Hmm, a few things need clearing up here, particularly in regards to what is being discussed, and what's a side issue from that....
I feel like "new history" is a bit of a bait and switch though. Not on purpose, of course. But there's a big difference between knowing events from hundreds of years back and recognizing a basic stimulus-response reaction taking place right in front of you. Retaining information that you, yourself, have just observed is a fairly broad view of history.
Not really, if the change was a one-off, yeah, but if it starts a new behaviour (new martial art, or branch of that art), then that is specifically the relevant history in that instance that informs the new system/behaviour. That's kinda the point that I'm getting at with the history (the events and personalities that went into the creation and make-up of the art, whether something that happened 600 years ago, or 6 years ago) being important to be understood. In this instance, Scarlett's complaints are the event that alters the behaviour... which might be seen as a metaphor for a change that forms a new martial art or expression (think of it along the lines of the introduction of Judo by Maeda to the Machados and Gracies forming the new art of BJJ, or the transition from the first, multi-style tournaments of the UFC to the MMA format for gaining accreditation and status with the Sporting Commissions giving rise to modern MMA. These aren't basic stimulus-response sets, they are a new event creating a new behaviour/system) which is what I was getting at.
Yeah, I'm familiar with that explanation. And it's true that, if your priority is to preserve the culture and history of your style, these details are important. But, again, from a purely technical performance standpoint, every living practitioner of a given Southern kung fu style could suddenly be rendered blissfully unaware of the above explanation. And it wouldn't change the basic, observable, reproducible fact that broad stances offer stability.
That's not really the point, though. The stances are the way they are because of the history of that system, whether the awareness is there or not. This may come as a surprise to a great many, but martial systems that only do things due to purely technical efficacy don't exist. They just don't. As I said earlier, these arts don't spring up out of a bubble, they are a product of their environment, which is a part of the history I've been referring to (the "where it comes from" part). Otherwise you might as well teach Wing Chun (narrow, high stances) with wide, deep stances, such as Hung Gar uses, because "it's more stable". Sure, but that's not Wing Chun, and if you're doing things like that, then you don't understand your art enough, which is, well, the thrust of this thread.
I mean, it also wouldn't change the basic, observable, reproducible fact that broad stances are slower and less mobile, either. Which value does the system hold? Mobility, or stability? Or compromise between the two? On more stable ground, mobility is safer to prefer, however on rockier ground, mobility can lead to falling over, and being killed, so stability is preferred. And, again, that comes back to the history as to which the system prefers.
Again, I want to emphasize that I, personally, like to retain the sort of cultural detail you're espousing. But "I value this" is still different from "this is necessary."
Does that make sense?
Right. I really want to clear something up here. I want everyone to listen carefully to this, because I don't think it's been listened to for the last, oh, 9 pages or so.
AT NO POINT HAVE I ESPOUSED, SUGGESTED, RECOMMENDED, INSISTED, DESIRED, INSTRUCTED, DICTATED, DEMANDED, CLAIMED, OR BELIEVED THAT ANY DEGREE OF CULTURAL DETAIL IS REQUIRED.
Seriously, I think I've said a number of times now that the degree of understanding and knowledge of the history of the system is entirely relative to the system itself. And the vast majority of it comes simply through training the system. When you train in Judo, you don't start wondering where all the roundhouse kicks are, or three sectional staff work, and if someone asks you about them, you say that they're not a part of Judo. If asked why, the answer would be "it's a Japanese grappling system that comes from old Jujutsu systems". I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Judo practitioner that wasn't aware of this part of the history. Do they need to know which systems gave which part of Judo's syllabus to it? No. But they do need to understand why Judo is made up the way it is (throwing primarily) instead of another way.
That's it.
Other areas, such as Koryu, need a lot more. But they are their own case, really.
So when it comes to "necessary", yes, it is necessary. Otherwise you have Judo schools with three sectional staff classes, roundhouse kicks, and Bat'leth...
Does that make sense?
Good to see you again, by the way, Chris.
Good to see you too, Stuart.
