Modern Versus antiquated self defence

[wingchun100]

I still don't buy the jump kick knocking off horsemen story, but you can use them in sport TKD today.

I don't know if I would buy it either...that is why I threw an "if" in there.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Originally Posted by Chris Parker Except that a punch to the nose today is a fair bit different to a punch to the nose back then... the effect is largely the same, but the delivery method can be very different. And, as such, in an art developed two centuries ago, it is very likely antiquated and less relevant.

How is a punch to the nose different today than it was back then? Whether an art teaches the 'punch' as a;

• Straight punch
• Corkscrew punch
• Uppercut style punch
• Open hand strike
• Hammer fist

...or whatever the results today are the same as the results back then i.e. a bloody nose/watery eyes/unconsciousness/etc. An art may or may not be deemed 'antiquated' based upon it's adaptation to current threats (read firearm) but from a H2H perspective, if the 'punch' works then it works regardless of the art or when it was developed.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Horsemen or the kick?

It must be true, I've seen it in Korean movies.

I sure wouldn't want to do that against a swordsman with an unsheathed sword. I guess you could do it against an unarmed rider, or perhaps one armed with a spear and you were inside the arc of the spear. But in the movies I have seen that done in, and the clothing and equipment, they must have jumped from a trampoline.

I don't know for sure either way, but it surely takes tremendous strength, agility, and skill.

While there certainly are people who could execute a kick to a mounted rider, the idea that this was some kind of widespread military technique is a dubious one at best. For one, if wearing any kind of gear (and soldiers generally do), you're unlikely to be doing aerial kicks, and secondly, getting into position to do the kick requires running up to the mounted horseman. Not a good scenario.

For another people capable of getting five feet into the air and delivering a forceful kick without the aid of a trampoline or a person spring off of are rarities. More than likely, the kicker would end up pushing himself back to the ground.

 

[K-man]

Who said I was going to let a boxer get close to me? Why wouldn't I try to take out his legs before he is in striking range? That is not what a boxer trains against so he will be more vulnerable. To say otherwise would sound to me just to nit pick for an answer.

Mmm! Not sure if it's so easy to take out a boxer's legs without coming into his striking range. Certainly not possible for anyone without a high level of training and experience. I would also be going for his legs, but from close range.
:asian:

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Change is natural. People change over time, machines have changed, culture's change and yes martial system's change as well. Really, nothing stays the same in a vacuum. Not anything with any kind of complexity to it that is! Take a martial system for instance. The original founder may practice it a certain way, his disciples may over time add nuances to it and so on and so on withthe future practitioner's. In regards to self defense we (ie. humans) have the same anatomical system that we have had for a long, long time. Still, the way we think about things and our expanded knowledge has changed through the years. So yes a punch is still a punch but how it is delivered and in what way based on the culture it is in may be different. Violence at it's core is and will be similar. There are only so many way's to do things. Yet the method of delivery can differ greatly. I think every martial practitioner needs to constantly check themselves and what they are doing to make sure they not only understand the violence that may happen in their lives but also how it could be delivered! Just my 02.

 

[Kframe]

I was responding to your comment "So, why is a modern attack different from an antiquated one primarily by it's context and surrounding needs. This context gives different social cues, different senses of distance, different forms of attack, different pre-fight rituals, different restrictions and consequences, and so on" which I think is true throughout time and place." which since it will apply to all past times and all different places, make them of similar difference and similarity. Maybe I'm not expressing it well, but I believe those differences involve similarities.



Who said I was going to let a boxer get close to me? Why wouldn't I try to take out his legs before he is in striking range? That is not what a boxer trains against so he will be more vulnerable. To say otherwise would sound to me just to nit pick for an answer.


...

[/QUOTE]

I do not agree with this at all and ill use my own experience. Boxers are not that clueless. When I made the switch to mma I went talked to a classmate of mine that did Muay thai. He was in our class working his hand skills. I spent about 15 minutes getting acclimated to the other attacks I was going to face. The most important, for me any ways was seeing them, so I could recognize them. I was shown a basic check and that was it. All in 15 minutes. I also spent some time on youtube watching muay thai and mma sparring so I could see what to expect and how to deal.

My first sparring session in mma went just fine. I had no issues dealing with kicks, and returning fire. Now Grappling I was screwed, so I made sure to keep distance and fight on the outside, but just inside kicking distance. All im saying with my story is boxers are not as clueless as your making them out to be.

 

[oftheherd1]

Mmm! Not sure if it's so easy to take out a boxer's legs without coming into his striking range. Certainly not possible for anyone without a high level of training and experience. I would also be going for his legs, but from close range.
:asian:

Most boxers arms aren't as long as my legs. I don't need to stay standing to deliver my kick. Could I run into an incredibly talented boxer and not be able to do anything against him, maybe. Any of use who don't consider that on any given day we might run across someone who is faster or stronger, or both, is not being realistic. But in general, boxers have a different style, expect different rules, and wear gloves.

I do not agree with this at all and ill use my own experience. Boxers are not that clueless. When I made the switch to mma I went talked to a classmate of mine that did Muay thai. He was in our class working his hand skills. I spent about 15 minutes getting acclimated to the other attacks I was going to face. The most important, for me any ways was seeing them, so I could recognize them. I was shown a basic check and that was it. All in 15 minutes. I also spent some time on youtube watching muay thai and mma sparring so I could see what to expect and how to deal.

My first sparring session in mma went just fine. I had no issues dealing with kicks, and returning fire. Now Grappling I was screwed, so I made sure to keep distance and fight on the outside, but just inside kicking distance. All im saying with my story is boxers are not as clueless as your making them out to be.

First, when I referred to boxers, I was talking about western style boxing. I think one would not want to stand toe to toe with them unless you were also trained as a boxer. Especially if you must fight by boxing rules. You need to be a boxer to do that. Normally when I want to refer to Muay Thai style boxing (very different from western style), I say Muay Thai, so if I confused you, my bad.

Obviously you are very good. That in itself would make a difference. But against a western style boxer, I still maintain they are at serious disadvantage against most styles of MA. If you disagree, fine. I know my art and I presume you know yours. In my art, western boxers are at disadvantage.

 

[Kframe]

Oftheherd, I was referring to western boxing as well. My coach has 4 golden gloves and 3 AAU championships titles.. In our Western boxing class I had Muay thai students in there training boxing.

I stand by my statement that western boxers are not that clueless.

