Martial Arts History & Influences

[Cyriacus]

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.

The Founder of this Organisation was, however, a Part of it - Its a question, to Me, of the Idealogy of its founding.

Suffice to say, I cant say I exactly follow General Choi by heel. I dont think he was as remarkable as hes made out to be, at all.
In fact, given when I wrote My Former Comment, Im surprised I didnt elaborate on that aspect.
For anyone elses reference, when I say Founder of this Organisation, I am not referring to Choi.
I know Chris Parker probably knows this - But just to prevent anyone else from being deviated from the Discussion;

As regards to Militaristic and Sporting; Im aware there are other Options - I was mainly trying to keep things Topical rather than listing every possible variation.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

The Founder of this Organisation was, however, a Part of it - Its a question, to Me, of the Idealogy of its founding.

Suffice to say, I cant say I exactly follow General Choi by heel. I dont think he was as remarkable as hes made out to be, at all.
In fact, given when I wrote My Former Comment, Im surprised I didnt elaborate on that aspect.
For anyone elses reference, when I say Founder of this Organisation, I am not referring to Choi.
I know Chris Parker probably knows this - But just to prevent anyone else from being deviated from the Discussion;

As regards to Militaristic and Sporting; Im aware there are other Options - I was mainly trying to keep things Topical rather than listing every possible variation.

I always wondered how much truth there was to the whole tkd in the military thing. Our GM was employed by the americans in the korean war to teach them hand to hand combat. He left the country at the end of the war. I asked him what exactly he taught the soldiers and he looked at me as if I was stupid and said "taekwondo". He wasnt running through the various forms or doing timber breaking drills obviously, largely because of time constraints, but the kicks, punches, throws, locks, joint manipulation etc etc he taught them was the same tkd he teaches us, so I have no doubt that tkd was taught to soldiers. Problem is people think tkd is all 540 kicks and back flips and think that there is no way that was relevent to 'war'. I've been doing tkd for 6 years and have never been shown a 540 kick or back flip kick or any of those 'flashy' techs. Tkd is a very broad term. The secret service agents in korea also learn tkd and one of their most common techs is a double jump front kick, they touched on this in a good documentary I saw about the korean secret service.

 

[Cyriacus]

I always wondered how much truth there was to the whole tkd in the military thing. Our GM was employed by the americans in the korean war to teach them hand to hand combat. He left the country at the end of the war. I asked him what exactly he taught the soldiers and he looked at me as if I was stupid and said "taekwondo". He wasnt running through the various forms or doing timber breaking drills obviously, largely because of time constraints, but the kicks, punches, throws, locks, joint manipulation etc etc he taught them was the same tkd he teaches us, so I have no doubt that tkd was taught to soldiers. Problem is people think tkd is all 540 kicks and back flips and think that there is no way that was relevent to 'war'. I've been doing tkd for 6 years and have never been shown a 540 kick or back flip kick or any of those 'flashy' techs. Tkd is a very broad term. The secret service agents in korea also learn tkd and one of their most common techs is a double jump front kick, they touched on this in a good documentary I saw about the korean secret service.

Well, the aspect is, that I dont really put much thought into General Choi. Who bloody knows EXACTLY what he did.
All I know, is that the Founder of this Organisation WAS a part of the Korean Special Forces, and claims to have used TKD as a part of that, as well as the Group He Headed. Which is hardly Promotional, since we dont exactly Advertise ourselves. And he said it to one Instructor during a Conversation, who then talked about that Comment with another Instructor which I was able to Listen to from a few meters away.

Well, at least most of Us dont.
Ive seen a few of our Halls around that take things a bit out of Context, and go all "Family Friendly Easy Going Etc" on everyone. Which is a shame.

But the main thing is, the Application. If you look at definitive Militarised Forms, such as Systema, or apparently Krav Maga (So Im Told. Ive not really Researched it yet); They have quite alot in Common with what Im Learning, besides the Nature of the Approach. From what ive Read about LINE, its a bit closer to that. Again, only with different Natures of Approach. Since theyre not the same thing. Its Basics, and a "Be As Effective As Possible In The Shortest Time Possible" Mindset. And it covers just about everything.

The Fanciest thing ive ever seen taught is a Jumping Spinning Heel Kick, and I think that was for a Pattern.

 

[ralphmcpherson]

Well, the aspect is, that I dont really put much thought into General Choi. Who bloody knows EXACTLY what he did.
All I know, is that the Founder of this Organisation WAS a part of the Korean Special Forces, and claims to have used TKD as a part of that, as well as the Group He Headed. Which is hardly Promotional, since we dont exactly Advertise ourselves. And he said it to one Instructor during a Conversation, who then talked about that Comment with another Instructor which I was able to Listen to from a few meters away.

Well, at least most of Us dont.
Ive seen a few of our Halls around that take things a bit out of Context, and go all "Family Friendly Easy Going Etc" on everyone. Which is a shame.

But the main thing is, the Application. If you look at definitive Militarised Forms, such as Systema, or apparently Krav Maga (So Im Told. Ive not really Researched it yet); They have quite alot in Common with what Im Learning, besides the Nature of the Approach. From what ive Read about LINE, its a bit closer to that. Again, only with different Natures of Approach. Since theyre not the same thing. Its Basics, and a "Be As Effective As Possible In The Shortest Time Possible" Mindset. And it covers just about everything.

The Fanciest thing ive ever seen taught is a Jumping Spinning Heel Kick, and I think that was for a Pattern.

We go by a very similar philosophy. Maximum damage, minimum time, get the hell out of there. Even our sparring is knockdown sparring , not points sparring. The concept is knock the opponent down as quickly as possible, with very little emphasis on combinations etc. Fast and effective. We have quite a few military and police officers train with us and they use it 'on the job'. Similarly, the most flashy tech we learn is a jump spin hook kick, but we use it more as a training drill to enhance balance, co ordination etc and not so much for the actual kick itself, although Ive seen a few guys knocked out badly in sparring from that kick so I wont rule it out completely.

 

[Chris Parker]

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

Er, not to confuse matters, but, uh, not quite. You don't need to understand exactly, but you do have to have understanding within the context. I think people are taking this idea of knowing the history to a bit of an extreme, and that's not needed, so I'll see if I can help clear up a few things here.

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?

That's the thing, it's not about researching, that's only something that is done if the interest is there. What I am talking about should be a part of the way you learn the art in the first place. You don't need to know the exact swamp, what type of monkey, and so on, but you should know the story involving a monkey and a cricket as part of understanding the strike. For example, within Koto Ryu we have a technique called Gohi, and part of the instruction of that technique involves a story about a cat catching a mouse. That story is used to explain the method of striking used within that technique. Now, do you need to know what type of cat it was, of where the mouse was at the time? No, it's an illustratory story coming from an observation of an action in nature which has formed part of the history and teaching of that technique within that system. Without knowing that story, though, it's very difficult to get that strike correct, as the "feel" behind the technique is a transmitted through the story. It doesn't even matter if there never was a cat, and they never caught a mouse. But that story is part of the history of that system. There are a range of other examples I can think of, but that's probably the closest to what you're discussing.

If the history (the story) is lost, or forgotten, then the art is lost, as anything that doesn't have such a vital aspect to it is then only part of the entire system. It becomes a smaller, diminished form. Now, that exists in a range of systems and arts, but if they were to lose everything from their history, the art would vanish. All you would be left with would be techniques that might or might not be accurate to the art itself.

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.

John, I don't really want to bring all of this over to this thread, but so far your entire posting history has shown such a gap in understanding of a huge range of aspects of Japanese martial arts in general, and Koryu (and Jujutsu) in particular that there is the increasing likelihood that your teacher was just teaching you something generic. Now, one more time, if it's Koryu or not doesn't make it a good or bad thing, they are neither better nor worse than any other form of martial art, just a distinct and separate approach. So before I bring into it the statements you have previously made that show this, can you answer the very simple question of which Ryu you study and where it comes from (founder, time period, location in Japan if you can)? If you can't, then it isn't Koryu, end of story. And again, that doesn't make it bad, or lessen it's value in any way, it's just a more accurate classification which can help lessen confusion in conversation here and elsewhere.

