Ha,
you're confused?
Initially, as in, after the first 50 or so posts, I was under the impression that this was a discussion about it being necessary for a student to understand the history in order to properly execute the technique. I remain unconvinced, largely as a direct result of what I see occurring in BJJ every day.
Okay, I want to know where this idea has come from, so I've gone back to the start to find it. First, though, a brief explanation as to how this thread started, as that could have some bearing on the confusion that we find ourselves with here.
Basically, in a thread in the Hapkido section (on the effectiveness of joint locks), I made some comments correcting the over generalisation and misinformation that JohnEdward had provided, which lead oftheherd1 to ask me some specific questions about the connections between Japanese arts and those of Korean and China. JKS split that post, and the following two, to create this thread, giving it it's title, to avoid thread drift there, and to promote a new conversation here. So it never really had any defined purpose or question to it, instead the origin was really a question and answer self contained in the initial post. There was no mention of a need to learn history, and certainly nothing about needing to know the history to be able to execute the technique.
Page 1 (posts 1-15)
So that's the first three posts, followed by Cyriacus seeking clarification of the progression of some arts. Next was JohnEdward putting across his take on what he meant by Jujutsu, which was lacking to my mind, Tez describing the way she sees Tang Soo Do as basically a copy of the Wado Ryu she had already studied, then John again making an incorrect over generalisation of martial systems of the major cultures mentioned, and the first idea of someone needing or not needing to be a "walking wikipedia", or particularly schooled in the subject of history. Jenna added a post primarily tongue-in-cheek, then Chinto and Boar Man spoke about the particular approaches of different systems, and where that came from based on their origins and history. Mook Jong Man further embellished on the brief history of Wing Chun I had previously provided, and Tez mentioned the issue of false histories and accurate ones. Finally I came back and clarified what I saw as a few issues, and answered questions that had been posed, such as demonstrating the effects that different elements in the history of some karate styles had on the physical methods and approaches of those systems, clearing up the issues with the aforementioned take on Jujutsu, and pointing out how an understanding of the history, and what effect different elements would have, can help you when viewing systems you are unfamiliar with to tell if they are genuine or not. That brings us to the end of page 1, and post 15. So far, no mention of anything needed to "properly execute techniques", and certainly nothing about any link between physical performance and book learning.
Page 2 (posts 16-30)
Post 17 is where it starts to shape up, with Jenna saying that the art can happily be practiced "in a vacuum" separate from any historical knowledge of the path that lead it to your training hall. She also asked what valuable things can be learned that will assist in the practice of the art here and now. I answered that the degree depends on the art itself, but that the history provides the "what" by first providing the "why" through the "when", "who", and "how". Some interjection from Angel comes in, and Jenna asks why knowing the history is important, surely the technique is the technique no matter how it came to be? My answer is basically that it came to be by a specific path, and to continue to follow that art, and stay true to it, you need to stay to that path, or at least understand it in order to break or branch from it. In post 25 Tez brings up the first mention of whether knowing the history of your system makes you a "better" martial artist or not, which has not actually been a question up til then. She asks how knowing history can make you a better kicker, for example, but also admits that she could be taking the idea of learning history in order to understand the art too literally (I'd personally say that she is just looking at the technical mechanics, rather than what I would consider the martial art itself). More back and forth with Angel, followed by Jenna continuing the discussion by essentially asking how knowing about the various arts that went into Ueshiba's education help her in her performance of Aikido, as Aikido should be a stand-alone system without requiring such knowledge.
So far, it's really only Tez who has mentioned anything about learning techniques being improved, and she admits she may have not understood what was being meant.