 

[Chris Parker]

I was responding to your comment "So, why is a modern attack different from an antiquated one primarily by it's context and surrounding needs. This context gives different social cues, different senses of distance, different forms of attack, different pre-fight rituals, different restrictions and consequences, and so on" which I think is true throughout time and place." which since it will apply to all past times and all different places, make them of similar difference and similarity. Maybe I'm not expressing it well, but I believe those differences involve similarities.

Ha, well, that's quite a mess of grammar in my first sentence there... I think I changed my mind on what I was saying half-way through! Hmm... should be a question mark and a new sentence there, I feel. But to the point, I was saying that each art/system has it's approach defined by it's context... and every system has it's own unique context.... both modern and antiquated arts... which makes them all different, as they're dealing with different things. So, while what makes them different is the same, they're still different.

Who said I was going to let a boxer get close to me? Why wouldn't I try to take out his legs before he is in striking range? That is not what a boxer trains against so he will be more vulnerable. To say otherwise would sound to me just to nit pick for an answer.

Uh, who says you would "let a boxer get close"? Hmm.... leaving off for a moment the whole "let them get close" bit, well, the boxer, social structure, common set-ups, the realities of violence, and, well, reality. Why wouldn't you try to take out his legs before he's in striking range? Well, you could try... good luck with that. Oh, and the vast majority of violent encounters today start well within the boxers striking range, so you'd need to escape his preferred range first, not avoid him getting close... he's already there. As to what a boxer trains, he trains to be able to hit hard, fast, and with precision from exactly where most violent encounters take place... moving in to engage, and so on. So, uh, no... he won't be more vulnerable. Just for the record.

Out of interest, ever done any boxing?

While I think I understand what you are trying to say about clubs vs spears, I disagree. As you mentioned about machetes, the club is a heavier weapon that relies on blunt force use. The spear allows the spear bearer to stay out of the range of the club to stride, so the club bearer must strike at the spear if it is thrust, and it may be withdrawn out of the range of the club before it is struck. While he is recovering, the spear bearer can then thrust with the spear, ending, or hastening the end of the fight. That will work even with a heavy shafted spear, since the only direction needed for attack would be forward and back. With a lighter more flexible spear shaft, other uses, defenses and attacks are possible. Mind you, I not an expert in either clubs or spears, but common sense seems to me to agree with what I say.

Hmm, no, that's not really what I was getting at.

In close, a club is superior to a spear. In confined environments, a club is superior to a spear. To arrest or restrain, a club is superior to a spear.

I do train with spears and clubs (and batons etc)... quite a bit.

While I am at it, you comment on the machete is correct, but doesn't take into account training against the sword. There are slashes, at the side or top or bottom, as well as the downward cuts. In Hapkido, one is taught to move into the attack, normally allowing the defender to be inside the arc and unavailable to the sharp edge. Other methods may be used if one has the short stick available. I will grant, as you have perhaps heard me comment before, that speed and accuracy are paramount in Hapkido since one so often moves into the attack. But then aren't speed and accuracy important in all MA?

Er.... some two decades plus of both sword training and sword defence training, so no, I really didn't forget to take anything like that into account. Believe me, training one is not training for the other. As far as speed and accuracy's importance, you're looking at the wrong thing.

Of course there is such a distinction. And yes, there is a genuine distinction.

Hi Daniel,

Okay then, we'll try it this way... can you give an example of both an exclusive and an inclusive martial art?

Yes. Exclusive. Which is neither good nor bad, but still exclusive. You're welcome to disagree, but I stand by my post.

I wasn't making any value judgements, just saying that I don't agree with the perceived distinction... so, yeah, I do disagree. But I'm interested to see if you can show me what you mean a little clearer, I might just be missing exactly what you mean.

Before I say that I agree or disagree with you, please elaborate on this point.

I'm not sure how much I could elaborate... I guess the only thing I could do is give examples.

Think of any art. Let's start with something that's fairly simple... Kendo. Kendo is a training methodology designed to develop skills within the context of a Kendo match. While ostensibly dealing with the usage of swords (kinda), it doesn't deal with a duel, or battlefield combat, or unarmed attacks, throws, spears, or anything else. Boxing deals with a boxing match, not knife defence, anything else. I'm sure you can see these ones. Of course, it's the same with other, seemingly broader arts... you can't even look at a grouping and say "well, they deal with x", as that changes in large and small ways between systems. One art might teach battlefield tactics and applications... another deals with more "civilian" approaches... and that gives one system a particular set of weaponry it might deal with, which is different to the other system, or a range of tactics and ideas that are different as well... even if everything else (the geographic location, the time of origin etc) are all the same or very close to the same.

There is no such thing as a martial art that trains outside of it's context, as to do so is to no longer be that art. A boxing match is no longer a boxing match when one of the guys pulls a gun or a knife... or goes to a ground-and-pound tactic... or it becomes a group assault... or one guy seeks to escape or de-escalate. By the same token, a traditional, armour based martial art which deals with battlefield style combat might have a large number of highly "effective", powerful techniques... but the reason they've developed the way they have is do with the context... put them in a different context, and the reasons for the art moving the way it does no longer applies... and you've moved away from the system itself.

I have, however, noted a particular, well, belief about martial arts... namely that they deal with many, or (in some cases) every combative context. That's not only patently incorrect, it's downright impossible. But it's still a common enough thought... a belief that training in a martial art automatically equals training to deal with all forms of violence (or, more accurately, with the perception held of the forms of violence that might be encountered in the modern world by the student, or even instructor). The actual context of the art in question is almost always ignored in favour of what it's wanted (either consciously or unconsciously) to be. This is what leads to the issues of some instructors thinking that, just because they have a black belt in one or another martial art, they know about self defence, and can teach it.

There needs to be consistency and congruency between what a martial art is designed for, and what it's looked to for... and that's a rare thing. The mystique of martial arts is gone, for the most part. Go back a few decades, and the idea of being a black belt was quite a thing... it meant something (to the uneducated public)... it meant that you were an "expert at fighting"... people holding such ranks were looked to with a degree of awe. Today, it's just not the case. Movies have shown people what it looks like (or, at least, one image of it)... and it's fancy and flashy... which anyone with any real sense of violence recognizes as unrealistic, impractical, and of little use. It's entertaining... but it's not what a real fight looks like. The advent of MMA is more what people think a fight is supposed to be (particularly the striking... the ground work and submissions, I feel, are still largely lost on many viewers), as it matches things like boxing... but, as it doesn't match what's seen in the movies, it's rarely classified as a martial art... and it's not flashy, fancy, or anything of the like. Just hard work. But still people go to martial art classes wanting to be able to handle modern violence... and they almost never go to a school that has any understanding of what that even is, let alone how far removed it is from the context of what they're actually teaching. It's like going out and watching a Street Latin, or Hip Hop dance contest, and then (wanting to be a part of it), signing up to ballet or Ballroom classes. Sure, there's some cross-over, but one does not equal the other. So you need to look at what you want to address (your context)... and look at the art you're training in... and, the more accurately you see them, the more you'll see that they just aren't dealing with the same thing at all.