But seriously, don't get me started on "you would know that if you had a traditional instructor", John. Or any of a dozen other things you say here, as it shows again a huge lack of understanding in this area.

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.

Again, you're all getting the idea that "history" in this case means knowing all the dates and names, reading lots of books, and so on. It doesn't. It means knowing the relevant and relative aspects of the history of your art as it pertains to it's practice. It means understanding the developments in Ueshiba's life so you understand why a spinning back kick/roundhouse combo isn't part of Aikido. It means knowing what kata come in what order and why they lead from one to another. It means knowing that a jab/hook combination isn't the type of attack that Epee Fencing was designed for. Honestly, most of you are probably far more aware of your martial history and it's influence on the techniques and training practices of your art than you realise, which is what makes you martial artists.

Essentially, a martial artist is one who can look at a particular technique/methodology/approach, and say whether or not it is part of their art. And that knowledge comes from understanding the history of the art, which is what forms the methods that you know. It's more training than book learning, really.

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.

Hmm, to a degree, sure. But the thing to understand is that the technique only exists because of the history, and it's the history that determines it's inclusion and application. Besides that, you'll find it's rather rare to have any instance of 'this technique was invented when so-and-so was fighting such-and-such, and found he couldn't do something-or-other, so he invented this'. More commonly, it's that the history of an art, whether that is a history of famous practitioners, or a history of success in competition, that determines a lot of the value of an art. The techniques themselves? Their value is determined based on context.

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.

Yep, agreed. Although the argument can be made that it's dominantly in Asia that these arts survived, the documents that Langenschwert and others work with are attempts at reconstructing things that are lost, and a fair amount of that history, such as the "cat catching a mouse" story may be missing as well. For instance, here is a thread on another forum about just such an aspect of these old documents, a posture known in Fiore as Bicornio, and the attempt was made to relate it to a Kenjutsu kamae, known as Hongaku no Kamae. The issue is that the use of the different postures, although incredibly similar in appearance, can be wildly different in application, and that application is discovered, or transmitted through understanding and appreciation of it's history... in fact, the application is an expression of that history. Anyway, here's the thread: http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101693

As you can see by my comments on the second page, knowing the usage within the system (something informed by it's history) can change the way things are done... and if that history isn't completely known and understood, there is a great chance of getting it wrong. Otake Sensei of the Katori Shinto Ryu has helped members of other systems reconstruct lost parts of their Ryu-ha, but is completely against the idea of doing so for his. The reason is that, without the transmission (the history) being passed down from one generation to the next, it's too easy to miss something, or get something misinterpreted, and therefore be incorrect when you do it. It might work, but it wouldn't be that art. And when dealing with something like Katori Shinto Ryu, who believe that their art is directly descended from Heaven (part of their history), to transmit something incorrect as part of the Ryu is basically sacrelige.

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.

Ah, the term Koryu... basically, it has two meanings, and both are always applied. One is a direct reference to the age and origin of the system (Japanese, predating the Meiji Restoration), the other is in the way it is transmitted. For example, you can get people looking at old-based systems, such as the Bujinkan and related arts, where there are certainly Japanese arts predating the Meiji Restoration, and say "that's not Koryu". And you'd be correct, as both aspects are required. But enough about that.

When it comes to historical accuracy, that isn't what I've been getting at here. What I've been talking about in terms of history is more knowing why your art does certain things, and not others, by understanding where it comes from and how it was developed and used. You don't have to know all the details, but you do have to have the sense of where it came from, and why it is the way it is. Otherwise you'd have spinning kicks and three sectional staves and be able to say that it's all BJJ. What makes it BJJ is the history, and the history is the history of it's use and development, which has lead to what it is now. If that makes sense.

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.

Again, not really the point (as an aside, I was once told "Knowing history is all well and good, and I'm glad you enjoy it... but it won't get you laid!"... so I'm pretty aware of the shortcomings of such approaches to the arts, and only give that side the amount of attention I feel it deserves, which is far from all encompassing. I've been known to tell my guys that it's more important to be able to do the techniques than know all the names and dates, but knowing the history, which gives the "feel" for the techniques in many ways, is part of being able to do them). More realistically, it is a question of whether or not what you are doing now is actually what was done, or if it fits with the concepts from previous generations of the art. You doing a back monkey fist might look like the 300 year old Petal Fist backhand, but the application could be vastly different, and knowing the context, and the usage, which is the history of the movement, would show that.

For example, I'd see that the "back monkey fist" would be snapping, while moving away, while a "Petal Fist backhand" might be more moving to the side, circling around, and have less "snap" to it. From the outside, they may look almost identical, but they are actually very different from a functional and tactical standpoint... but how would you know that if you didn't know the history of the technique?

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.

Yeah, not really the history side of things, though. The history side of things would tell you why throws are typcially learnt on the right side first, or where the standard "judo grab" comes from. In BJJ, knowing the history would tell you why the emphasis is on position, rather than Judo's "grip war" approach.

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.

Different cultural names may or may not indicate different tactical and applicational uses, so the first thing would be to look at the history to determine if it's a similar answer developed to the same or similar problems, or if there really is a difference between them (again, look to the thread on MAP on Hongaku no Kamae/Bicornio a Fiore). But the names, although they can be part of it, and be indications towards the history, aren't really what I'm talking about. That said, ask a BJJ guy why a reverse figure four armlock is called a Kimura if you want to see an application of understanding and knowing your history....

The Founder of this Organisation was, however, a Part of it - Its a question, to Me, of the Idealogy of its founding.

Suffice to say, I cant say I exactly follow General Choi by heel. I dont think he was as remarkable as hes made out to be, at all.
In fact, given when I wrote My Former Comment, Im surprised I didnt elaborate on that aspect.
For anyone elses reference, when I say Founder of this Organisation, I am not referring to Choi.
I know Chris Parker probably knows this - But just to prevent anyone else from being deviated from the Discussion;

As regards to Militaristic and Sporting; Im aware there are other Options - I was mainly trying to keep things Topical rather than listing every possible variation.

The founder of the organisation came to Australia in 1960, not too long after TKD was first developed. Part of what he did here was to present courses and demonstrations to various military bases and so forth, and I believe he was in the Korean Military before coming to Australia, but there is no indication that the system you are learning had anything to do with the Korean Special Forces. The system you learn has been out of Korea for 50 years.

I always wondered how much truth there was to the whole tkd in the military thing. Our GM was employed by the americans in the korean war to teach them hand to hand combat. He left the country at the end of the war. I asked him what exactly he taught the soldiers and he looked at me as if I was stupid and said "taekwondo". He wasnt running through the various forms or doing timber breaking drills obviously, largely because of time constraints, but the kicks, punches, throws, locks, joint manipulation etc etc he taught them was the same tkd he teaches us, so I have no doubt that tkd was taught to soldiers. Problem is people think tkd is all 540 kicks and back flips and think that there is no way that was relevent to 'war'. I've been doing tkd for 6 years and have never been shown a 540 kick or back flip kick or any of those 'flashy' techs. Tkd is a very broad term. The secret service agents in korea also learn tkd and one of their most common techs is a double jump front kick, they touched on this in a good documentary I saw about the korean secret service.

TKD in the Korean Military? Sure was! The question becomes why it was there, and what purpose it was serving. And often combative applicability is not the primary reason for any unarmed method to be adopted by a military group. Frankly, they have guns and knives to fight with.

 

[Cyriacus]

Er, not to confuse matters, but, uh, not quite. You don't need to understand exactly, but you do have to have understanding within the context. I think people are taking this idea of knowing the history to a bit of an extreme, and that's not needed, so I'll see if I can help clear up a few things here.



