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!
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