I'd rather thought that that was what I was doing.

Okay... but your comments denied the actual context of sword training in the first place. I mean, you cant' even just say "sword fighting"... is it a duelling context (Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, Itto Ryu)? Battlefield application (Yakumaru Jigen Ryu)? Tactical and strategic lessons (Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu)? Principles of physics and movement/ideals (Aikiken, Kashima Shinryu)? Developing spirit and mechanics (Iaido, Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage Ryu)? Competitive training (Kendo)?

Sure. There are no doubt many such examples.

Yeah... but my point was that, even in such cases, where outside influences change the way a system does things, it's still not what you're calling an "inclusive" system, and is still just sticking to it's own approach (what you called "exclusive")... to the point that your Bartitsu bicycle example was again just another case of an art just doing what it does, based in it's own context.

I'm not sure what the relevance of your statement is to this conversation. Unless you're implying that eastern cultures don't use things like the internet, cell phones, or automobiles, which I don't think that you are. Those things are pretty well embedded in industrialized eastern cultures.

I only used Western as that's where most of us are, and it's opposed to Eastern cultures (particularly historical ones), as that's where many of the arts we train originate from.

Sure. Apply as appropriate.

Of course, saying you apply as appropriate means that you apply as needed in that arts approach... in other words, it's all just to do with that art (exclusive).

Regarding punches to the nose, or really punches in general, I disagree with you.

Well, I'm familiar with the striking methods of a number of cultures, spanning over a number of centuries, in different contexts and applications, and believe me, they're quite different in distance, preferred targeting, preferred set-ups, tactical usage, mechanical concepts, and more. While you might disagree, it is the reality.

Regarding the relevance of an art developed two centuries ago, that really depends on how adaptable and inclusive the art is. As I said, inclusive or exclusive.

Hmm, no. It can only be "adaptable" in this sense if that's part of the arts context and methodology already... so it's still part of it's exclusive ideal.

Based on your statement, one could argue that Bujinkan Ninjutsu is very likely antiquted and less relevant (not an argument that I'm making). Would you say that that is an accurate statement? Or has the art adapted to address later methods of violence? If the answer to the second question is no, then you have an exclusive art. If the answer to the second question is yes, then you have an inclusive art.

See, it's just not that simple. The Ryu-ha (traditional schools) that make up the technical curriculum of the Bujinkan are antiquated (which is really just another way of saying they're developed and designed for a different context to a modern one), the new art that has grown out of those Ryu (Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu) is a modern system, but is not really geared up to address modern violence (despite rhetoric to the contrary). But, and here's where it gets a little more complicated, even if (and, depending on the instructor, when) Budo Taijutsu is adapted to address modern violence, that's not the Ryu-ha... and it is perfectly within the approach of the art itself (which makes it exclusive in your categorisation).

I made my comment the way that I did for the purposes of brevity. We trained for defence against more than one bladed weapon, more than one sword type, and attacks to the lower body. Just to be clear, I am not making the statement that if you can defend against a sword, you can automatically and without prior training handle a machete. In any cased, based on your statement regarding application of prinicples regardless of context, I would think that you'd get the point that I was making rather than compartmentalizing my statement. We're speaking on a very broad topic and I'm making, for the most part, fairly generalized statements.

Sure... but brevity can be taken too far, leading to generalizing to the point of inaccuracy.

So basically, nothing has to adapt or change? Am I understanding correctly? One would think though, that given the fact that change happens all the time, an art would change, even slightly, as well. I'll use the Bujinkan as an example. Your teacher trained in it for quite some time, correct? I understand he left, for reasons that I don't need to know, and you are now training under him. My questions are: has your teacher made changes to the art that he trained in? Do you/your teacher feel that the way things are currently taught in the Buj, are effective in todays world? To clarify, I'm talking about unaltered, no changes. If this is a sensitive topic, please feel free to PM me.

Well, I was training under him when we were still part of the Bujinkan, for the record... As far as things needing to change, again, there's a fair bit to it beyond just that... In short, no, martial arts don't need to adapt or change... and very few actually do, really. What they do do is develop. But even through that development, they remain true to the context and origins of the system itself... they have to. Cultures also develop... they change over time, and occasionally do adapt to changes in their circumstances (not always, of course).

As far as the Bujinkan, do I think that the way things are currently taught there is effective in todays world? Honestly, no. What I won't go into here are my reasons... as for my Chief Instructor, while not addressing the Bujinkan (and I'm not going into that here), this might give you some insight into his take on most martial arts (if not all):
http://www.itsprimalprotection.com/2014/02/what-most-martial-arts-wont-teach-you.html

Ok, so if it's more a cultural thing...do you feel that things will still change or remain the same?

Cultures change. They develop over time. Martial arts are, in one way, a window into the culture that went into the formulation of that art. Of course, when people are studying modern martial arts, it's not so readily apparent, so I will say that... and there's always the filter of the culture you're coming from yourself. That can be a difficult aspect to overcome, as there are often quite a range of influences from your current culture that give you a particular belief/approach that you don't realise is actually different from that which formed the art you're studying...

Ok, I can accept that. Of course, until things start to unfold, we might not know who we're facing...the fan or the actual student.

Learn to read the context and environment... that'll give you a big clue...Of course, that's moving awareness to a point that not everyone looks at, I've noted...

How is a punch to the nose different today than it was back then? Whether an art teaches the 'punch' as a;

• Straight punch
• Corkscrew punch
• Uppercut style punch
• Open hand strike
• Hammer fist

...or whatever the results today are the same as the results back then i.e. a bloody nose/watery eyes/unconsciousness/etc. An art may or may not be deemed 'antiquated' based upon it's adaptation to current threats (read firearm) but from a H2H perspective, if the 'punch' works then it works regardless of the art or when it was developed.