That's the thing, it's not about researching, that's only something that is done if the interest is there. What I am talking about should be a part of the way you learn the art in the first place. You don't need to know the exact swamp, what type of monkey, and so on, but you should know the story involving a monkey and a cricket as part of understanding the strike. For example, within Koto Ryu we have a technique called Gohi, and part of the instruction of that technique involves a story about a cat catching a mouse. That story is used to explain the method of striking used within that technique. Now, do you need to know what type of cat it was, of where the mouse was at the time? No, it's an illustratory story coming from an observation of an action in nature which has formed part of the history and teaching of that technique within that system. Without knowing that story, though, it's very difficult to get that strike correct, as the "feel" behind the technique is a transmitted through the story. It doesn't even matter if there never was a cat, and they never caught a mouse. But that story is part of the history of that system. There are a range of other examples I can think of, but that's probably the closest to what you're discussing.

If the history (the story) is lost, or forgotten, then the art is lost, as anything that doesn't have such a vital aspect to it is then only part of the entire system. It becomes a smaller, diminished form. Now, that exists in a range of systems and arts, but if they were to lose everything from their history, the art would vanish. All you would be left with would be techniques that might or might not be accurate to the art itself.



John, I don't really want to bring all of this over to this thread, but so far your entire posting history has shown such a gap in understanding of a huge range of aspects of Japanese martial arts in general, and Koryu (and Jujutsu) in particular that there is the increasing likelihood that your teacher was just teaching you something generic. Now, one more time, if it's Koryu or not doesn't make it a good or bad thing, they are neither better nor worse than any other form of martial art, just a distinct and separate approach. So before I bring into it the statements you have previously made that show this, can you answer the very simple question of which Ryu you study and where it comes from (founder, time period, location in Japan if you can)? If you can't, then it isn't Koryu, end of story. And again, that doesn't make it bad, or lessen it's value in any way, it's just a more accurate classification which can help lessen confusion in conversation here and elsewhere.

But seriously, don't get me started on "you would know that if you had a traditional instructor", John. Or any of a dozen other things you say here, as it shows again a huge lack of understanding in this area.



Again, you're all getting the idea that "history" in this case means knowing all the dates and names, reading lots of books, and so on. It doesn't. It means knowing the relevant and relative aspects of the history of your art as it pertains to it's practice. It means understanding the developments in Ueshiba's life so you understand why a spinning back kick/roundhouse combo isn't part of Aikido. It means knowing what kata come in what order and why they lead from one to another. It means knowing that a jab/hook combination isn't the type of attack that Epee Fencing was designed for. Honestly, most of you are probably far more aware of your martial history and it's influence on the techniques and training practices of your art than you realise, which is what makes you martial artists.

Essentially, a martial artist is one who can look at a particular technique/methodology/approach, and say whether or not it is part of their art. And that knowledge comes from understanding the history of the art, which is what forms the methods that you know. It's more training than book learning, really.



Hmm, to a degree, sure. But the thing to understand is that the technique only exists because of the history, and it's the history that determines it's inclusion and application. Besides that, you'll find it's rather rare to have any instance of 'this technique was invented when so-and-so was fighting such-and-such, and found he couldn't do something-or-other, so he invented this'. More commonly, it's that the history of an art, whether that is a history of famous practitioners, or a history of success in competition, that determines a lot of the value of an art. The techniques themselves? Their value is determined based on context.



Yep, agreed. Although the argument can be made that it's dominantly in Asia that these arts survived, the documents that Langenschwert and others work with are attempts at reconstructing things that are lost, and a fair amount of that history, such as the "cat catching a mouse" story may be missing as well. For instance, here is a thread on another forum about just such an aspect of these old documents, a posture known in Fiore as Bicornio, and the attempt was made to relate it to a Kenjutsu kamae, known as Hongaku no Kamae. The issue is that the use of the different postures, although incredibly similar in appearance, can be wildly different in application, and that application is discovered, or transmitted through understanding and appreciation of it's history... in fact, the application is an expression of that history. Anyway, here's the thread: http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101693

As you can see by my comments on the second page, knowing the usage within the system (something informed by it's history) can change the way things are done... and if that history isn't completely known and understood, there is a great chance of getting it wrong. Otake Sensei of the Katori Shinto Ryu has helped members of other systems reconstruct lost parts of their Ryu-ha, but is completely against the idea of doing so for his. The reason is that, without the transmission (the history) being passed down from one generation to the next, it's too easy to miss something, or get something misinterpreted, and therefore be incorrect when you do it. It might work, but it wouldn't be that art. And when dealing with something like Katori Shinto Ryu, who believe that their art is directly descended from Heaven (part of their history), to transmit something incorrect as part of the Ryu is basically sacrelige.



Ah, the term Koryu... basically, it has two meanings, and both are always applied. One is a direct reference to the age and origin of the system (Japanese, predating the Meiji Restoration), the other is in the way it is transmitted. For example, you can get people looking at old-based systems, such as the Bujinkan and related arts, where there are certainly Japanese arts predating the Meiji Restoration, and say "that's not Koryu". And you'd be correct, as both aspects are required. But enough about that.

When it comes to historical accuracy, that isn't what I've been getting at here. What I've been talking about in terms of history is more knowing why your art does certain things, and not others, by understanding where it comes from and how it was developed and used. You don't have to know all the details, but you do have to have the sense of where it came from, and why it is the way it is. Otherwise you'd have spinning kicks and three sectional staves and be able to say that it's all BJJ. What makes it BJJ is the history, and the history is the history of it's use and development, which has lead to what it is now. If that makes sense.



Again, not really the point (as an aside, I was once told "Knowing history is all well and good, and I'm glad you enjoy it... but it won't get you laid!"... so I'm pretty aware of the shortcomings of such approaches to the arts, and only give that side the amount of attention I feel it deserves, which is far from all encompassing. I've been known to tell my guys that it's more important to be able to do the techniques than know all the names and dates, but knowing the history, which gives the "feel" for the techniques in many ways, is part of being able to do them). More realistically, it is a question of whether or not what you are doing now is actually what was done, or if it fits with the concepts from previous generations of the art. You doing a back monkey fist might look like the 300 year old Petal Fist backhand, but the application could be vastly different, and knowing the context, and the usage, which is the history of the movement, would show that.

For example, I'd see that the "back monkey fist" would be snapping, while moving away, while a "Petal Fist backhand" might be more moving to the side, circling around, and have less "snap" to it. From the outside, they may look almost identical, but they are actually very different from a functional and tactical standpoint... but how would you know that if you didn't know the history of the technique?



Yeah, not really the history side of things, though. The history side of things would tell you why throws are typcially learnt on the right side first, or where the standard "judo grab" comes from. In BJJ, knowing the history would tell you why the emphasis is on position, rather than Judo's "grip war" approach.



Different cultural names may or may not indicate different tactical and applicational uses, so the first thing would be to look at the history to determine if it's a similar answer developed to the same or similar problems, or if there really is a difference between them (again, look to the thread on MAP on Hongaku no Kamae/Bicornio a Fiore). But the names, although they can be part of it, and be indications towards the history, aren't really what I'm talking about. That said, ask a BJJ guy why a reverse figure four armlock is called a Kimura if you want to see an application of understanding and knowing your history....



The founder of the organisation came to Australia in 1960, not too long after TKD was first developed. Part of what he did here was to present courses and demonstrations to various military bases and so forth, and I believe he was in the Korean Military before coming to Australia, but there is no indication that the system you are learning had anything to do with the Korean Special Forces. The system you learn has been out of Korea for 50 years.



TKD in the Korean Military? Sure was! The question becomes why it was there, and what purpose it was serving. And often combative applicability is not the primary reason for any unarmed method to be adopted by a military group. Frankly, they have guns and knives to fight with.

Im referring to Word of Mouth, more than Written Accounts here.

 

[Chris Parker]

1952, General Choi was asked to introduce martial arts to the Korean Army, 1955 the nine Kwan start to formulate what would be called Tae Kwon Do, the Korean Tae Kwon Do Association formed in 1959/60,with the founder of your system coming to Australia in 1960. There just isn't enough time there.

