Martial Arts History & Influences

[Tez3]

Thanks Chris, always interesting!

Perhaps we should mould the definition of history differently as regards martial arts?

History as taught in schools is basically about dates, who was in charge of the country, what wars, who won etc. When people talk about the history of martial arts I think perhaps we are thinking of, and perhaps reading too many TKD posts has done this, who split from who to make up what group, who's son/daughter was who and what ranks people had ie who is the grand master. Perhaps what we should be thinking about is more the history of techniques, the why's as much as the whos. perhaps there's been too much politics for us to think of the history of martial arts as something useful.

We cannot see why learning a history of martial arts that involves so much politics, so many different groups, so many arguments is going to help us train better. We aren't going to get the focus in our training from knowing that one styles people fell out with anothers and thats why we have no kicks in certain katas because the we had to be different from the people we fell out with! As with Cyriacus, thats the history of his club/school not the history of his art.

Now if we talk about the history of specific techniques, the whys, wherefores and how it used to be done or why it's done that way now, I can see how that will improve your training, so is there something we can do to seperate the history of the politics, break ups and makeups from the actual history of the styles? I realise of course that instructors splitting from their founders, going to other countries etc is integral to a style's history but much of it's not. I'm not sure if I can make my point clear enough here lol, am struggling a bit.

I get the point about Wado Ryu and why it's the way it is but while not really applicable to Wado I also can see why endless lists of arguments about who's grandmaster was first to write his name on a certificate and suchlike isn't going to help us train any better! there is much clogging up in the history of martial arts and it's that which stops us seeing much use for it. There's history and there's history lol!

 

[Chris Parker]

I dunno. I think its kinda Cool that the Form Im Learning was used by the Korean Special Forces at one point.

I kinda hate to do this to you, Cyriacus, but, uh, no. I was a member of the same TKD organisation, remember, and that's not really part of it's history (then again, they give a 1300 year history for the art, when a lot of it was remarkably similar to the Shito Ryu [Shukokai] Karate that I'd trained previously, and the Shotokan that I'd experienced as well.... hmm). When it comes to TKD's involvement in the Korean Special Forces, that's a bit of a stretch of the reality, and is more PR than anything else. Part of TKD's origins are General Choi heading a group to introduce it to the military to aid their morale and fitness, rather than anything combatively beneficial. Some aspects were altered and put into some Special Forces training, but that is rather removed from TKD itself in many ways.

I agree and I like that what I do was also done by people in the past but it doesn't make the techniques any easier to learn or make them more effective. I like making patchwork quilts, this has a long history, different patterns, different meanings and cultural differences but when I'm sitting sewing it doesn't make any difference that people have done this before me, it's a connection to those people but it doesn't involve the stitching or the making up of those quilts. I still prick my fingers now and again, history can't change that!

No, but theoretically the usage by generations past should speak to the effectiveness of the technical side of things, at least as far as the context and environment within which they were used. In terms of making it easier, though, it comes down to context. By understanding the context of the history, you can "see" what the system is doing, and why a lot easier, which can certainly make it easier to learn. When I'm taking my guys through any of the specific systems we study, the first thing I do is give them a handout which includes a brief rundown on the history of the system in question, it's usage, and traits, so that as we explore the art itself, I can refer back to that history and say "remember, this art is more to do with running across a battlefield, so that's where this stepping action comes from. You might remember it from these other kata...", or, at the moment "remember, the main usage of this system is non-combative, if you got to the point where there was an enemy who spotted you, you'd messed up. So the aim is not to beat them, it's to get away from them, and here's how we do it".

Not from THAT Perspective. But its the Mindset. The Mentality.
The Way you Think.

I like thinking that Im Practitioning a Militaristically Inclined Style, as opposed to a Sporting One. That isnt a Criticism of Sporting Ones, just that I prefer it this way.
And that Mentality... Kind of keeps me Focused. That may just be Me.

Militaristic and sporting aren't the only two options, though, and the system you're training in I wouldn't describe as actually militaristic. It's fairly formal, and there's a lot of respect there, making a pretty traditional feel, but militaristic it isn't. Your instructor, on the other hand, might be, but that's their personal approach. Again, none of these are better than any others, just better suited to different people, really. The main thing is that you enjoy it, and it sounds like you do.

In no particular order:

What was the founder's physical makeup? There are kata in Japanese/Okinawan karate where this (the physical attributes of the kata's author) is clearly evident. In my own family, while we have some of the trade axe/tomahawk, boarding pike and knife/cutlass techniques of my ancestors, a great many of those men, right up to my great grandfather and his brother, my namesake, were like 6'10" tall-many of the things that they managed to do and codified worked less for my grandfather at 6'4", and even less for me, at a mere 6'2". Likewise, Chris Parker pointed out the various lines of aikido that are extent, and how understanding their historical basis adds meaning to what's being done: as a Yoshinkan student, it's important that I know why Ueshiba emphasized different things to different students at different times. It's also important that I understand some of the fundamental structural differences between what we do and what the rest of the aikido world is doing.

As a kyokushinkai karate student, it's important that I know at least a little of what influenced Mas Oyama in its devlopment-even developments that I was witness to, like the introduction of Muay Thai leg kicks. As a Miyama ryu jujutsu student, it's extremely important that I recognize the way judo was practiced from the 40's to the 60's, when the founder was learning it, and what influence Sosuishitsu ryu jujutsu had on him, and what his time as a sniper in WWII and learning Army combatives of that period did for him, and what his time in Aikido training meant-all these things influenced the development of Miyama ryu, and are important to me, as a practitioner and teacher. To someone who just wants to learn to defend themselves, maybe not as much........

Absolutely agreed on this. For instance, in the sword system I was talking about earlier, the founder was renowned for being a giant amongst Japanese, at over 6 feet tall. As a result, there are certain cutting angles that are relatively common in other systems (cutting up from beneath) that just don't make much of an appearance here. The main emphasis is to drop straight down through your opponent, using your size and reach advantage, as well as pretty damn pure aggression. But when I was first being introduced to the system, I was coming from other systems where cutting up was common, and wondered why they aren't there in this one. The answer came from understanding the origin and the history of the founder of that art.

 

[Chris Parker]

Thanks Chris, always interesting!

Perhaps we should mould the definition of history differently as regards martial arts?

History as taught in schools is basically about dates, who was in charge of the country, what wars, who won etc. When people talk about the history of martial arts I think perhaps we are thinking of, and perhaps reading too many TKD posts has done this, who split from who to make up what group, who's son/daughter was who and what ranks people had ie who is the grand master. Perhaps what we should be thinking about is more the history of techniques, the why's as much as the whos. perhaps there's been too much politics for us to think of the history of martial arts as something useful.