Often the question is this, how is someone to determine what is or isn't BS. Well one school of thought, which Chris you may agree with, is refer to history, study history, use history. Ok, for those who subscribe to this method, I can't disagree. But the issue you will face is your knowledge is only as you as your sources. Which is the case for any historical research. Now, the alternative is to ask around, or directly ask an authority. You also have the net to find out. To the untrained eye, they don't see the earmarks, or the flaws, etc. It is had for them to determine the authentic from the none authentic and they will go to the art that looks the more legit based on their stereotype or background information. The risk here is you may think your asking someone posing as authority providing wrong or fraudulent information. Either has their benefits and drawbacks, though I personally would rather ask.
Right. So, if I read you correctly here, John, you're saying that you learn by being educated, and if you're not educated, you should ask those who are? Okay, not sure if I see the relevance, but okay...
Oh, and what to look for when checking for BS is to look for congruence both internally and externally with contemporary examples.
Chris I think you are pointing this out, if the videos where shown to those unfamiliar with this school, they would pick the fraudulent as the authentic school. Just based on the videos you presented.
I sincerely hope that no-one looking for a traditional Japanese system would be caught out by the example I put forth. The number of gigantic red flags, issues, inconsistencies, errors, incongruence in action and claims are beyond funny. Honestly, I chose those videos because I felt it was patently obvious which one was the odd one out there (the old "one of these things is not like the other ones..." song)...
If anyone else thought the "Koga Ryu Ninjitsu" group were a legit system based on comparrison with the three Koryu systems it claimed to share contemporary history with, let me know, and I'll happily point out everything wrong with that clip so you don't get taken in in future.
Isn't he talking about this in the context of koryu arts? If he is, all the 'trappings' are in fact part and parcel of the whole deal and cannot be left out without changing the system. He's not talking purely about effectiveness or practical usage which is the point you are making about the rationale for a wider stance, regardless of any historical reasoning behind it.
This from a proud practitioner of gendai arts (karate & aikido), so I have no dog in the fight myself.
No, I'm not talking specifically about Koryu excepting in the conversation with John in order to clarify where he was getting his ideas on them from. So while I'm not talking about effectiveness or practical usage, I am when it comes to that being the reasoning for such an aspect as the stances... depending on that being the reason in the history of the relevant system, of course.
Take, for instance, your karate and aikido training. Both arts have very different approaches, very different concepts, and very different ideas (there is certainly some cross-over, but by and large, they are very different, in some ways complimentary, systems). Those different concepts, approaches, and ideas are a direct product of each of those arts history. In order to understand why your karate moves the way it does, as opposed to the way your aikido moves, you have to have some understanding of where it came from, and the different path it took to your aikido to come to the expression it now has. And that can be as simple an understanding as "Well, karate came from the striking systems of China to Okinawa, and then were introduced to Japan. Aikido, on the other hand, came from a grappling Jujutsu system in Japan", with other aspects added in for increased richness. The more you understand about the history of each, the better each will be, as the similarities and differences will be clearer to you, and far more obvious in your training of each.
hmmm... I'm gonna ask my Sihing about this tonight. This explanation seems overly simplistic to me. Rocky terrain or not, you don't need much room for a stance, whether the stance is wide or narrow. I can't belive a region of the country would be so covered in loose gravel, demanding a specific stance to the extent that it would completely dictate stance in a martial system.
Yeah, it was very simplistic. I could have gone specific and discussed the histories of Hung Gar versus the histories of Wing Chun if I wanted to give a more detailed and specific example, but it was a broad strokes example to illustrate a point. That said, the terrain in which a system was prevalent, or active, absolutely would influence it's physical expression, starting with the stances.
My method comes from Tibet, and thru Southern China. We use a fairly high, narrow stance in the main, but wide and deep stances are found in our system at various points, to accomplish a task. Our main stancework is designed with a very specific function in mind, and that is the reason for our stances. We develop and deliver technique in a specific manner, and our stances reflect that, because our stances drive our technique. I've never heard that our stances were dictated by terrain. It's always been about how the system itself is designed and how it works, and how technique is developed and delivered.