 

[Cyriacus]

1952, General Choi was asked to introduce martial arts to the Korean Army, 1955 the nine Kwan start to formulate what would be called Tae Kwon Do, the Korean Tae Kwon Do Association formed in 1959/60,with the founder of your system coming to Australia in 1960. There just isn't enough time there.

Interesting to know - Semantically, it still counts that He Formed the System with His Knowledge from the Special Forces in Mind; And He may well have been seperate from Choi, and any other Groups in his usage of the Art... But thats Irrelevant, since like many other things, it could be argued as a possibility both for and against. For now, Ill Passively Concur, and sit with the Underlined Text. Note that there is no other Reason it is Underlined.

 

[Chris Parker]

Yeah, as I said, I'm pretty sure he was in the Korean Military, whether it was Special Forces or not may be more playground exaggeration than anything else, but I wouldn't rule it out completely. However, that is a fair cry from saying that the system you are learning was used by the Korean Special Forces, or even the Korean Military. It's like saying that Nirvana were playing Foo Fighters songs, because that's where Dave Grohl came from. The influence is certainly there, but that doesn't make them the same thing.

 

[Cyriacus]

Yeah, as I said, I'm pretty sure he was in the Korean Military, whether it was Special Forces or not may be more playground exaggeration than anything else, but I wouldn't rule it out completely. However, that is a fair cry from saying that the system you are learning was used by the Korean Special Forces, or even the Korean Military. It's like saying that Nirvana were playing Foo Fighters songs, because that's where Dave Grohl came from. The influence is certainly there, but that doesn't make them the same thing.

Im Inclined to Agree, Overall. I could throw some more Suffixes in here, but I cant really see Myself Learning much more from this particular Topic; Thankyou for your Input Good Sir.

 

[JohnEdward]

Chris, at the end of the day, either you kick butt or your butt is kicked. Does knowing your art's customs and tradition, and history provide more broader experience and enjoyment, sure. But it is not essential.

 

[Chris Parker]

Okay, I'm going to suggest you take a deep breath, and actually read what I post, because you are way off in a lot of this, John.

Chris, I must ask, to get a better understanding of your argument. What academic training do you have in the field of history, and or area of historical expertise? I will tell you I don't and I don't pretend to be. As I said, I am familiar with the customs and traditions of my art. Am I an expert at them, do I know all the customs and traditions, no. And, I personally don't think you have to, or to practice the art or qualify as a good martial artist.

First, you asked a question, so I'll answer it (I might request that you do the same, but that ship seems to have sailed a while back). Academic training in history, nothing formal. But that's not what I'm claiming, either. What I have is an avid interest in it, which is rather different.

Next, to the first of the errors in what you claim I'm saying, I have not once mentioned anything about being a "good", "bad", or "indifferent" martial artist. What I have said is that in order to understand your art, you need to know about where it comes from, to understand why it does what it does. But can you clarify something here? Are you seriously saying that you don't think you need to know the traditions (which are a big part of Koryu, probably more important than the technical side, in many ways) that are part of the art in order to practice the art? That's kinda like saying you don't need to know the notes to play the song, you can just make noise and say it's "Hey Jude".

Many activities have a culture and traditions, including martial arts. Some martial arts stress knowing their traditions and culture, and for some arts there is allot to learn, others there isn't. Some arts place more stress upon it than others. And individually some people are more into it than others. It is hard for me to agree with you when you say, that knowing their history makes a good martial artist especially in the depth you require. Some martial arts have short histories, limited cultures, and traditions. Other arts histories are questionable, and will never be solved due politics and lack of accurate information, such as Hapkido.

Seriously, go back and read the thread again. I make the point a number of times that the degree is relative to the art itself, for some it's just a matter of knowing why BJJ has the reputation it has (what it has done, what the UFC did for it, and so on), not knowing what age Helio was when he was looking over the fence at his brothers and cousins being trained. You seem to be wanting me to make an argument that I haven't been making.

Now does that make Hapkido practitioners less of martial artists, no. Not in my book. I could careless if Choi was lying or not. I could careless about the cultural politics involved. What I care about is they can't kick butt or not. I respect those who are walking text books, but at the end of the day it is the guy who can deliver the goods. Now, if I was a BJJ guy, all I would care about historically and not much is the relationship it has with Judo newaza, to a point. I would be aware of how the branches of the art, and their differences, but not deeply. I would be aware of the historic people and events (history). What I would mostly care about is if my butt is being use to clean the mat every time I rolled on the mat. I would care if am getting better at it or not.

If they don't get the history of the art, which leads to it's technical curriculum to the point where they start just making up stuff, and calling it Hapkido, then yes, it would. There's plenty of examples in the Ninjutsu community where exactly this thing happens, people with no sense of the history of martial arts, no sense of the way they are constructed, try to come up with something themselves, and yes, they are universally much lesser examples of martial artists. Again, you're missing the point, trying to insist that the history of the art needs to be absolutely legitimate and verified, that's not the case. It's fine if Choi Yong Sool lied, provided the art remains consistent and follows the claims and their implications.

In terms of BJJ, even that isn't needed to get the idea I'm talking about here. The history of BJJ that comes into it is it's success in competitive fields, which has been BJJ's proving grounds. That's all the history that's needed in a lot of cases, you really do seem to want me to need it to be more.

If I took an art, that is controversial in it's legitimacy. It has a questionable past in terms of trying to fool me into thinking it is something it isn't, or a fraudulent art than I would be concerned about its history. I would research it well and then make a determination. Then I would look at the traditions and customs. What they do and how they handle them. Again, this has noting to do with me being a good martial artist.

John, I train in Ninjutsu, you want to talk about controversial legitimacy? But again, you're really not getting what I'm meaning. I'm hoping that by the end of this, you will. Again, this has nothing to do with "good" martial artists, just martial artists as opposed to simple fighters.

To be a good martial artist is determined by talent, and knowing events of the past. Nor is it being an expert on involved and complicated (archaic and non-archaic) traditions and customs. I am not a docent of my art, nor do I have to be, to be good at my art. If I want to sit around arguing, debating, and write papers on my art, about what is and isn't, to be recognized for that instead of my skill, sorry I will pass. I will let you think what you want of me. If I am koryu or not or if my instructor wasn't either simply based on a discussion board. I am fine with that, I have proof and documentation of that. But, I don't see how that makes me any more or less of a martial artist. What it does is makes me less of a Koryu snob.

You really are having a hard time with this, aren't you? If you are training in a Koryu, great. If not (and I really think the answer is "not", from everything so far, including this post), also great. There is no "snobbery" going on here in that regard at all. And at no time throughout this entire thread have I said, suggested, implied, desired, wished, instructed, ordered, maintained, or stated that such a deep level of research or immersing of yourself, or anyone, in the annuls of history is what is needed. Okay? What I have said basically amounts to knowing what makes your art what it is, and that comes from it's history. Not every single detail of it, but just having a sense of it's background and reasons for being.

History is important to a degree, honoring customs and traditions are important to a degree, but not vital, it doesn't define a person as a martial artist. It doesn't define if they are a bad or good martial artist. What I see, from many (not all) who stress your view as you do, is a compensation for knowledge over skill. The martial art nerd effect where knowledge of minutia is paramount to define a person as a martial artist. It is really prevalent on discussion boards and in lieu of dedicated training.

Who has said anything about "good" or "bad" martial artists, John? Seriously, I'm wanting an answer there. In terms of the traditions and customs, the degree to which they feature has nothing at all to do with the martial artist, and is no reflection on skill, or lack thereof. It is reflective of the requirements of the system itself, with older systems tending to have more in the way of traditions and customs, and newer ones less. That's all really neither here nor there, though, as you are again arguing something that isn't being stated in the first place.