We cannot see why learning a history of martial arts that involves so much politics, so many different groups, so many arguments is going to help us train better. We aren't going to get the focus in our training from knowing that one styles people fell out with anothers and thats why we have no kicks in certain katas because the we had to be different from the people we fell out with! As with Cyriacus, thats the history of his club/school not the history of his art.

Now if we talk about the history of specific techniques, the whys, wherefores and how it used to be done or why it's done that way now, I can see how that will improve your training, so is there something we can do to seperate the history of the politics, break ups and makeups from the actual history of the styles? I realise of course that instructors splitting from their founders, going to other countries etc is integral to a style's history but much of it's not. I'm not sure if I can make my point clear enough here lol, am struggling a bit.

I get the point about Wado Ryu and why it's the way it is but while not really applicable to Wado I also can see why endless lists of arguments about who's grandmaster was first to write his name on a certificate and suchlike isn't going to help us train any better! there is much clogging up in the hisotry of martial arts and it's that which stops us seeing much use for it. There's history and there's history lol!

Ech, that's not history, that's just dead information...

History should be alive, it's purpose is to guide and inform the present, and lead towards the future. It's not so much the names and dates, it's the why's and how's, the what happened as a result, that's what history is. Hell, I can list off dates and names without any problem, but that's not history, that's just a list. History is events, effects, changes, and reasons.

I'm not fond of the school version there, to me that's just lazy.

 

[Tez3]

I kinda hate to do this to you, Cyriacus, but, uh, no. I was a member of the same TKD organisation, remember, and that's not really part of it's history (then again, they give a 1300 year history for the art, when a lot of it was remarkably similar to the Shito Ryu [Shukokai] Karate that I'd trained previously, and the Shotokan that I'd experienced as well.... hmm). When it comes to TKD's involvement in the Korean Special Forces, that's a bit of a stretch of the reality, and is more PR than anything else. Part of TKD's origins are General Choi heading a group to introduce it to the military to aid their morale and fitness, rather than anything combatively beneficial. Some aspects were altered and put into some Special Forces training, but that is rather removed from TKD itself in many ways.



No, but theoretically the usage by generations past should speak to the effectiveness of the technical side of things, at least as far as the context and environment within which they were used. In terms of making it easier, though, it comes down to context. By understanding the context of the history, you can "see" what the system is doing, and why a lot easier, which can certainly make it easier to learn. When I'm taking my guys through any of the specific systems we study, the first thing I do is give them a handout which includes a brief rundown on the history of the system in question, it's usage, and traits, so that as we explore the art itself, I can refer back to that history and say "remember, this art is more to do with running across a battlefield, so that's where this stepping action comes from. You might remember it from these other kata...", or, at the moment "remember, the main usage of this system is non-combative, if you got to the point where there was an enemy who spotted you, you'd messed up. So the aim is not to beat them, it's to get away from them, and here's how we do it".....................


.

I don't think this is what we think of when we think of martial arts history, that is useful. What we get is the politics and the importance of organisations. That's why we are seeing things from different perspectives.

 

[Jenna]

Before I get to the concrete examples (yeah, I got some), I'm going to address the first part of this, namely whether or not knowing the history, and why things were done one way in the past, whether or not that affects the way you do it now.

First thing to do is to look at something I've inferred up to this point, and it's something that I've brought up before as well, and that's the concept of what a martial artist is, and what training in a martial art is in the first place. As Frank said earlier, the particular mythology, or public image and perception of a martial art is a big drawcard for potential students (probably right up at the top, along with location, time [availability], and price). What that means is that they are coming to learn a particular approach, whether or not that approach is what they expected when they first walked in the door is largely irrelevant, they will be paying and training to learn a particular approach and methodology; in a karate school, they are paying to learn karate, in a judo school they are paying to learn judo, in a hung gar school, they are paying to learn hung gar, and so on. So to understand what that means means you have to understand the history, where, when, why, and who developed the system, as well as any pertinent events in it's history. If you are just doing things because they seem to work for you, but might or might not actually fit in the system itself, you're going further and further from being that particular martial artist, and just being a fighter. All a fighter needs is the ability to fight, and preferably, to win. A martial artist is a different breed, and what a martial artist is, and what that martial art is, comes from the history. To not know it is to not know the martial art, including not actually know it's physical methods.

Okay, concrete examples. I did promise, after all, didn't I?

Without giving too much away, I'm a member of an informal study group for an old Japanese sword system, with a very famous history and founder. And, due to a range of circumstances, I am in a position where I am currently leading the group. One thing I am constantly doing is referring to the history of the system to explain the way things are done, the specific movements and approach to certain aspects, as well as the mentality and mindset of the system. For example, in this system, the "blocking" action, which in many other systems is done with more of an evasive, deflecting feel, here is far more aggressive. And without knowing the history, why it was done the way it was, and so forth, the technique can very easily come out "wrong", although it can still "work" in a real way.

With Aikido, as I said earlier, it comes down to knowing your particular lineage, where it branched out from Ueshiba Sensei (if it did), and why. That will lead you to understand why the techniques are done differently in the various forms, which does inform the way it is done today, rather than just taking some Yoshinkan, some Tomiki, some Ki Society, and some Takemusu, and thinking it's all the same. It isn't. But unless you get the history, and why the differences were formed, you might try to put it all together.

There's a lot more to this, but this is going to be a long post as it is, and essentially every art is enhanced in it's current practice by knowing it's history, as that informs the current practice. Whether it's consciously known or not, it's still there.

Ah, but without that history, there wouldn't be that technique.....

I suppose it comes down to understanding what the technique is designed to deal with, which informs it's movement, and can indicate benefits and limitations. For example, knowing the history of that technique would give you the understanding as to why the forward movement is so important, and in fact, crucial to get the technique to work properly. Then, when teaching it and passing it on yourself, when you notice a student not moving in far enough, and you point it out, they may respond "oh, but I'm safe enough here", in which case you can demonstrate that they're really not. If you never got the understanding of the origin of the technique, though, you may be at a loss to explain the actual movement and the reason it works the way it does, which could lead to the next generation getting it wrong, and it getting weaker and weaker as it goes along.

Christopher! we are not seeing the question from the same perspective. I do not even think we are seeing the same question. You are giving your reply to a question that you yourself are asking and not what I hoped you would answer for me.

You have given further examples of how history influences each and every art that there is. I do not disupute this. Nor do I dispute that knowing how these historical influences have inspired techniques is interesting. It is very interesting to know these things and to have a background.

However, beyond what you have said, and what elder999 has said too, that it is IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHY the art was created the way it was, I do not understand WHY is it important to know why outside of having my curiosity satisfied??

