Kosho Shorei Ryu

[kroh]

In fact, I said ALL martial arts have underlying concepts, but they have techniques that they teach and drill BASED on those concepts.

And we are not saying that concept based training does not contain techniques, it is the approach in how those techniques are taught and deployed that is slightly different.

So we agree on this principle training after all. It is just that old story of the three blind guys trying to describe an elephant by touch. Same thing, different points of perception...Knowing my luck I probably got to describe the part of the elephant under the tail....

By the way Danjo...

Love the web site link in your sig.
Regards,
Walt

 

[jdinca]

Arquilla wasn't a guard there at the same time Mitose was a prisoner. Arquilla met Mitose through Juchnik.

kk

That's actually why I used the word "claims". I know there's dispute/confusion around this.

I see that you're close to GM Arquilla's school. Do you train there, or know him? The top people at our school know him and he knows us, but I've never met him personally.

 

[kenpojujitsu]

this is a real beginners viewpoint that cannot see beyond a technique.
while there are many systems that teach techniques.....there are just as many that do not.
Mitose didn't want to put self defense sequences in his first book for that reason.
learning by principle is often a lot harder than learning techniques by rote......and it soon separates the conceptual learners from the purely visual "show me how" types.

Technique is applied theory and principles in action. Every style has principles and techniques to demonstrate and teach them

An art or style without techniques is not an art or style. It is just a thought or idea and an unproven theory.

If one can master the art of Kosho by merely being told of the secret principles or reading about them, then it is not much of a style.

With this idea of no techniques, you can just put up a web site explaining the principles and the whole world can become Kosho Masters in a few days.

If you have no techniques, what do you do in class? Just sit and talk about it?
How do you defend yuourself if you are attacked? Explain the theory of Kosho to your attacker and he just falls down?

This idea of "no techniques" is just stupidity.

 

[kelly keltner]

Sorry there is no debate/confusion about this. The timeline and facts are that Arquilla was introduced to Mitose by Juchnik and that Arquilla became a guard later.

kell

 

[kelly keltner]

I have to ask. What is the second book plagarised(SP) from? I am refering to Danjo's post.

kk

 

[kroh]

Technique is applied theory and principles in action. Every style has principles and techniques to demonstrate and teach them

An art or style without techniques is not an art or style. It is just a thought or idea and an unproven theory.

If one can master the art of Kosho by merely being told of the secret principles or reading about them, then it is not much of a style.

With this idea of no techniques, you can just put up a web site explaining the principles and the whole world can become Kosho Masters in a few days.

If you have no techniques, what do you do in class? Just sit and talk about it?
How do you defend yuourself if you are attacked? Explain the theory of Kosho to your attacker and he just falls down?

This idea of "no techniques" is just stupidity.

:duel:

 

[Benjp]

Technique is applied theory and principles in action.

Every style has principles and techniques to demonstrate and teach them

This idea of "no techniques" is just stupidity.

I think there are two ways to interpret "technique". One is the application of theory and principles in action, another is (this is the first definition I found in the online dictionary I used):

The systematic procedure by which a complex or scientific task is accomplished. (ref. http://www.answers.com/technique&r=67)

Most Kenpo schools that trace the lineage through William Chow take this approach to self defense.

Kosho Ryu teaches the concepts that make the complex task a simple one so that one does not need a systematic procedure to follow. Thus, no need for techniques.

Regards,

Ben

 

[Flying Crane]

In the same spirit as the last posting, I think technique could be as simple as a punch, a hammerfist, a knifehand, a sidekick, a front snap kick, an elbow jab, a finger poke, an inward block, a rising block, an evasion step, etc. These are the basic tools used in many martial arts, and can be used in limitless ways.

A Self Defense technique in the typical Kenpo sense is a more complex series of movements used to defend against a specific attack. these Self Defense techniques include many of the basics listed above, put together to respond to a specific threat in a prescribed way.

Perhaps it is the Self Defense techniques that the Kosho people do not use. The practice of the basics, and putting them together spontaneously to respond to a threat rather than relying on pre-set solutions, may be what the philosophy of the Kosho people use. I could see this as an effective approach to training an effective system.