Oh, but careful about comments like "compensation for lack of skill", John. You're a little out there. My training is pretty damn thorough and pretty damn consistent, currently 5 nights a week in two Koryu sword systems, a Koryu Iai system, and teaching. The skill side of things is pretty well taken care of.

Fact about my sensei for your collection of historic information, I have been doing martial arts not stop for over 30 years. My Japanese instructor did the art longer, 60 years. He was an immigrate from Japan. Whose family where a well known samurai family from a historic samurai clan in their region of Japan. His family is still very influential in that region, they have historic monuments decided to them in that region. His wife also came from a well known samurai family that had influence in another part of Japan. Her father was a famous koryu martial artist, based on the art and his skill. My instructor also learned from his father-in-law. My instructor was very serious, a stone head Japanese. Never broke from his daily routine. He was very strict and sever in the dojo, and about the art. Does that make me special or above other because I learned from him, because I can go around judging other people's authenticity. Does it make me above others, No.Maybe in the nerd circles. It just means, if I can't kick the other guys butt with what I learned my experience a waste of time. If I can't pull of a technique properly having a desired effect, I wasted my time. If all I have to show for my experience under my sensei is the ability to recite history, customs, and traditions. I have failed my instructor, as that is what he wasn't teaching me, nor why he was teaching. He would say, martial art not a cartoon, not entertainment, if you think so, than maybe try another martial art. For him as well, proof was in the pudding. Meaning not everyone subscribes to what you feel makes a good martial artist.

Couple of things. First, this is pretty useless information without any names. And the most important name is that of the system. Since you arrived here in April you have been asked a number of times, initially saying that "it was just called Jujutsu", as in no Ryu name, which pretty much means not Koryu (it can hardly be an "old school" if it isn't a "school", can it?). Why can't you say what the Ryu is? If there isn't a name, you have your answer: It isn't Koryu. Neither good nor bad, but knowing something about Koryu and their history may help you with that research you said you'd do if you thought the art you were learning wasn't what it was claimed to be...

Next, and importantly, if it is Koryu, the idea of "kicking the other guys butt" is frankly completely irrelevant. Sorry, but it is. Has no place whatsoever as any kind of argument as to validity at all. None. So stop relying on that as any form of validation for you being a part of a Koryu (that's actually how they work, by the way, you don't "learn" Koryu, you join a Koryu).

Finally, if it is Koryu, then if you can't follow the traditions, customs, remember the history, know the lineage etc, your teacher did a very bad job. It IS important when it comes to Koryu, less so in other forms of martial arts, but in Koryu, lineage, history, well, it's everything. If you dismiss it so easily in lieu of "kicking someone's butt", then you haven't gotten a Koryu education.

This is what I mean when I say that pretty much everything you've posted is in direct opposition to actual Koryu methodology, teaching, transmission etc. I don't doubt that you were taught by who you claim you were taught by, or that he expressed himself the way you say. What I do know, though, is that if your posts are anything to go by, you have never experienced anything like Koryu in your life. That, to be clear, doesn't invalidate your system, it doesn't take any value away from it, it doesn't make it any less effective or powerful for you, but it does mean that it isn't Koryu.

So, finally, one more time, the big relevant question, if you can finally answer it.....

What Koryu is it?

Again, I will say, there some importance to knowing if your being BSed or not, and what helps is knowing history, and researching proper traditions and customs. Knowing If you are being lied too, or if the customs and traditions are said to be authentic and they are not. Fraudulent, and cartoon martial arts, are a waste of time, but do appeal to some. I guess it is to fulfill a fantasy, instead of learning how to fight.

Get back to me with an answer for the above, and we can finally say which it is for you, then.

 

[jasonbrinn]

Good day,

I tried to read through the entire thread, however, if I missed something and I am reposting or posting out of turn - please forgive me (I'm old).

For me, when looking at a question like this I try to start with the archaeological data and culture. Korea, and Koreans for that matter, most likely find their origin coming from China. Japan definitely finds its verifiable history (leaving out myth and religion) coming from Korea - just look at some of the emperor's lineages for the links. With that said, almost every culture in the world has some native tradition of fighting (matching) and I believe Korea's is Ssireum. Granted it is folk wrestling, but that is most often the basis for first arts anywhere. Man in his most basic form and presence will fight and learn from his mistakes.

The question I believe comes down to what makes a particular cultures fighting arts unique to that specific culture. Like Bruce said "a punch is a punch" it mostly comes down to dressing it and the philosophy on how to use it. Knives - I'm going Filipino if for nothing more than their culture of specifically and brutally I might add in using them (they got experience). Korean arts have always stood out for the powerful and high kicks generating from the waist. Other than that specific trait I really have never found any additional take aways. Some people like chocolate some like vanilla - both are just ice cream and should be enjoyed IMO.

Note: Most popularized forms of Korean arts do find their basis of formations LARGELY on predating Japanese counterparts. Hapkido was actually created by someone who had a "strong" look at Daito ryu - Tang Soo is Korean shotokan and so on.

 

[Steve]

I have just a few minutes, but I want to reiterate that historical context IS important, if it's important to the individual. It's interesting that Chris used music as a metaphor. I would say that context isn't the notes. That's too blatant. Context and history in music are as important as they are in martial arts. In other words, you can learn to play the piano without knowing the history of the piano. You learn technique. You learn music theory. You learn specific musical arrangements. And, with just those three things, you can become an accomplished, adept musician.

You may, however, want more. As your interests in playing the piano grow and your skills deepen, you might want to learn more about the instrument and its history. Or you may want to learn more about the music you play. And certainly, if it's important to you, it will add a depth of understanding and is important.

It's not, however, important to everyone. And knowing the history may enhance your performance. The act of striking a key correctly while playing a musical piece with emotion and feeling is a function of artistic sensitivity coupled with technical prowess. Can historical context inform or enhance one's artistic expression? Absolutely, it can. But not necessarily.

 

[Steve]

Just want to add one more thing, now that I have a few more minutes. Chris, I want to be clear that I don't completely disagree with you. Knowing the historical context of a move CAN improve the technique. But not necessarily. We talked about BJJ, which is really what I know. While understanding the context of Helio Gracie's development of many of the finer points of BJJ can be interesting, and how his lack of size and necessary focus on leverage and positional dominance influenced modern BJJ, all it really takes is a simple cliche, "Position before submission."

A student might ask why, but the answer is functionally irrelevant. Secure your position, seek to improve your position, work for a submission. That's how we do it. And learning how to do these three things is a lot to learn.

As I said before, there are many, many BJJ students who have no idea that Judoka learn many of the same techniques. They haven't a clue. And it doesn't affect their ability on the mats at all. More important are the mechanics of the technique in question. If I teach a D'arce, but call it Monkey Claw Backfist, it is actually a carotid choke. If you want it to work, you have to put pressure on either side of the windpipe to keep blood from carrying O2 to the brain. One side with your bicep and the other with the opponent's shoulder. If you do it right, your opponent will take a short nap. If you do it wrong, you will burn your arms out. Call that a Brabo, a D'arce, a simple head/arm triangle or by some foreign label that is older, and it will still work the same.

In fact, I've heard all three of these terms used interchangeably, but to many D'arce and Brabo are two different techniques among several other variations of head/arm chokes.

 

[JohnEdward]

Chris, at the end of the day, either you kick butt or your butt is kicked. Does knowing your art's customs and tradition, and history provide more broader experience and enjoyment, sure. But it is not essential.

Okay, I'm going to suggest you take a deep breath, and actually read what I post, because you are way off in a lot of this, John.



First, you asked a question, so I'll answer it (I might request that you do the same, but that ship seems to have sailed a while back). Academic training in history, nothing formal. But that's not what I'm claiming, either. What I have is an avid interest in it, which is rather different.

Next, to the first of the errors in what you claim I'm saying, I have not once mentioned anything about being a "good", "bad", or "indifferent" martial artist. What I have said is that in order to understand your art, you need to know about where it comes from, to understand why it does what it does. But can you clarify something here? Are you seriously saying that you don't think you need to know the traditions (which are a big part of Koryu, probably more important than the technical side, in many ways) that are part of the art in order to practice the art? That's kinda like saying you don't need to know the notes to play the song, you can just make noise and say it's "Hey Jude".