Certainly it is nice to know of all the different contextual settings and of how the founder was off of work one day since the paddy fields had been drained by a mysterious sinkhole and had gone for a walk in the woods and had stopped to eat an unusual fungi and had seen a primate hunt haplessly for food and from that monkey hunting, and being addled by mushrooms he envisaged in psychedelia the Monkey Catching Cricket strike etc. etc. this is all interesting I do not deny that. I am just failing to see how any of this affects how I practice MY OWN Monkey Catching Cricket stance right now. I execute that technique it as the founder taught his apprenticed after the fungi wore off, and how they handed it down to their seniors and how they in turn passed it onto military personnel stationed there at the time and how they brought it out of the country and so on. I can practice Monkey Catching Cricket (you like that btw?) without knowing any of the history. How does knowledge of that history temper how I practice my MCC strike now?

I practice it in the dojo. I adjust it so that it fits me since I am not burly (perhaps unlike the fictional founder). I test it and prove that it works against committed uke. I do all this knowing nothing at all of that day when the founder was in the mushroom woods. And further, knowing about the mushroom woods and the hungry monkey does not improve my MCC strike either? Please explain why I am wrong to think this Thank you. Janna.

 

[Tez3]

Jenna, I can just hear the way you are saying 'Christopher' at the start of that post!

I'm not sure that what Chris is talking about is the history bit, I think it comes under the influences part of the OP title. The size of a person does often matter in techniques and passing on observations from being taller or smaller I don't think is history as such, more just good teaching. It's a build up of experiences and knowledge that is passed on actively rather than a more passive recitation of history. I can't see that, as Jenna says knowing where the technique came from is useful to her practising it, I can see however that an observation (such as if you are tall use a wider stance) from someone in the past being taught as an aid to helping you do that technique is useful.

 

[Chris Parker]

I don't think this is what we think of when we think of martial arts history, that is useful. What we get is the politics and the importance of organisations. That's why we are seeing things from different perspectives.

Hmm, let's see if I can explain the way I see history here, then. Let's take a person, just for simplicity.

A person has a range of behaviours. These include a particular way of walking, a particular speech pattern, certain habits, and preferences. But none of these behaviours just emerge out of nothing. What they are are the result of the history of that person. The person, at some point, as one, or a number, or experiences. Those experiences give that person one or many beliefs, and those beliefs are given certain values (good things valued highly, bad things valued lowly, avoiding bad things valued highly again, and so on). It is this set of beliefs and values that gives the behaviours that the person expresses in their everyday life.

Let's make that a little more specific.

Let's say that, when a child, say about 3 or 4, you were stung on the ear by a bee. It hurt, there were tears, and whenever someone came near your ear to remove the stinger, it hurt more. This lead to a belief that insects, or really anything, moving around near your ear can lead to a lot of pain and tears. Pain and tears are not valued highly, but avoiding pain and tears is valued highly. As a result, you develop the behaviour (habit) of flinching, and swatting with your hand at anything near your ear.

Now, do you need to know that history in order to have that behaviour? No, not really. However, if you want to understand that behaviour, or more importantly, change it, then you do. For instance, it may be a lot of fun for my friends to keep teasing me by putting pencils, bits of paper, and so on near my ear, because I always react the same way, but when I met my latest girlfriend, Scarlett Johansson, she has a habit of leaning in and whispering in my ear. After the third time I swatted her in the face, it became important to figure out, and understand the history, so that I could change it (and no, I'm not getting into changing behaviours here, although there are a few clues in that little story).

This is what history is, it's events from the past that have shaped and influenced the present, it's not just names and dates, it's an understanding of what has happened before in order to gain insight into what is happening now.

Christopher! we are not seeing the question from the same perspective. I do not even think we are seeing the same question. You are giving your reply to a question that you yourself are asking and not what I hoped you would answer for me.

You have given further examples of how history influences each and every art that there is. I do not disupute this. Nor do I dispute that knowing how these historical influences have inspired techniques is interesting. It is very interesting to know these things and to have a background.

However, beyond what you have said, and what elder999 has said too, that it is IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHY the art was created the way it was, I do not understand WHY is it important to know why outside of having my curiosity satisfied??

Certainly it is nice to know of all the different contextual settings and of how the founder was off of work one day since the paddy fields had been drained by a mysterious sinkhole and had gone for a walk in the woods and had stopped to eat an unusual fungi and had seen a primate hunt haplessly for food and from that monkey hunting, and being addled by mushrooms he envisaged in psychedelia the Monkey Catching Cricket strike etc. etc. this is all interesting I do not deny that. I am just failing to see how any of this affects how I practice MY OWN Monkey Catching Cricket stance right now. I execute that technique it as the founder taught his apprenticed after the fungi wore off, and how they handed it down to their seniors and how they in turn passed it onto military personnel stationed there at the time and how they brought it out of the country and so on. I can practice Monkey Catching Cricket (you like that btw?) without knowing any of the history. How does knowledge of that history temper how I practice my MCC strike now?

I practice it in the dojo. I adjust it so that it fits me since I am not burly (perhaps unlike the fictional founder). I test it and prove that it works against committed uke. I do all this knowing nothing at all of that day when the founder was in the mushroom woods. And further, knowing about the mushroom woods and the hungry monkey does not improve my MCC strike either? Please explain why I am wrong to think this Thank you. Janna.

Ah, my dearest and truest J, I would never dare to tell you you are wrong, particularly when it comes to opinion...

The point that I am making is more that you may think that you are doing your Monkey Catching Cricket strike (nice move, very fast, coming in from an unseen angle... very sneaky, I approve), but without understanding where it comes from, and why it is done the way it is, you may very easily not be doing it at all, but doing something different. This is what I was getting at with the description of what a martial art and martial artist is in the first place, are you truly a Monkey Catching Cricket practitioner if you aren't doing it correctly, as you don't know the actual context? Or are you just doing something similar, and thinking that if it works, it's good enough?

In terms of the knowledge, and how it affects your current practice, that is a matter of constant personal reflection. By constantly reflecting on the way you are doing it, and checking it against the actual contextual usage in it's initial development. By knowing the history, you can take it back to the origin at any time, and ensure that you are still doing it correctly, without that, you can head off in odd directions. This is why I say that it's not really part of being a fighter, but it is a part of being a martial artist.

Did that help?

Jenna, I can just hear the way you are saying 'Christopher' at the start of that post!