Page 3 (posts 31-45)
Okay, page three starts with my answering Jenna, and agreeing that I am not saying that knowing about all the details of the antecedant arts (in this case, Daito Ryu for example) isn't necessary to say you understand Aikido, but knowing Aikido's history is, as that is what leads the art to be Aikido in the first place. While this is what gives shape to the techniques, I am still not talking about it being part of learning techniques. Some more back and forth with Angel, and Frank Raud joins in the posit that history and tradition is given emphasis precisely because it is important. Tez asks about this, and Frank describes martial mythology as a drawcard for the arts, which play on the histories of the various systems. JKS pays a visit to stop the back and forth with Angel, and to try to steer the thread in the direction he had in mind when he created it, which is to look at the histories of the various arts, where, say, the Korean systems actually come from, and so forth. While the side-story with Angel stops, this idea for the thread isn't followed, which is fine. Oftheherd1 returns, and points out that I have been rather Japan-centric (yeah, fair call... but there are reasons for that!), followed by a post (post #42) which gets at my basic message throughout the thread, namely that the history helps you understand why emphasis is placed on one or another aspect, and in that way, helps you to pick the right art for yourself (and simply understand where your own art is coming from). I like that, because that's all I've really been saying when I say that knowing the history is part of understanding the art. Then we get to post 43, and that's where it all starts to really turn. In this post, JohnEdward takes the concept that Tez had brought up in post 25, and starts asking if knowing history makes your timing better, for instance, as well as starting the discussion on Koryu by essentially displaying no understanding of Koryu whatsoever (by reasoning with such things as "when my butt is on the line", and arguing that the history side doesn't make him more or less of a Koryu practitioner....). He also completely misses the point that Oftheherd1 was making, relating history to book learning and scholarship, which has not been done at any point in the thread up til that point. Ralph McPherson adds a false, and inaccurate analogy involving knowing the history of the guitar in order to play one, and Tez ends the page with the idea of having a broader understanding of history allowing better understanding of other people's arts (which is certainly a benefit, and an argument for a more scholarly approach, but not what I have been discussing).
So, the thrust of this "does learning the history mean you can punch harder/do the techniques better on the mat" concept comes from JohnEdward here, as well as the idea of understanding, or knowing the history here referring to a more scholarly, or academic pursuit. That has never been my contention or statement.
Page 4 (posts 46-60)
Here we start with Cyriacus taking Tez's example of broader understanding of martial history and education, and Jenna asking how knowing the history of her own system affects, or alters the practice of her art in the here and now, with a reference to the physical techniques. Tez agrees with this, asking how knowing the history will help her fight. Jenna comes back to reiterate, with the "glib" statement that she is "armed with the technique, not armed with the history", although she is open to concrete examples of knowing the history being relevant to the practice, where not knowing the history can be detrimental to such. This is post 50, and this is where the conversation has started to turn to "how does knowing the history help you perform the techniques?". It was never a part of the original answers or posts in this thread, especially not from myself. From there up to post 58 we basically have a slight error in the history of a system being given and a discussion stemming from that, and Frank comes back to correct the false analogy that Ralph had given earlier in regards to a guitar. Elder steps in for a second to make some points about how the historic details, particularly of the founder of the system, have helped give shape to the entire system, so knowing those aspects helps the student know why some things are done and others aren't. The last post on this page is from me, and it's a long one. In it I correct the mistake in history that was made, reiterate Franks take on Ralph's guitar analogy (sorry Frank, I was already typing my response when you posted, and didn't want to take it out), and confirm the reasons for my Japan-centric posting earlier. I also point out that I am seeing the concept of martial arts as far more than just "punches and kicks", or the technical make-up of the various systems, so I don't subscribe to the idea of "understanding your art" meaning "I hit harder". The Koryu side of things with John makes another appearance, with my pointing out some of the very non-Koryu things he's saying, giving that sub-plot another showing. In answer to Jenna, I start off by distinguishing between a "fighter", or a pure technician, someone only concerned with techniques, and a martial artist. This should show that I am not saying anything about knowing the history being linked to knowing how to perform a strike (although that can be extrapolated from it, if you know where to look). From there I give some examples of knowing the history helping in knowing how an art is performed, mainly from a tactical perspective. I also point out to Tez, specifically that knowing the history "won't help you fight, necessarily, but it will help you keep your practice on the same line, consistent and reliable, which will make the training that much more effective and powerful".
So, once again, my contention is specifically not that it is a direct aid to performance of technique, and certainly not that it makes you a better fighter. But then again, I don't take "martial artist" and "fighter" as equal terms.