In Capoeira, we have many techniques and movements, but no formalized kata. When we train, we invent sequences of movements from the individual techniques, and train them, then discard them. then next day, we invent new sequences. We may never train the same sequence again. The reason we do this is to develop sponteneity in the Capoeira Roda, rather than always responding to a threat with the same answer. If you get in a rut and always responds the same way, others will see this, predict your movement, and catch you every time.

The Capoeira Roda is not the same as a real fight, but I think perhaps the reasoning behind the approach is similar.

Any of the Kosho people want to comment? Have I hit the target here?

 

[kelly keltner]

Technique is applied theory and principles in action. Every style has principles and techniques to demonstrate and teach them

An art or style without techniques is not an art or style. It is just a thought or idea and an unproven theory.

If one can master the art of Kosho by merely being told of the secret principles or reading about them, then it is not much of a style.

With this idea of no techniques, you can just put up a web site explaining the principles and the whole world can become Kosho Masters in a few days.

If you have no techniques, what do you do in class? Just sit and talk about it?
How do you defend yuourself if you are attacked? Explain the theory of Kosho to your attacker and he just falls down?

This idea of "no techniques" is just stupidity.

Kenpojujistu, just curious what's your name? what art do you study? who is your teacher? How long have you been studying. There is not much info when I bring up your user profile.

Same questions for Danjo.

 

[Danjo]

I have to ask. What is the second book plagarised(SP) from? I am refering to Danjo's post.

kk

Here's the post from John Bishop on this: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?p=352357#post352357

 

[kelly keltner]

There were at least three books published. The one John Bishop was talking about was entitled In Search of Kenpo. I thought you were refering to What I Is True Self Defense. There was also What is Self-Defense which is his origional book. In Search of Kenpo may have had a lot of folk tales in it that are common in Japan. So show me the exact text that it is plagarised from. Certain portions of that book might be unorigional but, plagarism is a stretch unless you show me a book that it is taken from.

kk

 

[Danjo]

There were at least three books published. The one John Bishop was talking about was entitled In Search of Kenpo. I thought you were refering to What I Is True Self Defense. There was also What is Self-Defense which is his origional book. In Search of Kenpo may have had a lot of folk tales in it that are common in Japan. So show me the exact text that it is plagarised from. Certain portions of that book might be unorigional but, plagarism is a stretch unless you show me a book that it is taken from.

kk

"unoriginal" then. When one takes the ideas or words of another and uses them as one's own, giving no attribution to the source, it's often called plagiarism. I have never, however, seen the book in question, so my only source for the book being taken from Kirosawa's film but being credited as a family story by Mitose is from John Bishop. You'll have to take my hearsay comments for what they're worth and verify this stuff with someone like Bishop who's read the book.

 

[John Bishop]

There were at least three books published. The one John Bishop was talking about was entitled In Search of Kenpo. I thought you were refering to What I Is True Self Defense. There was also What is Self-Defense which is his origional book. In Search of Kenpo may have had a lot of folk tales in it that are common in Japan. So show me the exact text that it is plagarised from. Certain portions of that book might be unorigional but, plagarism is a stretch unless you show me a book that it is taken from.

kk

I don't know if Kurosawa's movie "Seven Samurai" was taken from a book, or a written screenplay.
For anyone who has seen the movie, they will remember the part where a bandit takes a young girl into a house/grass hut, and threatens to kill her if the villagers don't pay him a ransom. One of the seven samurai talks his way into the house and frees the girl. And no the samurai in the movie was not named "Kosho".
This story is repeated in Mitose's book "In Search of Kenpo" decades after the movie came out. And the samurai was credited as being one of Mitose's ancestors, named "Kosho".
So what is it when you take a story and a character from a book or movie, put the story in your book, and rename the character with your last name? And then claim that he was your ancestor?

 

[kelly keltner]

How old was the storyline? Did it pre date the movie? What was the source document?
How many times are plots used over and over in movies and T.V.?
How many times have you watched a movie and knew how it was going to end?
Is that plagarism?
Let's face it it may be a stretch of the imagination, but plagiarism I don't think so. It's a book of stories meant more to teach lessons than anything else. Mitose was less than a stellar individual
so he used a technique that's been used in Hollywood for years of recycling stories, come on.
By the way Danjo I have a copy of the book myself.
On another note, John how's that A&E special comming?
kk

 

[kroh]

Any of the Kosho people want to comment? Have I hit the target here?