I'm not sure that what Chris is talking about is the history bit, I think it comes under the influences part of the OP title. The size of a person does often matter in techniques and passing on observations from being taller or smaller I don't think is history as such, more just good teaching. It's a build up of experiences and knowledge that is passed on actively rather than a more passive recitation of history. I can't see that, as Jenna says knowing where the technique came from is useful to her practising it, I can see however that an observation (such as if you are tall use a wider stance) from someone in the past being taught as an aid to helping you do that technique is useful.

Ha, just to clarify, there are a grand total of three people that I allow to use that full name for myself there, and young J here is one of the very few... so she can say it any way she wants, and always get a smile from me.

This history is the influence, the two are the same thing. The history is only relevant because of the influence it gives. The details that you talk about there, such as altering stances to suit different body shapes, can be done only if you understand the art itself, and that comes from understanding it's history as much as it's techniques, in a real way they are the same thing. Realistically, the techniques can be seen as vessels for the history of the system, as they are expressions (behaviours) which come from the beliefs and values of the art, which are directly taken from the art's history.

Or am I getting a little too heady here?

 

[Tez3]

Not in the least heady, enjoying intelligent discussion. When Jenna used your middle name as well are you in trouble lol?

History, as you understand and use it, while I believe correctly, is not what we have come to see when it deals with martial arts.

http://visiontkd.co.uk/tkdhistory.htm
http://www.risingphoenix.org.uk/page10.html

http://www.karate-made-easy.com/history-of-karate.html


This is martial arts history as we are taught it and like Jenna I cannot see anything that will enable me to train better. It's this 'history' that people see as important and why their lineage is important, nothing to do with techniques at all.

 

[JohnEdward]

I'm going to take a few things out of this and deal with them specifically, if you don't mind John.

First: "Does knowing the history make a better martial artist than those who do not know their history?" Actually, yes. Whether it will make them a better fighter, on the other hand, is a different question to my mind. And there, the answer can be yes again... depending on how intelligently it's approached.

Second, and this kind of is non-negotiable here: "I studied a koryu jujutsu, does not knowing all the history of the art, or all the related subjects in depth make me any less of a koryu practitioner?" Yes, it absolutely does. Especially not knowing the history. Koryu is one of those cases where the history is more important than the physical methods, in a very real way, to not know that is to not know the Ryu, and therefore not be a Koryu practitioner. The related subjects, well, it would depend on what you meant by that really. But if they are part of the transmission of the art, the only excuse you could have is that you are a relatively new practitioner and haven't gone into it much yet. Anything other than that, and you're not studying Koryu, you're learning techniques. That is a very different situation.

No I don't mind. Though I would like throw out some thoughts. First, question that comes to mind, is what you know historically, accurate, authentic, reliable? You know what they say about history, few facts lots of subjectivity. For example, look how the Japanese handle history, especially martial history and martial arts history. It is very hard to deal historically with an art that claims it originated from a Tengu, or more broadly a nation on mythology. Or some arts history that make claims that can't be proven either way. Then there is individual perspective and preferences on historical events, accuracy issues, cultural influences, and interpretations of historians, and trends. Look at the argument on over the last several years on the net that discredits Inazo Nitobe's and Yamamoto Tsunetomo's views of the Samurai. What was thought of to be historically accurate views as now being refuted.

And how much history must you know to qualify you as a martial "artist." ? Thanks to the internet we are all genius. That information is readily at everyone's finger tips. My late instructor, being Japanese, coming from a samurai lineage knew very little historical information. His focus was on the art. He would admonish us for focusing on historical pursues. Mainly, because he knew it really didn't matter, and what mattered was skill. He was more concerned about tradition than stories, and trivia. His sensei was illiterate, and a well known samurai. Which in a way, and here is the problem with history, disproves that samurai were educated. That argument points up back to arguments against Tsunetomo romanticizing and inflating things.

Then there is all the historical political information that ties in to an art that really is silly, and causes more misinformation and all kinds of other things, like politics.

So at what point studying history is enough to qualify as being a martial artist? What information and what amount qualifies and what doesn't? Should you also know cultural information? To what point, to what extent should you know this information to qualify you as a good martial arts?

What point do you become a marital arts historian vs. an artist? At what point do you become a history nerd arguing passionately and frivolously over irrelevant minutia? We all start out as martial artists first with very little martial arts knowledge, should we morph into historians arguing points, and fighting ego battles instead of training? Where is the line? Is there one? Should there be one?

Now, MMA produces a lot of good fighters. Do they know the historical background in depth of each art. Does that help them develop a good punch. I am a firm believer in knowing your history as not to repeat it. I believe you need to know a certain type of historical information, i.e. what others before you did. I think what is required for most koryu historically is lineage, most what you need to know is tradition. There is the crux. It's knowing the pertinent historical traditions of your art, vs. historical minutia that is often an exercise of intellectual masturbation and futility resulting in the only value of debate and ego.

Now, knowing a great deal of a martial art history may be needed if you need to justify your arts existence, to prove it is not made up. Or correct errors of perception etc. So of course your going to weight history over skill. Especially if your art was recently made up within the last 50 years. Then there is the risk that historical information gets twisted, omitted etc. for being proof. Thus compromises the value of having a historical component qualifying you as a good or even a martial artist. You are only as good as the information.

Lastly, this issue of the qualified historians vs. amatures. Anyone can pull info from the web, that doesn't make you good. It doesn't make you an expert [historian or martial artist]. For me to run along your premise, extensive historical information is needed to be a good martial artist. That means you need to be qualified by a University, you need an advanced degree [in area of history]. Pulling historical info about marital arts and your own off the internet blindly accepting what your told doesn't qualify you [as a good martial artist], it makes you an amateur parroting other's information of which we are at the mercy their for accuracy and authenticity.


Am not against knowing who started the art (arguable or not), what it is classified by the Japanese as, where it came from, or the important figures, I just don't think if you or doesn't my you a "good" martial artist, or have any bearing on if you are or not a martial artist. That is determined by skill and ability. At the end of the day or when your back is up against the wall, it is skill not history that will say your butt.

 

[Tez3]

My simple mind is saying , yes I can see why in Wado the founder put in throws but I still can't see why knowing that helps me hoick someone over my shoulder so that they splat on the floor. They don't splat they sort of wriggle off, so to learn and perfect that technique I need someone to show me, correct me and put me right, that person could be a Judoka or a BJJ person knowing nothing about Wado. Knowing that Ohtsuka Sensei was a JJ master doesn't help me at all.
I know after the lofty posts mine is a bit more basic!