Seriously, go back and read the thread again. I make the point a number of times that the degree is relative to the art itself, for some it's just a matter of knowing why BJJ has the reputation it has (what it has done, what the UFC did for it, and so on), not knowing what age Helio was when he was looking over the fence at his brothers and cousins being trained. You seem to be wanting me to make an argument that I haven't been making.



If they don't get the history of the art, which leads to it's technical curriculum to the point where they start just making up stuff, and calling it Hapkido, then yes, it would. There's plenty of examples in the Ninjutsu community where exactly this thing happens, people with no sense of the history of martial arts, no sense of the way they are constructed, try to come up with something themselves, and yes, they are universally much lesser examples of martial artists. Again, you're missing the point, trying to insist that the history of the art needs to be absolutely legitimate and verified, that's not the case. It's fine if Choi Yong Sool lied, provided the art remains consistent and follows the claims and their implications.

In terms of BJJ, even that isn't needed to get the idea I'm talking about here. The history of BJJ that comes into it is it's success in competitive fields, which has been BJJ's proving grounds. That's all the history that's needed in a lot of cases, you really do seem to want me to need it to be more.



John, I train in Ninjutsu, you want to talk about controversial legitimacy? But again, you're really not getting what I'm meaning. I'm hoping that by the end of this, you will. Again, this has nothing to do with "good" martial artists, just martial artists as opposed to simple fighters.



You really are having a hard time with this, aren't you? If you are training in a Koryu, great. If not (and I really think the answer is "not", from everything so far, including this post), also great. There is no "snobbery" going on here in that regard at all. And at no time throughout this entire thread have I said, suggested, implied, desired, wished, instructed, ordered, maintained, or stated that such a deep level of research or immersing of yourself, or anyone, in the annuls of history is what is needed. Okay? What I have said basically amounts to knowing what makes your art what it is, and that comes from it's history. Not every single detail of it, but just having a sense of it's background and reasons for being.



Who has said anything about "good" or "bad" martial artists, John? Seriously, I'm wanting an answer there. In terms of the traditions and customs, the degree to which they feature has nothing at all to do with the martial artist, and is no reflection on skill, or lack thereof. It is reflective of the requirements of the system itself, with older systems tending to have more in the way of traditions and customs, and newer ones less. That's all really neither here nor there, though, as you are again arguing something that isn't being stated in the first place.

Oh, but careful about comments like "compensation for lack of skill", John. You're a little out there. My training is pretty damn thorough and pretty damn consistent, currently 5 nights a week in two Koryu sword systems, a Koryu Iai system, and teaching. The skill side of things is pretty well taken care of.



Couple of things. First, this is pretty useless information without any names. And the most important name is that of the system. Since you arrived here in April you have been asked a number of times, initially saying that "it was just called Jujutsu", as in no Ryu name, which pretty much means not Koryu (it can hardly be an "old school" if it isn't a "school", can it?). Why can't you say what the Ryu is? If there isn't a name, you have your answer: It isn't Koryu. Neither good nor bad, but knowing something about Koryu and their history may help you with that research you said you'd do if you thought the art you were learning wasn't what it was claimed to be...

Next, and importantly, if it is Koryu, the idea of "kicking the other guys butt" is frankly completely irrelevant. Sorry, but it is. Has no place whatsoever as any kind of argument as to validity at all. None. So stop relying on that as any form of validation for you being a part of a Koryu (that's actually how they work, by the way, you don't "learn" Koryu, you join a Koryu).

Finally, if it is Koryu, then if you can't follow the traditions, customs, remember the history, know the lineage etc, your teacher did a very bad job. It IS important when it comes to Koryu, less so in other forms of martial arts, but in Koryu, lineage, history, well, it's everything. If you dismiss it so easily in lieu of "kicking someone's butt", then you haven't gotten a Koryu education.

This is what I mean when I say that pretty much everything you've posted is in direct opposition to actual Koryu methodology, teaching, transmission etc. I don't doubt that you were taught by who you claim you were taught by, or that he expressed himself the way you say. What I do know, though, is that if your posts are anything to go by, you have never experienced anything like Koryu in your life. That, to be clear, doesn't invalidate your system, it doesn't take any value away from it, it doesn't make it any less effective or powerful for you, but it does mean that it isn't Koryu.

So, finally, one more time, the big relevant question, if you can finally answer it.....

What Koryu is it?



Get back to me with an answer for the above, and we can finally say which it is for you, then.

The post that Chris is relying to I delete after posting, but it seems I did it too late as Chris used it in his post.

When i posted it I was concerned Chris would handle it as he did, I feel it detracts and distracts from the thread. I take responsibility for that, as I didn't communicate well my idea. To rectify that I replaced the post Chris commented on. A post I felt better about. I want to apologize for the post Chris posted. It is irrelevant. And should carry no weight in this discussion.

Further more, Chris, I am not sure what your perspective or need to question my statements that I study a koryu art. And, in your opinion am not to be a koryu practitioner because of on a few thumbnail comments I made. I am perplexed. I feel no matter what I say or prove it will never be good enough evidence. Spending the time proving it to you, isn't an interest of me, or do I see the importance. And for the sake of the betterment of this board if you that concern we can go PM. I don't think the majority or even 98.0% care about my koryu art being questioned.

Thank you for your understanding.

 

[JohnEdward]

Chris, at the end of the day, either you kick butt or your butt is kicked. Does knowing your art's customs and tradition, and history provide more broader experience and enjoyment, sure. But it is not essential.

This what I wanted to say. Instead of what Chris had quoted before I could change it.

In Koryu arts, linage is important as it relates to authenticity. Why? In terms of Koryu arts, they are arts that are practiced for historical preservation of the Japanese feudal culture. Because of that they have to be authentic, there has to be a lineage that shows proof of techniques created and used during feudal times that where handed down from generation to generation; an unbroken line of transmission. Proof you didn't make it up, and are lying because in Japan that carries weight. And in some circles outside of Japan due to migrating Japanese Senseis and others. Here in the US is Koryu was pretty much championed by author and martial artist Donn Dreager, later by influential authors/scholars and martial arts of koryu arts, such as David Lowry, Meik and Diane Skoss. For Koryu definition and other information the Skoss' have been very influential in being the accepted US standard. It is amazing how many internet pages use their koryu information.

Koryu arts as I was told, was never told to me by my sensei. The word Koryu or it's definition never came from my sensei's lips to any students ears. He didn't feel it was important to be aware of this. And he was correct. I put it this way, a bird doesn't know it is a bird, or that it flies. An elephant doesn't know it is a vegetarian. Nor the lion a predator. Why isn't it important, well for us it had no mechanical bearing on what we did. Sure at a certain rank we were allowed to survey other other arts, from Ikebana to iaijuitsu, even zen meditation at a Japanese temple. It was to give us an idea what the old arts or koryu arts were about. He directed us to these different dojos and places, basically the ones he knew where authentic. We got a sense and understood certain mannerism and customs that help us tell apart the an authentic art from the non-authentic art. Of course what we learned. It was implied that we where to emulate that "mood" (as he called it) in our dojo as students. The way he taught was traditionally and that was an example of his approach to teaching. You experience instead of reading about it.

That is what has shaped my views on this thread. It is nice to be able to collect historic information. But, it is even better how good you are at it. You really don't need to know what running is to run.

 

[jasonbrinn]

I studied a Koryu art for 14 + years and I can definitely tell you that understanding its culture and the influences, its history and its lineage not only added to the physical functionality of the techniques - it actually was essential to know for me to honestly progress.

The tradition and history gave insight into the design which allowed me to understand what was done based on principles and what was done just for etiquette and other reasons. I have had personal experience where others are doing things for functionality which were never designed to be for such uses but there lack of knowledge into such things results in basic repeating of what they saw and misunderstood.