Page 5 (posts 61-75)
This page starts out with Tez discussing a difference of definition of "history", and my confirming what I mean by the term. Jenna then seeks further clarity by positing a hypothetical "technique", wanting to know how knowing the history helps her train, learn, and apply it. In response to both Tez and Jenna, I try to describe the relationship between the history and the techniques (the physical expressions of the art, or it's behaviours) through the metaphor of a persons behavioural developments. I also describe how the not knowing the history can lead to getting the techniques incorrect, and in doing so, the history provides more a way of checking rather than actually being a way of improving striking power, for instance (although I don't touch on the history giving approaches and methods that are designed to do just that, as that would just muddy the waters...). Next is, frankly, JohnEdward equating things that I have not said, nor subscribe to, implying that the learning of the history of your system and the learning of the art are separate, and that learning of history is a separate academic study, deep and detailed. He also questions "what you know, or think you know", and tries to get into the idea of amateur and professional academics, which is all completely beside the point, as well as a gross misinterpretation of what I've been saying. Tez, following this misinterpretation, asks about how knowing the history of Wado Ryu helps her with her Wado Ryu throws, surely she's better off talking with a Judoka, for instance. Again, not what I've been talking about, but I'm still able to find an answer within the history, more about why you would possibly not look to a Judoka if you want to know the Wado method for performing throws. John again brings up his status as a "Koryu practitioner", again though, showing a great lack of understanding of what that implies. He also continues to mistake scholarly approaches for what I am discussing. I give another long post which includes pointing out, again, that the degree of knowledge of history is relative to the system, with most not requiring much beyond basic details, and that I am in no way advocating scholarly approaches unless you want to be a scholar. I also start questioning this Koryu claim of John's in more detail, asking what are the most basic questions that should be a simple answer, such as "what Ryu do you study?". I asked this of a Bujinkan member who is also training in a Koryu yesterday, he immediately got back to me with "Chris I study Masaki Ryu". It's really a very simple question.... I also point out that the lessons gained from understanding the history are more along the lines of knowing why this art favours kicks, but this one grappling. Why this one is more aggressive, and why this one is more evasive, and so on. Which has been the whole point all along. Jenna comes back to say she understands what I mean now, but seeks clarification as to the degree of knowledge of the history that is needed, and John gets, frankly, unnecessarily defensive over simple questions that he seems unable or unwilling to answer.
Here we have me clarifying a few times that knowing the history is not about the individual punches and kicks, more why it favours punching over grappling, and that I am in no way advocating a scholarly approach. In fact, only a small amount of knowledge is really required for what I am talking about.
Page 6 (post 76-90)
Page 6 starts with John again completely misinterpreting what I've been saying, putting words and ideas into my mouth that have never been put across by myself, with the concept of a "good" martial artist, as opposed to a lacking one, and playing into the idea that I am insisting on scholarship. While I may have shown some personal tendancies towards scholarship approaches myself, I have at no point in this entire debate advocated it for anyone, nor insisted on it for a criteria for anything. At all. Then you jump in, Steve, and immediately go to a technical standpoint, despite that not being much of a feature other than Tez's initial comment and John's insistance, as well as Jenna's hypothetical Monkey Catching Cricket. In fact, it's something I've dismissed a couple of times already as not what I mean. Tez comes back in and continues your theme of looking at the individual techniques, despite that not being what was meant by myself in any way. Next follows a slight detour into the military applications and histories of TKD. I then come back in and clarify in a response to Jenna about the level of knowledge needed, and the fact that I am not talking about extra research, but that this understanding should be a part of the learning of the system itself, and provide a story from one of my systems that mimics her "Monkey Catching Cricket" story as an illustration. I also go back to Johns defensive post, and point out a range of issues with his Koryu claim, as well as correcting his misinterpretation from the beginning of this page. Then, in answer to yourself, Steve, I point out that some techniques do have a history that is part of them, but that is a case-by-case basis, and as a result not correct in a broad stroke form for all martial systems, and as such, not what I am discussing, or meaning. I do, however, give an example of how the particular history changes seemingly similar or identical physical methods quite drastically. Again, though, this is on a case-by-case basis, not a universal rule. Sometimes the same is just the same, but with a different name (although, if you look closely enough, it'll be different on some level). I again point out the "understand the art" argument, and use your technical examples of how being informed about the art helps in your application and execution of the techniques in some cases. But it should be remembered that such examples are me taking the points you are giving me and extrapolating, not me making the argument myself that the history helps you apply a rear naked choke properly. Then there's a little more TKD specific history entered into for a moment.