I've said a few times that the result of being punched in the face is the same (a fist hits your nose, it doesn't really matter too much how it gets there (from the perspective of the person being hit), but that that's not where the differences are.

I held an Introduction Class on the weekend, which was attended by, amongst others, K-Man here on the forum. I took a while to explain why the punching methods of our art are different to, for example, karate, Wing Chun, boxing, MMA, modern street attacks, and the striking found in Aikido, based on the context of the arts themselves... including demonstrating the physical differences between each as a way of highlighting the contextual hallmarks of each system that can be seen. Hand to hand is far more susceptible to variation and not suiting modern violence than weaponry aspects, to be frank.

 

[RTKDCMB]

Also, there are certain attacks that don't serve the same purpose: if a jump kick used to be for knocking people off horses, how would you use that today?

I don't know about a horse but you could probably kick someone off a hog (motorcycle).

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I don't know about a horse but you could probably kick someone off a hog (motorcycle).

High kicks were indeed developed specifically for kicking soldiers on horseback. After the properly applied high kick the kicker would then roll and spring back to his feet to prepare for another kick. This in turn soiled the belt that was traditionally worn during this era. The belt, usually white would get darker and darker and thus was the forerunner of the modern black belt. Hence why a black belt is a highly skilled martial artist.









And yes, I'm just being silly

 

[MJS]

Well, I was training under him when we were still part of the Bujinkan, for the record... As far as things needing to change, again, there's a fair bit to it beyond just that... In short, no, martial arts don't need to adapt or change... and very few actually do, really. What they do do is develop. But even through that development, they remain true to the context and origins of the system itself... they have to. Cultures also develop... they change over time, and occasionally do adapt to changes in their circumstances (not always, of course).

As far as the Bujinkan, do I think that the way things are currently taught there is effective in todays world? Honestly, no. What I won't go into here are my reasons... as for my Chief Instructor, while not addressing the Bujinkan (and I'm not going into that here), this might give you some insight into his take on most martial arts (if not all):
http://www.itsprimalprotection.com/2014/02/what-most-martial-arts-wont-teach-you.html

Well, I suppose we can put this in perspective of what our 'friend' Ras was doing with his Kenpo. Now, IMHO, it's one thing to totally change a technique and not keep the principles, concepts of what Parker was teaching, and another to simply adapt a tech due to someone being short, having a disability, etc, but still keeping the above mentioned 'rules' of the art. As for the Bujinkan...well, unless someone is just training for the sake of it, for history, etc, ok. But if they're looking for SD, well....

As for not going into things...that's fine. If it's something you want to talk about privately, you know how to reach me. if not, that's fine too.

The link...can't disagree with anything mentioned there. Oddly enough, I noticed they mentioned RBSD. Usually any time that is mentioned on the forum, you get a mixed bag of results...some saying it's good, others saying it's not.

Cultures change. They develop over time. Martial arts are, in one way, a window into the culture that went into the formulation of that art. Of course, when people are studying modern martial arts, it's not so readily apparent, so I will say that... and there's always the filter of the culture you're coming from yourself. That can be a difficult aspect to overcome, as there are often quite a range of influences from your current culture that give you a particular belief/approach that you don't realise is actually different from that which formed the art you're studying...

Ok.

Learn to read the context and environment... that'll give you a big clue...Of course, that's moving awareness to a point that not everyone looks at, I've noted...

ok.

 

[Kframe]

Now not all Bujinkan instructors are teaching methodology unsuited to modern violence. I know its my opinion, but I feel that when you do find that good Dojo that you will be well served by what you find there. Granted its really hard to find the good instructors. I know what I feel makes mine so good, and I can not get in to specifics but they both have experience with real world, non sporting violence. It shows in what they do and how they move.

Having said that, I am willing to believe that not counting a hand full of instructors, Chris parker is likely correct in his feelings regarding the Bujinkan over all and its current teachings. I feel that it is no small part due to crap students being allowed to be crap teachers. I asked why this was, and was told of something one of the Senior Shihan said. We need the bad instructors so that the bad students go to them. Not sure I like that policy.

In the end it is up to you to decide if the instructor and the art he is teaching, is correct for you. If you feel what is taught is applicable to your views, how ever right or wrong they are, then do what you want and enjoy..

I wonder though about the Jinekan and the Genbukan. I wonder if the differences in there methodology and teaching styles will lead to something more effective in todays world or if they are plagued with there own issues.

Ill say this, todays class for me highlighted some serious flaws in my previous training. I for one and seriously glad to have been uke for it. I love it when he lets me try mma things on him.

I wonder if, old arts can develop, with in there core principals to better deal with modern violence? Or if such a development would dilute the art to much. My gut is leaning towards yes/no/maybe but I don't know enough about OLD arts. The only koryu near me is just iajutsu school. http://yobushin.org/iaido/

I think that weather or not a art can develop in such a manner as to even attempt to address modern violence is going to be likely not a factor any way. If what I am reading is correct, many truly old arts such as koryu and what not, are not concerned with it. They just want to survive and to keep going. Any martial benefits you acquire are a fringe benefit. Though ill be honest and wonder openly what it would look like if a Soke of a koryu decided to try and develop a bit into modern violence.. I wonder how he would do so. Just a bit of my imagination at work

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

First of Chris you and I agree on most things!!!

However I find it laughable that in Chris's opinion practitioner's from Budo Taijutsu cannot effectively use it for self-defense or that it is not effective for self-defense in today's world. (that is a joke) I assume that only RBSD can be used in self-defense Chris? That would be laughable as well. (coming from someone who teaches what could easily be labled as RBSD ie. me) Chris why do you even teach from the various ryu that incorporate what make up Budo Taijutsu if it is so ineffective? I tell you why because you understand that what is there is and can be really effective! Otherwise you would not teach it at all (which is what you do teaching from the ryu) if your were honest with yourself and your students.....

While I will admit that some teacher's (meaning from various martial systems) take a more realistic outlook at what self-defense entails and based on what I have seen I would include Chris and his instructor in that category, myself and a whole score of others. The idea that an older system cannot be used in self-defense and be effective is ridiculous! Try telling a Kajukenbo or San Shou guy or any of the guys I grew up with that they cannot use their system for self-defense. Nor does simply a system that has a long lineage mean that instructors within it do not teach their students current legal laws applicable to self-defense. I cannot believe that someone who trained with Ed Parker in Kenpo were not taught some effective self-defense and legal ramifications for their actions.