 

[JohnEdward]

Chris let me add too, that I train, learn, develop in a martial art that someone demarcated as traditional by their criteria, that does make me koryu practitioner until they move that line, and or change the definition. Until then my all rights and measures am a koryu practitioner; a martial artist. What ever the history of that art is, or isn't, doesn't take away the fact I have studied it for many years, nor effects my skill, ability, expertise or qualification at it. It doesn't remove those facts am a koryu practitioner. What makes me a good marital artist is my skill and ability. Not my knowledge of Samurai bathing habits for example. The criteria that is the most heavily weighted in being an expert in martial arts, which is a concrete and not an abstract field, is skill and knowledge of that skill. To the extent of its use and application. Knowing a book load of information does make me another kind of expert, but that refers to being a scholar and not a fighter.

Now am I a scholarly martial artist. No. Do I know some pertinent history of my art, yes. Am I knowledgeable in the art I choose to practice? Yes by, right of experience, skill and abilities, and not by historical research. I respect those who are scholars, but it isn't a required qualification to be a good martial artist.

 

[JohnEdward]

Now am I a scholarly martial artist. No. Do I know some pertinent history of my art, yes. Am I knowledgeable in the art I choose to practice? Yes by, right of experience, skill and abilities, and not by historical research. I respect those who are scholars, but it isn't a required qualification to be a good martial artist.

Let me clean this up a bit. Now am I a scholarly martial artist? No. Do I know some pertinent history of my art and its traditions, yes. Am I knowledgeable in the art I choose to practice? Yes by, right of experience, skill and abilities, by tradition, and that of my teacher and peers in the art, and not by historical research. I respect those who are scholars, but it isn't a required qualification to be a good martial artist. I am not saying those with martial arts historical knowledge beyond the norm doesn't enhance your passion. I think it does, but it doesn't necessarily make you a "good" martial artist.

 

[Chris Parker]

No I don't mind. Though I would like throw out some thoughts. First, question that comes to mind, is what you know historically, accurate, authentic, reliable? You know what they say about history, few facts lots of subjectivity. For example, look how the Japanese handle history, especially martial history and martial arts history. It is very hard to deal historically with an art that claims it originated from a Tengu, or more broadly a nation on mythology. Or some arts history that make claims that can't be proven either way. Then there is individual perspective and preferences on historical events, accuracy issues, cultural influences, and interpretations of historians, and trends. Look at the argument on over the last several years on the net that discredits Inazo Nitobe's and Yamamoto Tsunetomo's views of the Samurai. What was thought of to be historically accurate views as now being refuted.

Ah, Tsunetomo in particular I tend to advise against being taken as gospel, for a range of reasons.... but the thing is, absolute historical veracity isn't the most important part of this. Something like Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, for instance, it's history claims that the art was given to the founder Iizasa Ienao Choisai by the deity of Katori Shrine in a dream, and when he awoke, he was holding the scroll with the techniques and teachings of the Ryu in his hand. Now, that isn't going to pass muster as historically accurate, but it is part of the history of that Ryu, and gives you a great insight into a range of aspects of that system, such as why they don't change their teachings, nor add to them, or even try to reconstruct their lost aspects. Knowing the history that the Ryu puts forth there absolutely informs you about it's approach, mindset, and methodology.

That should then be, ideally, combined with understanding of the more historically demonstrable things known about the time period the Ryu comes from. For instance, if it made a claim such as this, but had a lot of roundhouse kicks and spinning back kicks, or nunchaku and sai, for instance, that would be a huge indication of some issues. So when it comes down to it, some general knowledge of the surrounding environment (political, geographical, cultural etc) help fill in the gaps when the history passed down leaves some questions.

But back to Tsunetomo (and Nitobe, in a very similar way), he was very much removed from the ideals he was talking about, and was just wishing for an ideal. Neither should be taken as historical sources, more as commentaries on the ideals that some people held. Some discernment is required in any field of study, you can't just take every single account with the same weight.

And how much history must you know to qualify you as a martial "artist." ? Thanks to the internet we are all genius. That information is readily at everyone's finger tips. My late instructor, being Japanese, coming from a samurai lineage knew very little historical information. His focus was on the art. He would admonish us for focusing on historical pursues. Mainly, because he knew it really didn't matter, and what mattered was skill. He was more concerned about tradition than stories, and trivia. His sensei was illiterate, and a well known samurai. Which in a way, and here is the problem with history, disproves that samurai were educated. That argument points up back to arguments against Tsunetomo romanticizing and inflating things.

Then there is all the historical political information that ties in to an art that really is silly, and causes more misinformation and all kinds of other things, like politics.

I'm going to try to be gentle here, John, but if your instructor was concerned about tradition, that would refer (in Koryu terms) to things such as the histories and stories that are associated with the particular Ryu he was teaching. To not be concerned with such things is kinda the opposite, really. His teacher being illiterate really wouldn't come into it, to be honest, although such things tend to be indications of not entirely accurate dealings. In terms of samurai being educated, that depends on a huge number of things, such as the time period you're discussing, and the relative rank, as well as the location and station of the samurai in question. Bear in mind that Tsunetomo wasn't being that generalist, he was discussing the samurai of the Nabashima fief specifically, and went out of his way to differentiate them from samurai from other areas.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the politics side of things, that typically, in Japan, meant that things were recorded even more meticulously than they were in many other areas. Many regions would have Otomo Ryu, schools specific to that area, and under the sponsorship and protection, as well as endorsement, of the local lord. Some of the best known are the two Ryu that were the schools for the Tokugawa Shoguns, the Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, and the Ono-ha Itto Ryu. Others are ones such as Kage Ryu, and Shinto Muso Ryu in other areas.

So at what point studying history is enough to qualify as being a martial artist? What information and what amount qualifies and what doesn't? Should you also know cultural information? To what point, to what extent should you know this information to qualify you as a good martial arts?

What point do you become a marital arts historian vs. an artist? At what point do you become a history nerd arguing passionately and frivolously over irrelevant minutia? We all start out as martial artists first with very little martial arts knowledge, should we morph into historians arguing points, and fighting ego battles instead of training? Where is the line? Is there one? Should there be one?

These questions are all on a case-by-case basis. If it's a Koryu, then you should know the relevant history of the system, the founder, the dates, ideally all the heads, major events in the history of the system, where in Japan it was based, who prominent students were and what systems grew out of it (if any), related stories, as well as all the teachings of the system itself. If it's a more modern system, not so much is needed, I'd say just where it comes from, who the founder was, and your connection to them. Ideally, I'd also include some understanding of why the founder created the system in the first place (for example, I studied Tani-ha Shito Ryu Shukokai Karate-do when I was younger, with my instructor teaching us that it was a great self defence art... only problem was that Tani Sensei developed Shukokai specifically with it's training drills and shorter stances to win tournaments, not self defence, as that was what he was famous for. That would be a case of not knowing the history leading to misinterpretation of the art and it's methods), and how that affects the movements of the system. Too many people just think of a martial art as a collection of techniques that X-instructor decided to put together because they liked them, or they worked for that person. Arts such as that fail, as it is dependent on the skill of that founding instructor, rather than having any real base to work from. Arts which have a purpose, such as Shukokai in winning tournaments, are grounded in a congruent philosophy, and as such "work".