Page 7 (posts 91-105)
Right, page 7. JohnEdward put down a long post filled with misunderstandings of my argument, putting words and ideas into my mouth again, such as the "good" martial artist distinction and being a scholar, to which I advise him basically to re-read the thread, and completely disavow the arguments he says I am making. He also puts down some very vague and inconsequential details about his teacher, a lot of which show him to not be teaching Koryu as a way of claiming that he is a Koryu student, while completely failing to answer the very simple and basic questions that would be the first step. He edits this post down to a couple of lines that basically screams "I don't study Koryu", and somehow thinks this is better. Jason Brinn comes along, and basically says how he approaches looking at the history and how it influences an art. Cool. You come back, Steve, and basically try to continue talking about specific technical details, as well as the application of BJJ's tactical approach. John comes back, and again gets rather defensive, asking why I would even care about his credibility as a Koryu practitioner, as well as "apologising" for my post. Hmm. He then goes on to give a very inaccurate take on Koryu systems and what they value, as well as missing the point of my asking, what I'm asking, and the point of the discussion with some very false analogies that have nothing to do with the argument. Jason comes back to help correct John, but I don't think he got what Jason was saying (the same way he didn't get what Paul Smith was saying to him a number of months ago). I come back to clarify to Steve that he's gone past what I'm talking about, so he's missed the exit, so to speak. It's not about the individual techniques, it's about the basic thrust of the system itself, where it has come from, what it does (in broad terms), and why it does that. I then turn to John, pointing out that he's not taking on board anything that has been said so far, as well as pointing out that, if he's going to be making claims about Koryu training based on being a Koryu practitioner, it'd help if he had a clue what he was talking about, so I am trying to ascertain where his Koryu knowledge comes from, as it is very lacking to say the least. I'm also not happy about him "apologising" for my words. I then pull apart the issues with his statements about Koryu themselves. That is followed by a little back and forth between myself and Steve, clarifying what the "what" we are referring to is, and John coming back, defensive again, missing what has been said, and again not answering the basic questions that would show whether he has any credibility to discuss Koryu. I finish the page by one more time asking John to go through the thread and see why I've asked about his Koryu education.
So, again, there is the disavowing of the idea that it's about the ways of training or learning the individual techniques, although that can be enhanced. And the Koryu side of things is really a side issue about John's credibility to talk on such things, not the main thrust of the discussion.
Page 8 (posts 106-120)
This page starts with myself offering a demonstration of the history of systems showing through in their methods, with three actual Koryu systems and a fake modern "ninjitsu" system who claims to be contemporary with the Koryu systems, showing that the actual, modern history of the fake school shows through, no matter what history they claim. This is followed by another two posts of John's showing large gaps in his understanding of Koryu, with misapplication of terms, mistakes in history, not understanding the purpose of such systems, and so on, followed by his take on the videos I posted. Elder gives some good clips of Koshiki no Kata, and Steve starts to come round, although there's still a bit of an issue. John again shows an approach and value directly opposed to Koryu training and education, I then correct John's major misunderstandings on Koryu, basically demonstrating that John's experience, whatever it was, was not Koryu. In the slightest. I also clarify something with Steve's response, which Elder had already touched on, in that the "why" and the "what" aren't, and really can't be separated. Stuart (ap Oweyn) comes along, and also gets into the misinterpretation of this being about technical application and efficacy. I clarify my statements to Stuart, and then John posts a long post which had really nothing to do with Stuarts post, so the edit of "I am removing this post because ap Oweyn put it better than me" doesn't make much sense, but basically it said that he may not do much reading or research, but he had a Japanese instructor who didn't put much stock in Koryu (despite apparently teaching it?), so why am I questioning his posts? My post there is a response to this original post of Johns, basically saying that I question his take on Koryu because it's so far out from every single Koryu practitioner I have ever dealt with, it denies most of the core values of Koryu, there are huge gaps in understanding, mistakes in history, and more. Basically, because it shows that John has no Koryu education at all. John again accuses me of claiming superiority, and being "snobbish", basically missing entirely what I have said. He also shows a fair amount of lack of understanding of who he's talking to, but that's another story...