Terrain is only one possibility, Michael, and a single, simple example at that. Other influences include the armour used, any other typical clothing worn, any weapons used, whether it's designed for indoors or outdoor use, social customs of the time and location, other martial systems encountered, preference for striking or grappling, and so on. But to terrain, it can be far more influential than you may realise... boxing stances and MMA stances are different for a couple of reasons, and one is that the competitive surface of a boxing ring is firmer than an MMA ring, as the MMA ring needs to cushion falls and takedowns far more, which slows the footwork, and means the stance will get wider (which is also a result of the included grappling range in MMA, by the way). In fact, that's one of the reasons that Royce (and other grapplers) did so well in the initial UFC contests... the strikers weren't used to the slower surface, had too narrow stances, and couldn't get the purchase and speed they were used to. The grapplers, though, were used to it, and had stances that worked with the surface.
My suspicion is that any well designed system would be the same: stances are used that function within the way the techniques are designed.
Yes, but the question then comes into how the techniques are designed. For instance, in my systems, one of the schools, Kukishinden Ryu, has a naval history, so the kamae (postures) are wider, giving stability when on a boat. It also has a history of armoured combat, so the kamae reflect this additional weight being present (their form of "hicho" [flying bird] kamae, which typically is a single leg posture, just features the feet brought closer together). And, once again, that comes down to the history of the system.
Well sure. Chris is speaking from a koryu perspective. After all, he has bugei fever.
...
Oh, come on Stu, that was awful man....
Just don't do it again, yeah?
I don't have a dog in that fight myself, not being a practitioner of any Japanese art longer than three months (college class). But based on the thread title and the fact that this isn't specifically a koryu forum, there's an implication that this applies across the board. Which is the point I might disagree with.
But let's assume, for a moment, that we are talking about koryu. Then sure, the history of the styles is important to the transmission of (wait for it) the history of the styles. And that's true across the board as well. My understanding of this debate is that it relates to whether or no the history is necessary to convey technical understanding of specific movements.
If the debate is over whether history is important in a broader sense, then my answer would change promptly. I do want to know (and do know) much of the history of my chosen styles. But that's a different matter.
Absolutely right, this is far from Koryu specific. They will have a far greater emphasis on their personal history than other systems, but that's about it. And honestly, it's easier to get the histories of Koryu systems in order to see the development, the influence of other systems and so on, in order to make the points, but, once more for emphasis, every art is the product of it's history, and to understand the art is to understand the history of it, as without it, there is no art. But, again, that does not mean that everyone needs to know, by rote, every detail in the history, formation, and development of their art, and all related systems, but they do need to have an understanding of what makes their art what it is. And that understanding is in the history.
I think it is clear Chris is talking about koryu systems given the many references he has made to them in his conversation with John. He's also been very forthcoming that he is not talking about combat effectiveness nor intrinsic worth of koryu vs. gendai martial arts. Just the distinctions that make a koryu art koryu in the first place.
By the way, this has been an interesting thread. Many thanks to the participants.
Er, except I'm not. They have been used as demonstration examples, and to make points, and there has been some focus in regard to the information and views coming out about them which was rather inaccurate, to say the least, but that's it.
I was addressing this line you wrote: "But let's assume, for a moment, that we are talking about koryu." The thread has become about koryu arts - certainly the last two pages with the back and forth between Chris and John, but arguably for longer than that if we read through the entire series.
Thus, any remarks about art efficacy without historical knowledge are very well and good, but not what the discussion is or has turned into.
Here's the catch that may have been overlooked. The history of a particular system may indeed
be it's efficacy in the arenas it exists in. MMA, certainly, as well as BJJ, have their entire history based in the efficacy and demonstrable effectiveness and applicability within their competitive arenas, which is what has helped shape them into what they are today. Tez, for example, while saying that the history side of things may not be exactly what she is into all of this for, is the first to come forth and correct the history on the development of MMA as it stands today. Just because that history is recent, and primarily competitively based doesn't alter the fact that that is it's history, and that is what defines and influences the system known as MMA itself.
In other words, the history of MMA is based in the continued development of training and technical approaches designed to give better success in the field of MMA competition. It has a history of doing that, and that history is what makes MMA what it is (stemming originally from the multi-style contests, where strikers and grapplers began cross-training in the other ranges in order to generate success, leading to MMA training as it exists now).
And am I to take it that I'm not in a position to shape the progression of the discussion then? I should just stick to where others have taken it?
Stuart, your position is, if not better than most others, then at least as valid as any to shift the conversation to any expression of the topic that you see is relevant. Not that I think any here could stop you...