The aim isn't to become historians first, or even second. The aim is to understand your own art, and if all you do is the techniques, you are far from understanding the art. You may be able to do the techniques, but that's not the same thing.

Now, MMA produces a lot of good fighters. Do they know the historical background in depth of each art. Does that help them develop a good punch. I am a firm believer in knowing your history as not to repeat it. I believe you need to know a certain type of historical information, i.e. what others before you did. I think what is required for most koryu historically is lineage, most what you need to know is tradition. There is the crux. It's knowing the pertinent historical traditions of your art, vs. historical minutia that is often an exercise of intellectual masturbation and futility resulting in the only value of debate and ego.

MMA athletes don't need to know the historical background of disparate arts, but you'll find that they're pretty well versed in their own. They'll know what techniques tend to bring the greatest amount of success, who was known for what types of tactics and approaches, who beat who, who changed other people's training due to their success in unexpected ways, and so on. In terms of them developing a good punch, let's look at that. They either had a TMA-style background, in which they were taught a punching method that generated power in a certain way (due to it's particular history), or they learnt a "boxing" style punching method, either in boxing/kickboxing gyms, or from an MMA coach. In each of these cases there is a history of development of training methodologies aiming at developing better, more explosive, more precise, and faster punches. The way that history comes into this, as it's a very recent art, is based on the training and coaching history of the people involved. A well known and well respected coach, who gets good results and trains high class athletes, is then working with that history to promote themselves and get new students. And they got that history by learning from someone else, and establishing their own reputation. Ask an MMA guy who they'd like to work with to improve their grappling, and they'll give you a short list of names with established reputations. That's the history of those individuals coming into play. It doesn't need to go back that far, really.

With Koryu, lineage is a big part of it, yeah, but frankly I don't really know what the rest of that sentence means...

Now, knowing a great deal of a martial art history may be needed if you need to justify your arts existence, to prove it is not made up. Or correct errors of perception etc. So of course your going to weight history over skill. Especially if your art was recently made up within the last 50 years. Then there is the risk that historical information gets twisted, omitted etc. for being proof. Thus compromises the value of having a historical component qualifying you as a good or even a martial artist. You are only as good as the information.

Again, I'm not sure what you're saying here. History doesn't get valued over skill at any point, but skill is relative to the art itself. Historical understanding can clear up issues of illegitimacy, sure, but that's not the same thing. There is no qualifying anyone as a good martial artist based on historical knowledge the way you are painting it here, really. What I am saying is that a martial artist is someone who truly understands their art, why it does what it does and so on, and the answers to that are found in the arts history, therefore an understanding of the history (relative to the art you're doing) is a part of it. I'm really not saying that everyone needs to have a full understanding of the to's and fro's of the battle of Sekiguchi to be considered a martial artist, unless that is a major event in that art's history. And I really don't know what you mean by "You are only as good as the information".

Lastly, this issue of the qualified historians vs. amatures. Anyone can pull info from the web, that doesn't make you good. It doesn't make you an expert [historian or martial artist]. For me to run along your premise, extensive historical information is needed to be a good martial artist. That means you need to be qualified by a University, you need an advanced degree [in area of history]. Pulling historical info about marital arts and your own off the internet blindly accepting what your told doesn't qualify you [as a good martial artist], it makes you an amateur parroting other's information of which we are at the mercy their for accuracy and authenticity.

No, you've really grabbed the wrong end of things here, John. That's not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying that the history, relative to the art you're studying, needs to be understood (not parroted) to really say you understand the art. There is no need for anyone to be a qualified historian, or anything similar. And this is not about being able to reel off facts, names, dates, or anything else, it is about understanding where the art came from, and why it is the way it is. I really don't know where you got this idea from...

Am not against knowing who started the art (arguable or not), what it is classified by the Japanese as, where it came from, or the important figures, I just don't think if you or doesn't my you a "good" martial artist, or have any bearing on if you are or not a martial artist. That is determined by skill and ability. At the end of the day or when your back is up against the wall, it is skill not history that will say your butt.

That depends entirely on the art itself, though. As in all things in this field. I wouldn't apply the same requirements to BJJ as I would Krav Maga, as I would Koryu Kenjutsu, as I would Wing Chun, as I would MMA, and so on. And when it comes to skill being the determining factor, that again is very relative to the art. Being able to "handle yourself", for instance, is pretty irrelevant when it comes to Koryu, same with generating success in competition, but BJJ would put a big emphasis on that, and Krav Maga or RBSD are going to be very big on "handling yourself", and not care about competition. "Saving your butt" only applies to those arts that it applies to, not to every art. It has little place in Koryu, Iaido, Kyudo, and a range of others. And besides, all that shows is that you're a decent fighter, not a martial artist.

Chris let me add too, that I train, learn, develop in a martial art that someone demarcated as traditional by their criteria, that does make me koryu practitioner until they move that line, and or change the definition. Until then my all rights and measures am a koryu practitioner; a martial artist. What ever the history of that art is, or isn't, doesn't take away the fact I have studied it for many years, nor effects my skill, ability, expertise or qualification at it. It doesn't remove those facts am a koryu practitioner. What makes me a good marital artist is my skill and ability. Not my knowledge of Samurai bathing habits for example. The criteria that is the most heavily weighted in being an expert in martial arts, which is a concrete and not an abstract field, is skill and knowledge of that skill. To the extent of its use and application. Knowing a book load of information does make me another kind of expert, but that refers to being a scholar and not a fighter.

Okay, quick check list for Koryu, then. Can you tell me the founder of the system? The date of the founding? Where it was situated in Japan? Any important or famous members? Who it was associated with? The name of the system?

I want you to realise that I am not saying anything about your skill, experience, your teacher, or anything else, but I will say that your posting history has gone pretty much directly against the experience of every other Koryu practitioner that I have met, talked to, conversed with, or really had any contact with whatsoever. As to your comments there, martial arts are one of the most abstract fields I have ever come across, it is completely vague, with as much variation as there are people practicing, I really don't know how you can say it's "concrete". And, one more time, I'm not saying everyone needs to know a "bookload of information", but the history and it's effects relative to the art they practice is one of my criteria for what I would call a martial artist, rather than just a technician or fighter. Hell, being a fighter almost doesn't enter into it, that's a completely separate idea as far as I'm concerned.