So again, on the eighth page now, I am still clarifying that I am not talking about learning individual techniques, nor being a scholar. And the Koryu thing is about John giving bad and inaccurate information under the guise of education.
Page 9 (posts 121-135)
I clarify to John that I am not attacking him, nor claiming any superiority of Koryu over anything else. I do ask him to clarify what he meant when he spoke earlier about the clips I posted of Koryu and a fake system showing that Koryu isn't an indication or guarantee of quality... He says he was referring to the last one, which was the fake system. I take this as absolute proof positive that John has absolutely no idea about Koryu whatsoever, let alone Japanese traditional martial arts in any guise. For fun, I put up some Jigen Ryu clips, just because, well, any excuse, really. Stuart then comes back to talk about a few details from earlier posts, and John again seems to confirm a lack of any knowledge of old Japanese martial arts by saying that most people would think the fake system was genuine when put against the authentic Koryu systems. I really don't know how to take that. We then get to the question of whether or not the discussion is about Koryu or not, as well as adding some discussion of the role of prevalent terrain in forming parts of a systems approach.
Page 10 (posts 135- )
In which I start by clarifying a few details with Stuarts reading of my earlier post, and continue the discussion of terrain and other influences on stance. I also clarify, again, that I am not espousing, suggesting etc a scholarly approach unless that is someones personal choice. I also point out that anyone who had any experience with Koryu systems would never, and I mean never, think that "Koga Ryu Ninjitsu" system was genuine. I then clarify that the Koryu side of things was a side issue based on John making statements that were being accepted by other people, and even thanked by them for, which were blatantly inaccurate and misleading, so I wanted to clarify what his actual Koryu experience is. At this point, it is painfully obvious that, no matter what John may think he has trained in, it is not a Koryu. In any respect.
And that brings us to here.
Now, it seems, Chris, that you are saying that the history of an art permeates the techniques so that a student benefits from the history in a passive way, even if they don't take an active interest. That the techniques are what they are as a result of the history. If this is the case, I guess I thought this was self apparent. I mean, who would suggest otherwise? For literally any thing, you can point to a series of events and influences that culminate in a moment in time. I am who I am because of where I've been. BJJ is what it is because of its history.
That's what I've said since the start, though. Others have misread, misinterpreted, misunderstood, applied inaccurate assumptions, and tried to claim that I am saying, or arguing things that I haven't been, but that doesn't change the fact that I have been discussing, since the beginning, the history of a system informing the overall approach of that art, which extends to the technical side, but is removed from being about being a good fighter, or from learning the techniques except in some case-by-case situations.
Seriously, see the above breakdown and see if I've said anything different over the last 10 pages... if I have, I couldn't find it.
As others have said, if this has become a discussion about a specific subset of Japanese martial arts, I'll duck out.
Nope, martial arts in general, and all inclusive. Stay and have fun!
But if it's about martial arts in general, there are arts taught where, sure, the history of the art influences the instruction, but not in any active manner. Once again, in BJJ, techniques are shown for which no name is given, and as you move from one school to another, different techniques are taught in different ways with different names. The history of the art, while surely being present underneath the instruction, has no overt place on the mats.
Except that it does. The very way the art is trained, the drilling methods, the way it is taught, are all just as much an expression and extension of the history as the mechanics chosen for their effectiveness in competition. The history is where the method of instruction comes from. Now, that history might be recent, if it's a recent art, or old, if it's something like a Koryu system, but in either case, it's the history that has lead to that teaching method.
I am not clear Chris with you augmentation style. When trying to discuss something with you, it doesn't seem you will go past elementary initial repudiation. There is no developing the discussion beyond that. I find it difficult to carry a conversation with you that isn't on the edge of developing into an ad hom rodeo. I think what I said was pretty clear and straight forward. I express my opinion that my choice is to ask around instead of taking the historical route to find out information.