Knowing the lineage of my particular art has taught me so much and kept me on track with the progression in study of functionality that I don't think I could do half the techniques without this knowledge properly.

 

[Chris Parker]

Right, the happy part first, with some explanation, then the less happy part with some clarification, and finally another happy part. This'll be fun!

I have just a few minutes, but I want to reiterate that historical context IS important, if it's important to the individual. It's interesting that Chris used music as a metaphor. I would say that context isn't the notes. That's too blatant. Context and history in music are as important as they are in martial arts. In other words, you can learn to play the piano without knowing the history of the piano. You learn technique. You learn music theory. You learn specific musical arrangements. And, with just those three things, you can become an accomplished, adept musician.

You may, however, want more. As your interests in playing the piano grow and your skills deepen, you might want to learn more about the instrument and its history. Or you may want to learn more about the music you play. And certainly, if it's important to you, it will add a depth of understanding and is important.

It's not, however, important to everyone. And knowing the history may enhance your performance. The act of striking a key correctly while playing a musical piece with emotion and feeling is a function of artistic sensitivity coupled with technical prowess. Can historical context inform or enhance one's artistic expression? Absolutely, it can. But not necessarily.

That's not quite it, though. It's to do with the curriculum, the technical approach, but not necessarily the techniques. It's knowing why certain notes, chords, chord progressions, key signatures, tempos are used in certain types of music, but not as much in others. And that comes from understanding what makes that type of music what it is. When it comes to martial arts, it's the same thing. I have a student in the Ninjutsu section at the moment asking why we don't have a bigger range of kicking techniques, similar to TKD or Karate. The simple answer is that we aren't TKD or Karate, but why we aren't comes down to history, which is the path of development that the art has travelled.

To use your music ideas here, without knowing about the different types of music, you can learn mechanically and technically how to play the instrument, say a piano, read sheet music, and play whatever is put in front of you. But that is very different to someone who gets the feel for what exists in a certain type of music, and doesn't need the sheet music, yet everything they do is jazz, or rock, or country, or whatever genre. Does that help explain it?

Just want to add one more thing, now that I have a few more minutes. Chris, I want to be clear that I don't completely disagree with you. Knowing the historical context of a move CAN improve the technique. But not necessarily. We talked about BJJ, which is really what I know. While understanding the context of Helio Gracie's development of many of the finer points of BJJ can be interesting, and how his lack of size and necessary focus on leverage and positional dominance influenced modern BJJ, all it really takes is a simple cliche, "Position before submission."

A student might ask why, but the answer is functionally irrelevant. Secure your position, seek to improve your position, work for a submission. That's how we do it. And learning how to do these three things is a lot to learn.

As I said before, there are many, many BJJ students who have no idea that Judoka learn many of the same techniques. They haven't a clue. And it doesn't affect their ability on the mats at all. More important are the mechanics of the technique in question. If I teach a D'arce, but call it Monkey Claw Backfist, it is actually a carotid choke. If you want it to work, you have to put pressure on either side of the windpipe to keep blood from carrying O2 to the brain. One side with your bicep and the other with the opponent's shoulder. If you do it right, your opponent will take a short nap. If you do it wrong, you will burn your arms out. Call that a Brabo, a D'arce, a simple head/arm triangle or by some foreign label that is older, and it will still work the same.

In fact, I've heard all three of these terms used interchangeably, but to many D'arce and Brabo are two different techniques among several other variations of head/arm chokes.

Yeah, you've jumped past the issue, though... you're talking about how BJJ applies it's basic philosophy, which involves the idea of submissions and grappling, without dealing with why BJJ goes for grappling and submission (which is exactly what the history informs us of). I mean, why doesn't it teach you roundhouse kicks and Suzy-Q's? Why not the use of weapons? Don't they work? Can't you say that I know my sword cuts, I don't need history to tell me that it does, and it doesn't matter if I do "Swallow Tail Cut", or "Hold Down A Pillow", it's all the same, and the name doesn't matter... but the question is, why are you using a sword in the first place? In BJJ, why are you focused on grappling? And the answer isn't "well, because that's what we do there".

"Position before submission" is a strategic application of the base philosophy of BJJ, not it's history, other than people found that that strategy works. The question that understanding the history answers is "why are you going for a submission in the first place?"... and the answer to that lies in the Japanese Judo origins and the competitive arena and environment that BJJ developed in. The history tells you why you do things, and why you don't do others. But, I have to say, the history that I'm talking about I feel that most people don't even see or recognise, as it's just common knowledge of that art. As it should be.

Right, on to the less fun bit. Sorry, John, but you're really not listening, so I'll go through it again...

The post that Chris is relying to I delete after posting, but it seems I did it too late as Chris used it in his post.

When i posted it I was concerned Chris would handle it as he did, I feel it detracts and distracts from the thread. I take responsibility for that, as I didn't communicate well my idea. To rectify that I replaced the post Chris commented on. A post I felt better about. I want to apologize for the post Chris posted. It is irrelevant. And should carry no weight in this discussion.

Further more, Chris, I am not sure what your perspective or need to question my statements that I study a koryu art. And, in your opinion am not to be a koryu practitioner because of on a few thumbnail comments I made. I am perplexed. I feel no matter what I say or prove it will never be good enough evidence. Spending the time proving it to you, isn't an interest of me, or do I see the importance. And for the sake of the betterment of this board if you that concern we can go PM. I don't think the majority or even 98.0% care about my koryu art being questioned.

Thank you for your understanding.

First off, don't apologize for anything I post. Ever. I actually take rather a fair degree of offence at that statement, John, as I personally feel that my answer dealt with quite a few issues in your understanding of this discussion, but it seems like you haven't read it properly. You may want to go back and do that. There are also a few questions hidden for you in there, so answering those might be appreciated as well.

Next, in terms of questioning your studying of a Koryu system, well, that's quite simple. You have claimed that you do, and made a number of posts that have relied on that to give weight to your statements and discussions, however each post you have made, including this one, and the ones I'm about to deal with (such as your "edit" you refer to here) show that you are very far removed from any Koryu concepts, training, or understanding. You have made several generalisations and observations about Japanese martial arts, and Jujutsu in particular that are very odd, to say the least, and lead to the question of where such bizarre concepts and ideas came from. If you don't study a Koryu art, that's fine and great, most people don't, and I'm hardly about to beat you over the head for it. But if you don't study one and keep claiming that you do, and posting misinformation and incorrect takes on such things with the validation that you did train in one, that's going to be a different issue. Honestly, I feel that you think you did study a Koryu, and feel that your instructor was genuine, for whatever reasons, and relatively typical of Japanese, or "traditional" instructors. None of these things are seemingly true, based on your posts and your attitude to the questions raised by them, but that's the reality that presents itself.

Basically, if you are going to post based on being a Koryu student, or even more importantly, an instructor, then the major issues that your posts give rise to need to be addressed for you to have any credibility at all. It might hurt to find out that you're not actually in any way related to Koryu systems or martial arts, but it's also not necessarily a bad thing in the slightest. It just means you had a different martial arts experience... but it also means that you don't know anything about Koryu.

So, one more time, which Ryu did you/do you study? That's all, John, at least to begin with. I'm not going to say there won't be further questions, but if that one can't be answered (and please, do say if you can't answer it), then we can categorically say that you are not, and have not trained in a Koryu. It really is that simple.

Oh, but finally, in regard to "we can go to PM", John, I suggested that to you when you first got here in April. At this point, some form of public credibility to back up your comments may help you more.

Chris, at the end of the day, either you kick butt or your butt is kicked. Does knowing your art's customs and tradition, and history provide more broader experience and enjoyment, sure. But it is not essential.

This is your edit? You think, honestly, that these two lines are expressing what you want to say better? Because what it says to me is "I have no idea what Koryu are". Very clearly.

Okay, I'm going to break the next one up.