Right on target...
Regards,
Walt

 

[John Bishop]

How old was the storyline? Did it pre date the movie? What was the source document?
How many times are plots used over and over in movies and T.V.?
How many times have you watched a movie and knew how it was going to end?
Is that plagarism?
Let's face it it may be a stretch of the imagination, but plagiarism I don't think so. It's a book of stories meant more to teach lessons than anything else. Mitose was less than a stellar individual
so he used a technique that's been used in Hollywood for years of recycling stories, come on.
By the way Danjo I have a copy of the book myself.
On another note, John how's that A&E special comming?
kk

Like I said, I don't know if Seven Samurai came from a book, legend, or just a screenplay. I just explained the identical story being credited by Mitose in his book, to the exploits of a Mitose ancestor. And the book does not appear to be one of fiction. It's supposed to be stories of how Mitose's ancestors used their kenpo techniques and philosophies.
People can make their own judgements on whether it's technically "plagarism".

I guess it would be like you writing a book about this English nobleman who had his properties and title taken away by the Kings evil brother while the king was off on the crusades.
And then this nobleman, who by the way was your ancestor, decided that he would ride around the forest with his merry men and rob from the rich and give to the poor. You could call him Sir Kelly of Loxley, or just Kelly Hood. Now would that fit the legal definition of "Plagarism", or would it just be sleazy.

About the A&E documentary? You'll have to ask Jaime Abregana about his progress on it. Abregana, Jaime [email protected]

 

[Flying Crane]

Right on target...
Regards,
Walt

Thank you for the response, Kroh.

This opens up a whole line of thought for the kenpo lineages that derived from Mitose and Kosho. This would include anything from William Chow and Ed Parker.

If it is true that Kosho focuses on perfection of the basics, the ability to spontaneously and creatively use the basics in any situation that arises, rather than develop a catalog of Self Defense techniques designed to answer against a specific type of attack, then this actually reinforces a suspicion that I have had for a long time.

My Kenpo training is from the Tracy lineage, which traces back thru Ed Parker, William Chow, and James Mitose. This type of Kenpo has a huge number of self defense techniques, designed to answer against every imaginable attack. Some of these techniques are quite useful and logical. Others are quite useless and make little sense. I have wondered how these were developed and why they were kept in the system, especially the less logical ones. I think I may have found the answer in this thread.

What I am about to say is all hypothetical. I have no proof, but it stems from my own pondering. If anyone can verify, or dispute what I am about to state, please do so.

First, we have to assume Tracy Kenpo does in fact trace its lineage back to James Mitose Kosho Shorei Ryu. Now if Mitose trained Chow, and Chow trained Parker, what was actually being taught? If it really was Kosho, then it would have been principles for sponteneity and creativity, like I discussed above. Somewhere along the line, the spontaneous "Technique of the Day" became codified into a formal Self Defense Technique. But it was never intended for this to happen, according to original Kosho. Who codified the techniques? Was is Chow? Parker? Tracy? I don't know, but I do know that EPAK has a lot of self defense techniques that still have a lot of similarity to Tracy kenpo. This suggests that it would have been no later in the lineage then Parker. So maybe Chow or Parker codified the techniques? I don't know. But this answers why so many Unuseful techniques found a place in the system. Someone who learned the technique as an exploration of movement and creativity that happened to be the topic of the day misunderstood the lesson, and carved the movement into stone and made it a codified technique. Could it be possible that the entire curriculum of the EPAK and Tracy and other related kenpo lineages were the result of a misunderstanding? Someone missed the basic lesson that was: none of this stuff is meant to be codified. It is only meant to explore possible movement and possible solutions to an attack, but not meant to be kept forever in the format practiced on that particular day.

Wow, what an implication this is.

 

[Benjp]

Someone missed the basic lesson that was: none of this stuff is meant to be codified. It is only meant to explore possible movement and possible solutions to an attack, but not meant to be kept forever in the format practiced on that particular day.

Wow, what an implication this is.

Actually, Bruce Juchnik picked up on it and has been moderately successful at propagating and expanding this lesson..

