premise, the overall theme of the art sure, but not all the material. The amount of altercations that would require is immense, even if we were to imagine each iteration occurring only once, which wouldn't really be a strong base of knowledge.

No, I think it quite likely that even among the proverbial "Old/Ancient Masters," the vast bulk of their practical knowledge came from controlled training and speculation, as well as knowledge handed down and accepted largely by faith, though tested in training. Just like today, I imagine that those much revered guys of years gone by probably hadn't used most of what they practiced and taught on the "streets" of the days...

Might they have used it more than the average First World Suburbanite of today? Of, definitely. Sure, undoubtedly. As far as the strategy and overarching premise of a style, I'm sure they had more hands-on experience, by and large, but in terms of having used each technique? I might guess it was only slightly more than the average slightly-belligerent, risk-taking martial artist of today...


I'm surprised Chris Parker hasn't jumped in yet, this seems like his kind of thread, and I'd be interested to read his viewpoints on the subject...

 

[SenseiHitman]

Lineage matters with respect to knowing your roots and finding related arts, and it is bad karma to lie or mislead others of your roots. Your lineage does gives you insight into the concepts your art form applies, through the teachings passed down. However, lineage does not complete the warrior, and having a well known lineage does not make what you do correct. For example, I recently meet a high ranking Kenpo black belt who claims one of his teachers was William Chow. When I was warming up in his class, he had a childish fit when I refused to do a knee strike without using my calf muscles to lift the knee up rather than just lift my knee with my hamstring/quadriceps muscles. Even though he could feel the added power it was giving the blow (he was holding a focus mitt), he went on about how he was taught Kenpo by some authority blah blah blah etc. I Told him I don't care how your father or grandfather did their knee strikes., not using the calf muscle to lift your knee is an unnatural act, and forbidden in all the true and pure methods of Kempo. Of course. he knew I was right and it shut him up, but he then kicked me out of the class.
When the time comes to defend oneself, one needs the most effective method. the attacker won't feel more pain just because you did the tech. the way grandpa did it back in the day. With that said I will say again, lineage gives us insight but lineage is not where you go it's where you came from, as time passes, more insight is gained into the concepts the style uses so the tech. should reflect the gaining of insight over generations. The tech. the system uses to pass on insights should be updated by each generation. This is the difference between a teacher who quotes great knowledge and a teacher who is a source of great knowledge. He who quotes teaches tech. of the past, he who is a source updates the style for the future.

 

[Ironbear24]

Lineage doesnt matter when it comes time to fight. Your ancestors and your sifus ancestors will not be doing the fighting, you are the one who will be fighting.

 

[Kwon Bup]

I often wonder why lineage is such a big deal. In my opinion it is not at all that important. Most systems today are a cluttered mess of movements and techniques from various systems. Which in my personal opinion...really negates any claim towards a lineage.

 

[Andrew Green]

It's not at all important unless you are trying to preserve a tradition in a almost feudal sense.

No one outside the martial arts world cares, until they are taught to care. It doesn't really exist in other activities. No one is trying to trace their soccer lineage, or their piano playing lineage. You are good, or you are not. Different schools will get good or bad reputations based on what they do, not what someone who taught someone who taught the guy that started it did 100 years prior.

Now there is some element to it. A law degree from Harvard is going to be seen as more meaningful then one from a school no one heard of. But in truth, I got no idea where any lawyer I ever dealt with got their degree and don't really care. I don't know where many of my professors in University had gotten theirs, I don't know where my doctor got his.

I know the usual line is that it gives you a basis of whether or not they are legit... but no one starting out as a beginner has a clue what a good lineage looks like anyways. Far more relevant to them are things like online reviews, word of mouth, reputation in the community, etc. Lineage is a concept people have to be indoctrinated into believing is important.

So if your school wants to make it a important part of their culture, rock on. But in the big picture and from the outside, it's not important at all.

 

[drop bear]

Two ways of looking at linage.

Evolution vs creation.

We were originally made perfect. But as a copy of a copy we need to be concerned of a slow decline.

Or we were originally monkeys and through adversity will evolve into a better us.