I personally know people from Tae Kwon Do, Kempo, Silat, Kenpo, Modern Arnis, Balintawak, BJJ, IRT, Budo Taijutsu, Tang Soo Do, boxing, mma, Tai Chi, etc. that have utilized their system and self-defense training in a context that either avoided violence or actively helped them in getting out of a violent situation whether in civilian life or work related.

What I do feel we have seen is a rise of instructors that are teaching more about awareness, avoidance and action in conjunction with their societies laws and social norms. A higher understanding in the area of the legal laws of self-defense in their area and this is really good. We should promote this at every opportunity. However, I would argue that many traditional or older systems also have had this in their teachings albeit better understood or passed on better by individual instructors. The absolute finest example of this would be a Tae Kwon Do instructor whom I personally knew that made sure his students understood the law, legal ramifications and had it written into his system. (you could not advance without demonstrating knowledge in this particular area) He personally did it better than anyone else I have seen to date and he was a Tae Kwon Do guy.(not one thing wrong with that) It is not a can or cannot have it situation and one group does not have this area solely as their purview. Meaning that RBSD guy's simply cannot claim that they are the end all be all of self defense training because frankly there is some RBSD being taught out there that is frankly just plain crap. Really just crap!!! I was in a Las Vegas Training Hall just the other day watching an RBSD system being taught and it was awful. So awful I could not believe the people there were paying for this training. Having said that I really like most RBSD training that I have participated in as well as the people in it. Still not all RBSD is the same as all others and there are what I would call scam artists in this area as well!

Chris your not part of the Bujinkan and your instructor is not part of it. You need to understand that every time you personally take a dish at it that people are simply going to have issues with it. The old adage if you do not have anything good to say applies here.... You left, your instructor left (a whole lot more to it than that) leave it at that. You haven't trained in it for a long time (ie. Budo Taijutsu) and if I am correct you never trained in Japan so that obviously has a lot of bearing here. I understand your situation and your organizations situation and your instructors situation as I know the details but stop taking digs at an organization that you are no longer affiliated with! Bujinkan people have always been rather polite with you on this board by and large but every time I turn around you take a shot at the Bujinkan. It is getting old!!! Your better than this!

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

I would add that Bujinkan practitioner's I came up with were a bunch of hard edged guy's typically with ten to fifteen years of hard contact training in another system. (Kickboxing, Shotokan, Kyokushinkai, Boxing, Tae Kwon Do, Arnis, etc.) Military guys, law enforcement guy's and gals. Tough guy's, not afraid to get punched in the face, guy's willing to travel very long distances for training and people who put in a lot of time to make their training work. Michigan was blessed with a great core of Budo Taijutsu practitioners and still is. I have no doubt these guy's could make their training work in self-defense and many have in work related endeavors. Plus their was some legal teachings on what you could and could not do. Just sayin.....

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Hi Daniel,

Hi.

Okay then, we'll try it this way... can you give an example of both an exclusive and an inclusive martial art?

Kendo is an exclusive art, as are, I'd imagine any koryu arts. Hapkido is an inclusive system. But instead of going further and rattling off examples, I'm going to respond to the below paragraph.

I wasn't making any value judgements, just saying that I don't agree with the perceived distinction... so, yeah, I do disagree. But I'm interested to see if you can show me what you mean a little clearer, I might just be missing exactly what you mean.

Okay, I think we may be discussing two different subjects here.

Using hapkido as an example, as I have familiarity with it. Hapkido started off with a lot of grappling and comparatively little in the way of strikes and kicks.

As it passed from founder to senior students who opened their own studios and interracted with other KMA practitioners, kicks of all kinds were added, so many that hapkido actually has more kicks that KKW taekwondo, which has a lot of kicks! But it was still hapkido.

Hapkido has no 'forms' as one sees in taekwondo. But some orgs and schools have devised such forms. But it is still hapkido.

Now, you see groundfighting being addressed by some hapkido organizations. The techniques are most certainly culled from outside of hapkido, probably BJJ. But it is still hapkido.

As I said, I'm using hapkido because of familiarity with it. There are other arts that doubtless do the same. Such changes address a need or a perceived need. Perhaps those needs arose as the art traveled from place to place. Choi learned his skills in Japan (I'm not getting into the DRAJ debate; I have no dog in that race). He took them to Korea. He taught them, and then as his art spread in Korea, kicks became more prominent. Now the art is taught in the west. Groundfighting is more prominent in the west than head kicking (not implying that it has anything like the prominence of kicks in HKD; only that it is being addressed in some organizations and some studios).

Regarding an art addressing virtually every combative context, or even most, I agree with you; they don't. However, within the context of civilian self defence, an art can develop to address the changing needs of that context and still remain that art, if it is an inclusive art.

Just to clarify, when I say inclusive, I do not by any means refer to an art addressing many or every combative context.

Does that make sense to you?

 

[K-man]

Having accepted Chris' invitation to train with him last weekend, I do understand the point he is making. He is teaching material the way it was taught in the past in the context it was taught in the past. Now I have no idea of the politics or otherwise but much of what I saw demonstrated would not be classed as material that I would use for SD. Then he teaches other material specifically for SD.


My training is quite different. I tailor it all to RBSD, but as I said above, I can appreciate where Chris is coming from.
:asian:

 

[oaktree]

Hi Kframe,

I find the Koryu arts to be very realistic and brutal. A lot of people see the kata in Koryu and think it is not realistic however because they do not train in the Koryu
they can not understand the feeling of what is really happening. This does not only apply to Koryu of Japanese arts but also applies to the Chinese arts as well.
I feel being able to train in the Koryu has been a great experience and alot of people I have met doing so have all been nice, humble people. Training in it will change you for the best.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Having accepted Chris' invitation to train with him last weekend, I do understand the point he is making. He is teaching material the way it was taught in the past in the context it was taught in the past. Now I have no idea of the politics or otherwise but much of what I saw demonstrated would not be classed as material that I would use for SD. Then he teaches other material specifically for SD.


My training is quite different. I tailor it all to RBSD, but as I said above, I can appreciate where Chris is coming from.
:asian:

Hey K-Man nice post. I would say that in regards to the above Chris learned from his instructor an early pioneer in Budo Taijutsu. This may be just the way they teach. Which could be in turn be like with several other early pioneers in the U.S. who had rather limited grasps of the material and went out teaching and adding things in that were not part of the system in the first place. (both physical and mental from books) This is in regards to that their depth and understanding of what they had may have been very limited and passed on in a much different way than what was intended. (hence eventually issues) Whether this is the case in Australia with Chris's instructor I can only guess and am not saying that it is but it certainly was this way in the United States. I would let Australian Budo Taijutsu people comment on that. (unfortunately I do not think we have any on the board) The very few I have met in Japan from Australia were quite good, with a good approach to reality!