BTW, your clarification of my post is brilliant. Thanks for contributing

Ben

 

[Flying Crane]

Actually, Bruce Juchnik picked up on it and has been moderately successful at propagating and expanding this lesson..

BTW, your clarification of my post is brilliant. Thanks for contributing

Ben

You are welcome!

I guess if my theory is correct about the development of the curriculum used by later lineages, we can still assume that the ultimate goal is the same: to be able to spontaneously defend against an attack. It is just that the Kosho approach focuses on this goal from the beginning, while those with a more comprehensive curriculum have inserted this as sort of an intermediate step and expect the sponteneity to develop after a period of training. Ultimately the curriculum would become discarded as one no longer needed to rely on it. The problem is, as one becomes reliant on it, it becomes difficult to discard it. It becomes something of a crutch to lean on, and while we may be able to walk well enough with the crutch, we never learn to actually run. The curriculum can continue to be effective, but it can also ultimately narrow your vision of what is possible. On the other hand, the curriculum can also widen your vision in the early days of training, before you have any other examples to compare with... Tough call on which approach would be more effective. Probably depends on the individual. Even so, one way may have greater ultimate potential than the other, but that potential may never be truly realized by most people. Interesting thoughts...

 

[jdinca]

Thank you for the response, Kroh.

This opens up a whole line of thought for the kenpo lineages that derived from Mitose and Kosho. This would include anything from William Chow and Ed Parker.

If it is true that Kosho focuses on perfection of the basics, the ability to spontaneously and creatively use the basics in any situation that arises, rather than develop a catalog of Self Defense techniques designed to answer against a specific type of attack, then this actually reinforces a suspicion that I have had for a long time.

My Kenpo training is from the Tracy lineage, which traces back thru Ed Parker, William Chow, and James Mitose. This type of Kenpo has a huge number of self defense techniques, designed to answer against every imaginable attack. Some of these techniques are quite useful and logical. Others are quite useless and make little sense. I have wondered how these were developed and why they were kept in the system, especially the less logical ones. I think I may have found the answer in this thread.

What I am about to say is all hypothetical. I have no proof, but it stems from my own pondering. If anyone can verify, or dispute what I am about to state, please do so.

First, we have to assume Tracy Kenpo does in fact trace its lineage back to James Mitose Kosho Shorei Ryu. Now if Mitose trained Chow, and Chow trained Parker, what was actually being taught? If it really was Kosho, then it would have been principles for sponteneity and creativity, like I discussed above. Somewhere along the line, the spontaneous "Technique of the Day" became codified into a formal Self Defense Technique. But it was never intended for this to happen, according to original Kosho. Who codified the techniques? Was is Chow? Parker? Tracy? I don't know, but I do know that EPAK has a lot of self defense techniques that still have a lot of similarity to Tracy kenpo. This suggests that it would have been no later in the lineage then Parker. So maybe Chow or Parker codified the techniques? I don't know. But this answers why so many Unuseful techniques found a place in the system. Someone who learned the technique as an exploration of movement and creativity that happened to be the topic of the day misunderstood the lesson, and carved the movement into stone and made it a codified technique. Could it be possible that the entire curriculum of the EPAK and Tracy and other related kenpo lineages were the result of a misunderstanding? Someone missed the basic lesson that was: none of this stuff is meant to be codified. It is only meant to explore possible movement and possible solutions to an attack, but not meant to be kept forever in the format practiced on that particular day.

Wow, what an implication this is.

How about the followers of Mitose felt that the curriculum needed to be codified so that it could be taught to a wider range of students? Codifying techniques also brought it more in line with many traditional MA styles that had set techniques.

The key is in the use. Tracy's system has a technique for just about everything and yes, they are redundant in some cases but was the purpose of this to have a set answer to every attack? I certainly hope not. The way it was presented to me and the way I present it to my students when asked is this, a technique is a short story in which an attacker presents in a certain way and reacts in a certain way. The purpose of this is to teach you to move in the proper manner and expand your repretoire. In an actual attack, you cannot expect to think "gee, it's a right hand punch from my right side, I think I'll do Hands of Manchu". To me, it's the end result that matters. As long as it's the same, I don't see a problem with either path.

I do like your hypothesis. Unfortunately, we may never know the correct answer.