What? Can you write that out again with some grammar? And what on earth do you mean I don't go past "elementary initial repudiation"? I have pointed out where your take on things shows it to be against Koryu approaches for 10 pages, John, you have consistently failed to engage in actual discussion that would support your contention that you learned a Koryu. And as far as being clear and straightforward, uh, not the way I read it, gotta say. I'd also say that your comment here goes against the way I read your initial statement (which made more sense, honestly), as you're basically saying here that, rather than actually research, you'd just ask around? Okay, how about you ask around here. Your first port of call for Koryu related information is the Koryu Corner, which you might find I was involved in setting up, and I am a rather vocal participant of. In other words, John, here, I am your Koryu source. If I'm correcting you, that means that you're most likely wrong. And I don't correct opinions, I correct facts.
Asking around to check the authenticity vs. historical avenues for verification of authenticity.
If I go over old ground I apologize. I have learned in my lifetime the power of word of mouth, to ask those who are legitimate experts or those in fields of those most qualified. Others rely on acquiring that knowledge (for sake of argument) prevuing historic information and doing scholarly research and study. Personally, I am a person who practices a historic Japanese martial art (aka koryu) within that field I my process for legitimacy if I care to, I will ask around and do a bit of research. My art of jujutsu is pretty small and I know who is, and who isn't generally. Now if I was to venture outside of Japanese koryu jujutsu, say into Japanese koryu sword, I would then my process on the historic side would follow what makes an art a koryu. If I was to into say, another countries arts, my process would be the same, sculpted by the criteria of what makes a legitimate art.
No, sorry John, this doesn't add up. For one thing, you have the closest we have here on Martial Talk to an expert in these things correcting you, and you're not listening. And you do not practice a Koryu. That much is blatantly obvious.
But can I ask one favour? Before you hit submit next time, can you just give a quick re-read for grammar? Half these sentences I have no idea what you're talking about ("I would then my process on the historic side would follow what makes an are a koryu"? What?)
I fell into my old school jujutsu martial art, and the previous other martial arts I took. But am going to focus on jujutsu to simplify my discussion here. At the time, all jujutsu back then was taught in that frame. BJJ didn't exist in this country nor was I aware of it. If you want jujutsu outside that koryu frame, that traditional Japanese feel, you had go and do Judo. The alternative to that was Hapkido, or Chin-na, or the local karate club at the YMCA teaching self-defense moves - not a complete program. And the stress of something being authentic didn't exist. That criteria was based on the instructor looking and playing the part, or the instructor being the part. And if you got caught up in a school that made you think twice after awhile, or you heard your school was full of B.S. you dropped and move to another school. Basically, over time you found out which was the best school in your area. I think that still is a pretty viable way of doing things.
But, some people enjoy the historical process, in terms of a koryu learning Japanese, scrutinizing the lineage, pouring over documents, and documentations etc. Verifying all information set by the established criteria of what defines a koryu. That is fine.
I'm sorry, we're talking basically early 80's, yeah? There were plenty of non-Koryu Jujutsu and Jujutsu-style systems around, Wally Jays' Small Circle Jujitsu, VeeJitsu, a plethora of "American Jujitsu" systems... maybe not exactly where you were, but they were there. In fact, finding Koryu back then would have been the hard part. You would basically have had to move to Japan for that, and that's about it. Oh, and Chin-na isn't an art of itself, it's a subset classification of Chinese grappling methods.
I study also Taichi. I personally lacked any knowledge of it, but I had experience in knowing what constitutes a good knowledgable instructor and what doesn't. I used that as my criteria and what was my needs and goals for taking up Taichi. I didn't know Chen, Yang, Wu etc. from each other. I had no historical background (which turned out to be more politically important than anything), and I ended up doing Yang style, from a pretty good and knowledgable instructor. Not based on the style but based on the instructor for legitimacy. The most significant historical factual information to pass through my hands is that Yang was derived by Chen style. I was curious to see Chen style to see the original form that Yang style was based. It was a good experience. It provided a different way of looking at my Yang style. Helped understand the root of my movements and it was improved my understanding of my moves, and show me more about the changes and developments that differentiate Yang style. Honestly, that is much clearer of an area than it is from between different Yang teachers teach in what I term the as the core form. It isn't standardized like say Shotokan Karate where katas are standardized which is much more helpful in legitimacy, and authenticity. In Yang Taichi there is a lineage but it doesn't have a strong arm to standardize Yang Taichi. Taichi is principle based for health and exercise and not combat. Also, being principle based that is what is emphasized and not standardized movement that are in a organized structure. Let's not get persnickety and point out that I am wrong based on JKA vs. all the others associations modifications to kata and all the minutiae. In my experience, in this case, historical information wasn't very useful in legitimacy for me.