I would still say that there are a lot of really good self-defense practitioner's and instructors from older systems. Just like there are some really good ones from systems with a more modern starting date. Just like there are ones in almost all of them that are not so good! Just because some things says Modern or RBSD does not mean it is good and the exact same applies to some thing that is older. I see you practice Systema and Krav Maga and I like and appreciate both of those systems. Very solid fundamentals and practical on many, many levels. Yet, within each of those systems there are some really, really good instructors and practitioner's and some others that are not so good. (a few that are even goofballs) In the US many Krav Maga instructors were an instructor in another system, went to a weekend seminar and became a Krav Maga instructor over night. Most of those guy's or gal's are jokes in that particular system. So when training with anyone verify who and what they are, what they know, who they trained with and what depth of training they have had. This I feel is essential for anyone seeking out martial training whether for fitness, self-defense or personal growth or any other reason.

I personally understand the point of self-defense being the driving force behind a system or does the system have a driving force behind it that is different. Really that is not to hard to understand but.... just because some systems may have had a different driving force does not mean that is cannot function in another area particularly if it's instructors understand that area fully and pass it on to their students. Just because some thing was designed for a battlefield does not mean that it cannot function very effectively in a self-defense encounter particularly if the individual understands the self-defense laws in their country, state, etc. Similarly a sporting martial system can be really effective in self-defense as well. Like wise a RBSD practitioner can be effective in self-defense and also probably in a battlefield setting with some additional training and a different mind set. Heck I know a couple of RBSD guy's that have been effective in the cage or a sporting context. Everything is not always black or white, quite often there are shades of grey in between! I have always lived by the idea of "no absolutes" or not letting some thing confine me or my approach to training. I think this is essential!!! Do not allow anyone to put you or your training in a box. Instead train but think outside of the box!!!

"No limitations"

 

[Chris Parker]

I think I'm just in this mood... this might be interesting....

Well, I suppose we can put this in perspective of what our 'friend' Ras was doing with his Kenpo. Now, IMHO, it's one thing to totally change a technique and not keep the principles, concepts of what Parker was teaching, and another to simply adapt a tech due to someone being short, having a disability, etc, but still keeping the above mentioned 'rules' of the art.

Sure, agreed.

As for the Bujinkan...well, unless someone is just training for the sake of it, for history, etc, ok. But if they're looking for SD, well....

Yeah... the Bujinkan's an odd beast... it's kinda trying to allow itself to be be whatever the person is looking for without dictating too much... which can lead to a lot of identity confusion... but I'll deal with that a bit later.

As for not going into things...that's fine. If it's something you want to talk about privately, you know how to reach me. if not, that's fine too.

The link...can't disagree with anything mentioned there. Oddly enough, I noticed they mentioned RBSD. Usually any time that is mentioned on the forum, you get a mixed bag of results...some saying it's good, others saying it's not.

Honestly, that's because the term is often applied without understanding of the actual meaning... many think that they train "realistically", or "hard" (and they may well do), and think that's the same thing... it's not. As for not going into things, well... we'll see how the rest of this post turns out...

Now not all Bujinkan instructors are teaching methodology unsuited to modern violence. I know its my opinion, but I feel that when you do find that good Dojo that you will be well served by what you find there.

Thing is, I'm not looking at instructors, I'm looking at the Bujinkan, and what it teaches (and how)... not quite the same thing.

Granted its really hard to find the good instructors. I know what I feel makes mine so good, and I can not get in to specifics but they both have experience with real world, non sporting violence. It shows in what they do and how they move.

It should show in understanding first and foremost. Movement, honestly, can be developed without such experience.

Having said that, I am willing to believe that not counting a hand full of instructors, Chris parker is likely correct in his feelings regarding the Bujinkan over all and its current teachings.

Observation, rather than feeling, for the record...

I feel that it is no small part due to crap students being allowed to be crap teachers. I asked why this was, and was told of something one of the Senior Shihan said. We need the bad instructors so that the bad students go to them. Not sure I like that policy.

Yeah... frankly, that's apologist garbage.

In the end it is up to you to decide if the instructor and the art he is teaching, is correct for you. If you feel what is taught is applicable to your views, how ever right or wrong they are, then do what you want and enjoy..

Yep, absolutely.

I wonder though about the Jinekan and the Genbukan. I wonder if the differences in there methodology and teaching styles will lead to something more effective in todays world or if they are plagued with there own issues.

As they focus far more than the Bujinkan do on the actual traditional material and methodologies, you might be mistaking a training approach (solid, hard training) for "effective"... they're not the same thing. I'll put it this way, you get two groups who are training in sword... one is more a "play" expression of sword, the other is strict, serious, and hard. Neither is therefore more applicable or "effective" in todays world... you'd need to look at what the actual reasons for sword training are to determine which is the better approach.

Ill say this, todays class for me highlighted some serious flaws in my previous training. I for one and seriously glad to have been uke for it. I love it when he lets me try mma things on him.

Ha, cool. Not sure about relevance, though...

I wonder if, old arts can develop, with in there core principals to better deal with modern violence? Or if such a development would dilute the art to much. My gut is leaning towards yes/no/maybe but I don't know enough about OLD arts. The only koryu near me is just iajutsu school. http://yobushin.org/iaido/

Not without becoming something that's not Koryu, in many cases. Of course, there are many different forms of "effective", and many ways to apply or utilise principles in different contexts to that which it is designed for... I know of a story of a Shinto Muso Ryu (Jo... four foot staff) practitioner who used an evasive footwork from his Ryu combined with an improvised weapon to defend against a knife attack... what he did was almost textbook SMR... but that doesn't mean that the encounter he had was what SMR was designed for, or even that related to it's context. Then you have Araki Ryu, and it's particular approach... and you start to see how hard it can be to generalise in this area...

But (Katayama) Hoki Ryu? Cool.

I think that weather or not a art can develop in such a manner as to even attempt to address modern violence is going to be likely not a factor any way. If what I am reading is correct, many truly old arts such as koryu and what not, are not concerned with it.