This what I wanted to say. Instead of what Chris had quoted before I could change it.

Okay, I'm curious. What do you think that actually added to the conversation, as it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand? It is still in your "good martial artist versus bad martial artist" false argument that you seem determined to have with me.

In Koryu arts, linage is important as it relates to authenticity. Why? In terms of Koryu arts, they are arts that are practiced for historical preservation of the Japanese feudal culture.

No, they're not. So that's strike one on knowing about Koryu. Koryu are about preserving the particular Koryu, which are an aspect, or facet of older Japanese culture... they are not about historic preservation of the fuedal culture itself. And lineage is important, not as it relates to authenticity, but more as it relates to the status and transmission of the Ryu itself. There's plenty of very authentic, very respected systems whose lineage contains persons that are highly unlikely to have been anywhere near the systems place of operation and activity at all, and are there as "status symbols", showing an aspect of the Ryu that is an ideal it holds.

Because of that they have to be authentic, there has to be a lineage that shows proof of techniques created and used during feudal times that where handed down from generation to generation; an unbroken line of transmission. Proof you didn't make it up, and are lying because in Japan that carries weight. And in some circles outside of Japan due to migrating Japanese Senseis and others.

Wow, uh, nope. The Japanese will stretch the truth beyond breaking point to be seen as being polite first and foremost, the idea of "lying... carrying weight in Japan" is far from correct. Hell, Hagakure teaches that if you walk 100 metres with a real man he'll tell you seven lies.

Here in the US is Koryu was pretty much championed by author and martial artist Donn Dreager, later by influential authors/scholars and martial arts of koryu arts, such as David Lowry, Meik and Diane Skoss. For Koryu definition and other information the Skoss' have been very influential in being the accepted US standard. It is amazing how many internet pages use their koryu information.

And this is education to me because...? Donn Draeger was responsible for championing martial arts in general, the whole "jutsu/do" issue stems from some of his work, and more, but this doesn't really add anything to the conversation, does it? Having other people mentioned who do know what they're talking about doesn't change whether or not you do, does it?

Koryu arts as I was told, was never told to me by my sensei. The word Koryu or it's definition never came from my sensei's lips to any students ears. He didn't feel it was important to be aware of this. And he was correct.

Okay, this I really don't get. At all. Firstly, the first sentence ("Koryu arts as I was told, was never told to me by my sensei") doesn't make any sense... are you just saying he never used the term? Or he said what you were doing wasn't Koryu? Or he never classified what you were doing as Koryu, but you have decided it is later? Some grammar will help greatly....

Next, if he didn't feel that Koryu was something that was important, the very concept that that entails, that is a gigantic, mountainous clue that you weren't learning Koryu. And Koryu (and a Koryu approach) not being important is correct as far as training things that aren't Koryu are concerned. Otherwise you're way out.

I put it this way, a bird doesn't know it is a bird, or that it flies. An elephant doesn't know it is a vegetarian. Nor the lion a predator. Why isn't it important, well for us it had no mechanical bearing on what we did.

And again, what are you talking about? Honestly, these examples have no bearing on anything in the discussion whatsoever, John. We are discussing a human being learning a developed skill set, not a natural instinctual action that animals have, so this metaphor fails.

As to the second part, what on earth? The history, the fact that it is a Koryu, what Koryu it is, every part of it's past all completely informs the technical side of things, and has a gigantic impact on the mechanical side of the art. If you don't believe me, check out clips of Seitei Iai, then Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu, then Muso Shinden Ryu all doing the same kata. They're all different, and the reason is that the history, the lineage, the passing of the methods, all have a direct and huge impact on the mechanical aspects of the art and the way it is performed.

If you seriously believe this, then you have had no experience of Koryu at all.

Sure at a certain rank we were allowed to survey other other arts, from Ikebana to iaijuitsu, even zen meditation at a Japanese temple. It was to give us an idea what the old arts or koryu arts were about. He directed us to these different dojos and places, basically the ones he knew where authentic.

You don't seem to have paid enough attention. Of course, if your instructor didn't think much of a Koryu approach, then I don't know that he would have been the best guide for you.

We got a sense and understood certain mannerism and customs that help us tell apart the an authentic art from the non-authentic art. Of course what we learned. It was implied that we where to emulate that "mood" (as he called it) in our dojo as students. The way he taught was traditionally and that was an example of his approach to teaching. You experience instead of reading about it.

Woah, woah, woah. So your instructor didn't think a Koryu approach mattered, he never used the term, he didn't teach in a Koryu form from your accounts (aside from some vagueries about "teaching traditionally"... although I'd be interested to hear what you mean by that, as I have suspicions that it actually may not have been as "traditional" as you may think), but sent you to old systems, such as Ikebana (flower arranging, for those reading along), so that you could bring back the attitude of training from these systems in what he taught? Seriously, I have to say that doesn't paint him in a very good light there.

And, for the love of all that is sweet and tiny, and has such an oh-so-cute button nose, who said anything about reading? That's the thing, John, the history is ever present in the training, whether it is a Koryu or a modern system, or anything else. The history of the system has lead to what it presently is, and that is experienced through training it. That's where the understanding of it's history comes into it.

I'm not suggesting classes turn into lecture halls, guys, seriously. I'm suggesting you understand what it is your art does and why it does it based on where it comes from. And, frankly, most already know it, on some level. No book reading, no assignments, no homework and exams, just understanding your own art and what makes it what it is.

That is what has shaped my views on this thread. It is nice to be able to collect historic information. But, it is even better how good you are at it. You really don't need to know what running is to run.

Then I'm going to suggest, once again, go back and re-read the thread. That should inform you on what it's about, as it's not what you have been arguing.

You know what, I'm going to try one last time. John, what Koryu did you study? Can you just answer that simple question, as it's comments like the one above that show a desperate lack of understanding of the subject.

I studied a Koryu art for 14 + years and I can definitely tell you that understanding its culture and the influences, its history and its lineage not only added to the physical functionality of the techniques - it actually was essential to know for me to honestly progress.

The tradition and history gave insight into the design which allowed me to understand what was done based on principles and what was done just for etiquette and other reasons. I have had personal experience where others are doing things for functionality which were never designed to be for such uses but there lack of knowledge into such things results in basic repeating of what they saw and misunderstood.

Knowing the lineage of my particular art has taught me so much and kept me on track with the progression in study of functionality that I don't think I could do half the techniques without this knowledge properly.

Yep! Koryu, more than anything else, relies on the history side of things. What I've been saying is that it's more present there, but it's still in every other art as well, as it needs to be. The thing is that you can only be considered a martial artist if you understand the art, and the only way to understand it is to know what it is, what it does, why it does it, and all of that comes from where it's come from. Koryu is just the biggest, most obvious, most overt version of that.

 

[Steve]

Chris, I enjoy discussing things with you, but I'm not convinced you are understanding my point. While I'm not saying you're wrong, you seem to be suggesting that I am wrong. It appears to me that you are debating from an absolute position. Maybe I'm not completely understanding your point, but at least consider that you might not really understand mine.

It seems that you are a very strong advocate for the question, "Why?" Have you ever heard of the "5 Why's" technique? It's a nutshell technique used to identify root causes, typically of a problem. Toddlers use this technique intuitively. Simply put, the idea is to ask the question, "Why?" And to do this at least five times. If you do, you'll get at the origin of an issue or problem. In practice, the technique can be annoying and cause more conflict than it resolves. But in theory, it's a good thing. It drives you to consider that you may be dealing with a symptom as though it was the disease.

All of that to say, I get it. I understand the value of "Why." But the point I'm making is that you can do very well without asking, "Why?" You cannot, however, do well at all unless you have a thorough understanding of, "What?"

"What?" is the question that must be answered. Not, "Why?" You can be an accomplished musician knowing "what" do to, without understanding all of the ins and outs of "why." Parents use this technique all the time, as do managers.

"Why don't we have very many kicks in Ninjutsu?"
"Because if we had more kicks, it would be something else."