Let me clean this up a bit. Now am I a scholarly martial artist? No. Do I know some pertinent history of my art and its traditions, yes. Am I knowledgeable in the art I choose to practice? Yes by, right of experience, skill and abilities, by tradition, and that of my teacher and peers in the art, and not by historical research. I respect those who are scholars, but it isn't a required qualification to be a good martial artist. I am not saying those with martial arts historical knowledge beyond the norm doesn't enhance your passion. I think it does, but it doesn't necessarily make you a "good" martial artist.

And one last time, being a scholar is only important if you are going to be a scholar (say, joining the Hoplology Society, fun guys). The historical knowledge should be part of the art itself, part of the training, part of the induction. If you ask a BJJ practitioner if they know who Helio Gracie was, they should be able to tell you. Maybe not his birthdate, or his middle name, but they will know who he was, and his place in the art. That's really all that's required there, as that starts to inform the technique and the knowledge of the art (by knowing about Helio, you understand the placement of Brazil, you know that it's based on Judo methods, you understand the adaptation that occured, how the Gracies, under Helio, developed their expression, and so on). That's what I'm talking about, not sending karate students off to the library at all hours.... although that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

Not in the least heady, enjoying intelligent discussion. When Jenna used your middle name as well are you in trouble lol?

History, as you understand and use it, while I believe correctly, is not what we have come to see when it deals with martial arts.

http://visiontkd.co.uk/tkdhistory.htm
http://www.risingphoenix.org.uk/page10.html

http://www.karate-made-easy.com/history-of-karate.html


This is martial arts history as we are taught it and like Jenna I cannot see anything that will enable me to train better. It's this 'history' that people see as important and why their lineage is important, nothing to do with techniques at all.

Ha, I don't think I've told her my middle name... that's particularly sacred knowledge...

With these histories, they're fairly basic, but they're also a start. By knowing the origins of TKD, as put down in the first link, you can start to see why it does what it does, why there's a preference towards kicking, and so on. It really comes down to being able to interpret the names and dates, each of them tells a story, if you can see it. Knowing General Choi's place in the development of TKD might not enable you to train better in the moment, but it can help inform your understanding of the entirety of the system, which can make your training sessions more productive, moving towards a unified and congruent whole. Additionally, when things come in from outside, you will have a better understanding of how to integrate it into your training, or if you should ignore it, because you will have a better idea of the big picture of the art, and how it all fits into it's ideal design.

Knowing a name doesn't change your punch, knowing that the system relies on a particular punch due to the outfits worn by it's common enemies can help you figure out which parts of the training are most relevant to your situation and needs (rather than just doing it cause that's what it says, you understand why it says that in the first place).

For myself, each of the main systems I teach have different blocking and punching methods, with the punch coming in from different angles, with a different use of the body behind it, and so on. And, by understanding what the names and dates are telling me in the histories of those schools, I understand why it is done that way, which makes my training and teaching of them that much more powerful.

My simple mind is saying , yes I can see why in Wado the founder put in throws but I still can't see why knowing that helps me hoick someone over my shoulder so that they splat on the floor. They don't splat they sort of wriggle off, so to learn and perfect that technique I need someone to show me, correct me and put me right, that person could be a Judoka or a BJJ person knowing nothing about Wado. Knowing that Ohtsuka Sensei was a JJ master doesn't help me at all.
I know after the lofty posts mine is a bit more basic!

Okay, let's take this back to what you learn from understanding the history here, because I'd recommend against getting the BJJ or Judo guy in if you want to improve your Wado approach and ability. They'll just muck it up.

While the best thing to do is to get some understanding of the basic ideas and principles of Shindo Yoshin Ryu, I'm going to forgo that here, and just deal with the information you've put down (Otsuka Sensei being a licenced senior instructor in Shindo Yoshin Ryu), and see what that gives us, as it's a fair amount more than you may think.

First off, there's nothing there about "why" Otsuka put throws into Wado, but there is an indication of why there are more throws and grappling applications in Wado (why he put them in is most likely just because it was something he knew well, and felt they were a powerful aspect of combative methodologies). The reason there are grappling methods in Wado Ryu is because part of it's source was Shindo Yoshin Ryu Jujutsu. I know that sounds rather redundant and obvious, but it's kinda important. What it tells you is that Wado Ryu contains influence from Shindo Yoshin Ryu, but that the application of it's grappling methods needs to fit with the more "Karate" method of the rest of the art (based primarily on Shotokan, with some other Okinawan influence). This means that the use of the hips, for instance, will be pretty much the same, whether you are throwing or striking. It also means that your spine will be kept straighter than in, say, Judo, with less bend. Your legs will typically be further apart as well, and many of the throwing actions will be more based on a fulcrum, turning and snapping the hips, rather than placing them below and lifting (you still need your hips lower, though...). The kuzushi elements will be more based on placing, or snapping, the hips "through" the opponent, rather than Judo's more common "pulling" kuzushi (there is still pulling, but it's emphasis isn't so big). Legs will tend towards being straighter, and actions will be sharp and sudden, as well as direct.

To "hoick" someone over your shoulder, well, that depends on the throw, really, but look to the karate mechanics to achieve it. The Judo and BJJ ones are different. (A suggestion? Move past them as you go into it, it's all about the hip placement moving your entire body at once).

From there, the next step would be to get some understanding of the Akiyama Yoshin Ryu lines, if you were so inclined, but that's not really necessary. The most important thing about knowing that Otsuka Sensei was also a practitioner of a Jujutsu line is to understand that the mechanics of the Wado Ryu system need to be able to provide power for both striking and grappling/throwing. If you're finding problems with one or the other, then you've probably missed some part of what Wado Ryu is teaching.

 

[Jenna]

Ah, my dearest and truest J, I would never dare to tell you you are wrong, particularly when it comes to opinion...

The point that I am making is more that you may think that you are doing your Monkey Catching Cricket strike (nice move, very fast, coming in from an unseen angle... very sneaky, I approve), but without understanding where it comes from, and why it is done the way it is, you may very easily not be doing it at all, but doing something different. This is what I was getting at with the description of what a martial art and martial artist is in the first place, are you truly a Monkey Catching Cricket practitioner if you aren't doing it correctly, as you don't know the actual context? Or are you just doing something similar, and thinking that if it works, it's good enough?

In terms of the knowledge, and how it affects your current practice, that is a matter of constant personal reflection. By constantly reflecting on the way you are doing it, and checking it against the actual contextual usage in it's initial development. By knowing the history, you can take it back to the origin at any time, and ensure that you are still doing it correctly, without that, you can head off in odd directions. This is why I say that it's not really part of being a fighter, but it is a part of being a martial artist.