Well, Chen style is considered to be the original, so no surprises that Yang came from it.... Oh, and Taiji not for combat? Depends on who's teaching, I suppose, but you may find a few here who'll argue with you over that. And, for the record, some of the nastiest things I've seen come from Taiji. That said, I'm not really sure what this post is to do with, other than how you've not trusted historical records and information, and instead based your take on history on what someone who may or may not have had the slightest clue about what they were talking about told you. Hmm, you know what, I'll stick to actual history myself.
I don't say hey, my way is right abandon the historical process. No. But I find asking around, and a bit of research does just fine in finding out about legitimacy.
Asking around, fine. But if you're looking for historical legitimacy, taking someone's word tends not to cut it. You really do need the research side of things. And, to be frank, in terms of the Jujutsu, it seems like the asking around approach didn't actually help you if you were after actual Koryu (old, traditional) methods.
I don't intend to make a big deal out of this point, so I'll just add a few comments and leave it at that.
I absolutely do believe that environment and circumstances can have an impact on how a system develops and what its techniques end up looking like. Your example of a system trained while wearing armour is a good one, that weight and cumbersomeness of the armour will have a big impact on what can and cannot be considered and done. But if later generations training in this system do not continue to train with the armour, I suspect the system itself will change dramatically because the practitioners will no longer have the practical perspective of wearing the armour. Without the armour, the training methods may not make much sense.
However, I believe it is tempting to see this more broadly than is realistic. Going back to my own method, that was developed on the Tibetan plateau...we train with big, circular and sweeping techniques. It is tempting to say, "the big open spaces of the Tibetan plateau allowed for such techniques to develop", but I don't think that's it. Regardless of the big open spaces, I still need only a small space to practice big sweeping movements. A space a few feet by a few feet would do it. I am sure the crowded environment of Hong Kong would still offer me plenty of space to train my system. Infact, the system did end up in Hong Kong, and thrived there. Hong Kong is not so crowded to preclude such training methods. Everyone from Hong Kong does not do Wing Chun as an adaptation to the crowding. People are not literally shoulder-to-shoulder.
The thing is, those big sweeping movements that we practice do not ultimately represent our fighting technique in action. Rather, they are a training method designed to develop a method for delivering a powerful technique. It is just a tool to get you there. When you use the technique to fight, it is much smaller movement, but we have learned to develop the kind of power that our system is built upon. But the big movement teaches you to do it, and once you develop that skill, the same power can be used with small movement. So our system is not really a system of big, sweeping techniques. It is a training method that uses big movements as a tool, that become small movements in actual use.
What this tells me is, somebody in the distant past (circa 14th century) figured out a method for training how to develop a certain kind of power. The method made sense, and it was perpetuated. I think it's coincidental that it happened on the Tibetan plateau.
I don't discount the possibility that terrain and region may have had some influence on this, but I think it's not so much as people sometimes want to believe.
Hey, Michael.
With regard to the armour, there's still plenty of non-armoured systems, particularly Japanese, that still retain quite a lot of giveaways to their armoured past, so I wouldn't be so quick to say that they'd abandon them. You'll find that things like the grips in Judo, for instance, are originally based on where the handholds would be on a suit of yoroi (Japanese armour), and the displacement of balance is all armour based as well (as is the emphasis on throws in the first place, let's not forget).
With the big movements, yeah, I wouldn't attribute that to anything like "big sweeping plains" in anything other than a metaphorical, or symbolic sense. But I would say that that method of learning and training power generation, regardless of if it is based on the terrain, a vision of a bullfrog, or the mechanics of a chameleons tongue, or just good old fashioned "hey, I've found something that works", the method itself comes from the history, and the way it has been passed down, including the lessons that accompany it, are all a result of the influence of that history. Which is the same as everything else here, really.