Yep, exactly.

They just want to survive and to keep going.

Hmm, not so exactly....

Any martial benefits you acquire are a fringe benefit. Though ill be honest and wonder openly what it would look like if a Soke of a koryu decided to try and develop a bit into modern violence.. I wonder how he would do so. Just a bit of my imagination at work

He wouldn't. Not in terms of what the Ryu is about, anyway. What he might do is integrate something else in order to fill a purpose (although that would rarely be modern violence... it's more likely to be something related to the existing skill sets of the system they head).

First of Chris you and I agree on most things!!!

Might not be as much as you think, Brian.

However I find it laughable that in Chris's opinion practitioner's from Budo Taijutsu cannot effectively use it for self-defense or that it is not effective for self-defense in today's world. (that is a joke) I assume that only RBSD can be used in self-defense Chris? That would be laughable as well. (coming from someone who teaches what could easily be labled as RBSD ie. me) Chris why do you even teach from the various ryu that incorporate what make up Budo Taijutsu if it is so ineffective? I tell you why because you understand that what is there is and can be really effective! Otherwise you would not teach it at all (which is what you do teaching from the ryu) if your were honest with yourself and your students.....

You have completely missed everything I said, Brian. Let's break this down.

I didn't say that Budo Taijutsu practitioners can't effectively use the methods to defend themselves, I said that Budo Taijutsu isn't designed (specifically) for it. You're reading into things by assuming you know what I'm saying, rather than actually reading what I'm saying.

No, RBSD is not the only thing that can be used in self defence, but it is (realistically) the only thing that is designed specifically around the context of modern violence and defence, because, well, that's it's entire context. Then again, I haven't mentioned RBSD at all in this thread. You're reading into things by assuming you know what I'm saying, rather than actually reading what I'm saying.

I never said anything about the material of the Ryu-ha being ineffective, just that they're not designed for modern self defence... effectiveness is always dependant on application and context. They are incredibly effective methods in their context... ignoring it (due to a desire for it to be something it's not) doesn't change anything. But why do I teach it? Because it is a very good way of exploring and ingraining certain lessons, there is historical interest, there is an interest in learning about how things develop, and how context changes the way an art works, and more. I just don't teach it with some false belief that ancient methods are suited for modern application. Mind you, none of this is anything to do with anything I've said, other than you thinking you know what's going on in my mind... in other words, you're reading into things by assuming you know what I'm saying, rather than actually reading what I'm saying.

When it comes to honesty, Brian, you're completely off the mark... teaching non-modern methods and claiming them to be preparation for modern self defence would be dishonest (or, at the very least, delusional). You're aiming that barb the wrong way, mainly, I feel, because you're reading into things by assuming you know what I'm saying, rather than actually reading what I'm saying.

While I will admit that some teacher's (meaning from various martial systems) take a more realistic outlook at what self-defense entails and based on what I have seen I would include Chris and his instructor in that category, myself and a whole score of others. The idea that an older system cannot be used in self-defense and be effective is ridiculous! Try telling a Kajukenbo or San Shou guy or any of the guys I grew up with that they cannot use their system for self-defense. Nor does simply a system that has a long lineage mean that instructors within it do not teach their students current legal laws applicable to self-defense. I cannot believe that someone who trained with Ed Parker in Kenpo were not taught some effective self-defense and legal ramifications for their actions.

Oh dear lord... so your defence here is that some instructors go beyond what is taught in their systems to deal with modern realities, and that means that the older systems (which, by definition at this point, don't include such things) are suited for modern realities? Then your examples are modern systems? Really? From there you go on about some connection between long lineages of instructors and modern laws in the teachings? What on earth are you going on about?

I personally know people from Tae Kwon Do, Kempo, Silat, Kenpo, Modern Arnis, Balintawak, BJJ, IRT, Budo Taijutsu, Tang Soo Do, boxing, mma, Tai Chi, etc. that have utilized their system and self-defense training in a context that either avoided violence or actively helped them in getting out of a violent situation whether in civilian life or work related.

For crying out loud, Brian, point out where I said that practitioners couldn't use skills learnt in a martial art... really, point it out. You're seeing things that aren't said, meant, or intended. I haven't even addressed whether or not things could be used, I've only addressed what things are designed for.

What I do feel we have seen is a rise of instructors that are teaching more about awareness, avoidance and action in conjunction with their societies laws and social norms. A higher understanding in the area of the legal laws of self-defense in their area and this is really good. We should promote this at every opportunity. However, I would argue that many traditional or older systems also have had this in their teachings albeit better understood or passed on better by individual instructors.

Well, you've completely missed the point of the comments, then. It's really not necessary unless self defence is a primary aim of the system... and traditional systems didn't often have that much about legalities, but did have a lot about the social conventions and environment they came from. Of course, the fact that traditional systems teach about within the social conventions of their origins and culture simply means that, well, they teach about a culture and social conventions removed from modern requirements... so your point is...? I mean, learning about the social conventions of 17th Century Japan means exactly what when it comes to modern needs?

The absolute finest example of this would be a Tae Kwon Do instructor whom I personally knew that made sure his students understood the law, legal ramifications and had it written into his system. (you could not advance without demonstrating knowledge in this particular area) He personally did it better than anyone else I have seen to date and he was a Tae Kwon Do guy.(not one thing wrong with that)

Which was outside of the teachings of TKD, and brought in as a requirement of his school. It's still not a part of TKD itself, and doesn't mean that the physical aspects are actually designed for or suited to modern violence. And, before you read into that, I'm not saying it can't be used, just that that's not what it's designed for (on a range of levels). And please try to remember that I have a TKD background myself.

It is not a can or cannot have it situation and one group does not have this area solely as their purview.

I really don't know what you think you're arguing against here.

Meaning that RBSD guy's simply cannot claim that they are the end all be all of self defense training because frankly there is some RBSD being taught out there that is frankly just plain crap. Really just crap!!! I was in a Las Vegas Training Hall just the other day watching an RBSD system being taught and it was awful. So awful I could not believe the people there were paying for this training. Having said that I really like most RBSD training that I have participated in as well as the people in it. Still not all RBSD is the same as all others and there are what I would call scam artists in this area as well!

And... this means what? Pick any martial art, and you'll find bad examples....