Did that help?

Yes.

I am not (necessarily) doing Monkey Catching Cricket correctly if I do not understand exactly the environmental and/or spiritual context in which the founder envisaged the monkey catching the cricket. Yes, that is the epiphany candle lit! Good! Thank you Christopher

But... and this is not a question as you have already answered my question and I am very satisfied with that. This is just rhetoric and opinion. So, where was I.. But...

With what you have explained, I will place one condition on researching the historical context of techniques from a specific art. And that is, that the history, for it to be as close to first-hand as possible MUST have been written or recorded or annotated by the founder(s) of the art. In my case, if since I was not there in the mushroom wood when the founder observed these animal antics himself, I can NEVER know first hand of this environmental and/or spiritual mindset context. Very best I can do is a version which is removed only once from the founder to me by reading something he or she has recorded.

If I read something many times removed, or chinese-whispers-style handed down from one practicing generation to the next until they reach my C21st generation then it is diluted and it is subject to interpretations and opinions. Is this not correct? Therefore, to make ANY good use of history for Monkey Catching Cricket, I must learn DIRECTLY from the founder who was there. Nobody else was there. Except the monkey. Who was illiterate. If I am to learn the history from a second-hand interpretation then I might as well not delve into the history at all. I am wasting my time as Shihan can already give me a perfectly good diluted version subject to many generations of interpretation and I do not need to consult history for an equally incorrect version. Would you agree with this proposition?

 

[JohnEdward]

With all politeness. For one thing, Chris, my instructor was legitimate, and so is the art. No one debates or questions it. Be it Koryu or not, isn't a concern either. If my art was in question than it would be a concern. But it isn't. My instructor didn't call himself Soke or what have you, there is no obscurity in my art. Just because I say somethings about my art and it's tradition, which you may or may not agree with doesn't effect me as a koryu practitioner. My license is valid, and not questionable. You may question my practices of tradition, but are you a koryu expert, do you belong to my art, did you study under my sensei. Just because am not a Japanophile or have customs or traditions your not an expert in, or fit your personal "historical" criteria doesn't make me any more or less of a Koryu practicitioner. Knowing or not knowing history has nothing to do with that. Don't confuse culture and traditions, with history. Especially if your not privy to that culture or traditions. Just because I choose not to play samurai and ninjas, or a walking museum, or a walking encyclopedia doesn't make me or my art any less valid or traditional -that annoys the hell many traditional instructors of my instructors generation. You would have know that if you had a traditional instructor. It already has been established by the proper authorities and history the validity of my art and what I have said. I know I stand on solid ground and there is no need to question, unless you are unaware, and lack the required knowledge. There is a difference btw, between the amateur historian and the qualified scholar. Yes, being a qualified scholar can enhance your as a martial artist, it has no weight on being legit or Koryu. Being an amateur is another thing. I can't recognize amateur historians opinion, i.e. history nerds or geeks qualifiable. Unless the have Ph.D. behind them. And even than that would only be in their area of expertise, history.

 

[JohnEdward]

Chris, if we subscribe to your view under your criteria, that, having a detail knowledge of history makes your a good martial artist, than 99.9% of the world's martial artists past and present would not be good.

 

[Steve]

Well, hasn't this been a fun run around the block?

My personal opinion is that the history and origin of a martial art is only important if it is important to you. In other words, if it is interesting or helpful for you knowing the origin of a technique, then there is value. However, the only thing that is essential to being a martial artist is in the execution of technique. Everything else has value only if it has value to you.

One thing that I disagree with is the use of the term "martial art" to mean Asian martial art. While Karate, Kung Fu et al are Asian, there were people all over the world swinging swords, axes, spears, and firing bows for thousands of years all over the rest of the world, as well. Langenschwert posts some pretty damned neat documents regarding German sword play, as an example.

Now, I will say that if the history or historical accuracy isn't important to you, you should be receptive to some amount of historical correction. What I mean is, for example, I don't know squat about what Koryu is or what it means. I get the sense that it's a term that carries some very specific meaning to some, and more general meaning to others. It's a good example, though, of how an historical term can come to mean something different in modern common usage. Karate as a term itself refers both to a specific set of martial arts styles, and also as a generic term for martial arts among many laymen. The term has been co-opted.

Ultimately, the main thing is that history is interesting. It's fun. It's cool to know. But it's not essential. If my back monkey fist technique is actually what a monk 300 years ago would call a Petal Fist backhand, does it really matter? Only if preserving the integrity of the history of the art is important. If the technique is properly executed, than the name doesn't matter.

As an aside, the contrast between Judo and BJJ is interesting to me. Judo students are required to learn a specific canon of techniques, and to learn the proper Japanese label for these techniques. I understand the rationale is so that if you travel to Japan, while you might not speak Japanese, you can still train because you speak "judo." I get that and it makes sense.

In BJJ, it's common for people to teach techniques not knowing what they're called. Or for a technique to have several names. For example, there is a fundamental sweep in BJJ called a pendulum sweep. I have heard this same technique referred to as a flower sweep, but I distinguish between the two techniques. To me, they are different (but similar). Ultimately, though, what matters is that you are doing them correctly so that they work. And a Brazilian coach would call them something different because unlike in Judo, the Japanese label has not been retained... nor has the Portuguese. Mata Leao is a Rear Naked Choke, is a Hadaka-jime in Judo. Same technique. The question is, are you executing the technique correctly? You don't need historical context to answer that question.

 

[JohnEdward]

Yea what Steve said.

 

[Tez3]

I think it's unlikely knowing the ins and outs of martial arts minutiae will make me a better martial artist, I really think it's Royler Gracie I want to teach me to chuck people around...eventually. Sigh.

I have to admit I let a lot of the high flying stuff go over my head, for me I don't really need to know the academic stuff behind what I do, I need to know it works and the best way to do that is train. I have plenty of other academic interests that keep my brain ticking over, I don't need it in martial arts I'm afraid. Going back to Wado Ryu, knowing where the techniques come from really doesn't help me execute them, I'm not too young, have never been that supple so I need an instructor to show me how to get the best out of my training, he'll do that with experience not of history but of how bodies can move, how he/she can put over what the techniques is doing and how to make me do it properly. Martial arts is purely a physical thing with me, I can't invest anything more into it than hard work and training, it's not a spiritual thing as far as I'm concerned and while I like the fact that people in the past have trained it all that means to me is that what they do works.

 

[Jenna]

Chris, if we subscribe to your view under your criteria, that, having a detail knowledge of history makes your a good martial artist, than 99.9% of the world's martial artists past and present would not be good.

Oh, I like that proposition. It is simple and clever.