Chris your not part of the Bujinkan and your instructor is not part of it. You need to understand that every time you personally take a dish at it that people are simply going to have issues with it. The old adage if you do not have anything good to say applies here.... You left, your instructor left (a whole lot more to it than that) leave it at that. You haven't trained in it for a long time (ie. Budo Taijutsu) and if I am correct you never trained in Japan so that obviously has a lot of bearing here. I understand your situation and your organizations situation and your instructors situation as I know the details but stop taking digs at an organization that you are no longer affiliated with! Bujinkan people have always been rather polite with you on this board by and large but every time I turn around you take a shot at the Bujinkan. It is getting old!!! Your better than this!

Okay, I'm going to quote directly my only comments about the Bujinkan here, Brian, and point out that I didn't bring the Bujinkan into this. Please point out an attack or diss on it:

See, it's just not that simple. The Ryu-ha (traditional schools) that make up the technical curriculum of the Bujinkan are antiquated (which is really just another way of saying they're developed and designed for a different context to a modern one), the new art that has grown out of those Ryu (Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu) is a modern system, but is not really geared up to address modern violence (despite rhetoric to the contrary). But, and here's where it gets a little more complicated, even if (and, depending on the instructor, when) Budo Taijutsu is adapted to address modern violence, that's not the Ryu-ha... and it is perfectly within the approach of the art itself (which makes it exclusive in your categorisation).

......................................................................

Well, I was training under him when we were still part of the Bujinkan, for the record... As far as things needing to change, again, there's a fair bit to it beyond just that... In short, no, martial arts don't need to adapt or change... and very few actually do, really. What they do do is develop. But even through that development, they remain true to the context and origins of the system itself... they have to. Cultures also develop... they change over time, and occasionally do adapt to changes in their circumstances (not always, of course).

As far as the Bujinkan, do I think that the way things are currently taught there is effective in todays world? Honestly, no. What I won't go into here are my reasons... as for my Chief Instructor, while not addressing the Bujinkan (and I'm not going into that here), this might give you some insight into his take on most martial arts (if not all):
http://www.itsprimalprotection.com/2014/02/what-most-martial-arts-wont-teach-you.html

Read those comments again, Brian. Then read them again. Recognize that I was asked specifically if the Bujinkan's methods are "antiquated", to which I replied that the Ryu-ha material certainly is (and, if you think it isn't, bluntly, you don't have a clue about it), and immediately followed by saying that Budo Taijutsu is actually a modern system, which draws from the methods of the Ryu-ha, but that's it's just not geared up (designed for) handling modern violence. There are many reasons for this, primarily the fact that it's a Japanese art, and the aim is to explore the essence of martial arts as Hatsumi understands it, not to deal with modern violence in a society that has practically none. That's not an attack, Brian, it's an observation of reality.

My second comments are simply my answering MJS who asked if I think that the way things are taught in the Bujinkan are effective in todays world, and I answered honestly. Again, it's not a slight or an attack, it's an observation... perhaps you should take a better look at what exactly is being shown, and compare it against what would be needed for it to be effective today... frankly, the reason it is the way it is is because that's the way Hatsumi wants it. Being effective in todays world just isn't the focus of the Bujinkan... thinking that saying that equals an attack is just you showing a persecution complex here.

And quit with the whole "you're not a part of the Bujinkan anymore, you can't say anything about it!" angle, it's flawed, incorrect, irrelevant, and just really bad debating practice. It makes you look like you don't have an argument or answer to any criticisms that might be there (there weren't any, despite you wanting to see them), and worse.

I would add that Bujinkan practitioner's I came up with were a bunch of hard edged guy's typically with ten to fifteen years of hard contact training in another system. (Kickboxing, Shotokan, Kyokushinkai, Boxing, Tae Kwon Do, Arnis, etc.) Military guys, law enforcement guy's and gals. Tough guy's, not afraid to get punched in the face, guy's willing to travel very long distances for training and people who put in a lot of time to make their training work. Michigan was blessed with a great core of Budo Taijutsu practitioners and still is. I have no doubt these guy's could make their training work in self-defense and many have in work related endeavors. Plus their was some legal teachings on what you could and could not do. Just sayin.....

So damn what? How does them being "hard edged guys" mean that throwing techniques designed to take advantage of armour, targeting specifically to fight against armour, archaic weaponry, distancing concepts not matching modern violence, use of seiza and other postural concepts from another culture and time are all suddenly actually suited to modern situations in a completely different culture altogether? There was no mention of people not being able to use anything, there was comment on how things are taught and what the make up of the system is. No doubt was ever given for "toughness" of any practitioner at all. Seriously, get over this persecution complex... otherwise, I'm more than happy to actually start with genuine critiques and criticisms, so you do have something to complain about... but realize that they will all be backed up and illustrated quite completely (not that I'd expect to change the mind of any "true believers" out there... if it hasn't happened yet, it's not likely to now).

Kendo is an exclusive art, as are, I'd imagine any koryu arts. Hapkido is an inclusive system. But instead of going further and rattling off examples, I'm going to respond to the below paragraph.

You might be surprised... but let's see about the rest.

Okay, I think we may be discussing two different subjects here.

Possible.

Using hapkido as an example, as I have familiarity with it. Hapkido started off with a lot of grappling and comparatively little in the way of strikes and kicks.

As it passed from founder to senior students who opened their own studios and interracted with other KMA practitioners, kicks of all kinds were added, so many that hapkido actually has more kicks that KKW taekwondo, which has a lot of kicks! But it was still hapkido.

Hapkido has no 'forms' as one sees in taekwondo. But some orgs and schools have devised such forms. But it is still hapkido.

Now, you see groundfighting being addressed by some hapkido organizations. The techniques are most certainly culled from outside of hapkido, probably BJJ. But it is still hapkido.

No, I'd say that each of these senior students created their own forms of Hapkido, some of which had a greater focus on kicking, some had forms, some have ground work. In the end, it's still all Hapkido, and all has to fit within that framework, as well as be appropriate to the aims, ideals, principles, and context(s) of Hapkido.

As I said, I'm using hapkido because of familiarity with it. There are other arts that doubtless do the same. Such changes address a need or a perceived need. Perhaps those needs arose as the art traveled from place to place. Choi learned his skills in Japan (I'm not getting into the DRAJ debate; I have no dog in that race). He took them to Korea. He taught them, and then as his art spread in Korea, kicks became more prominent. Now the art is taught in the west. Groundfighting is more prominent in the west than head kicking (not implying that it has anything like the prominence of kicks in HKD; only that it is being addressed in some organizations and some studios).

Sure... which is all part of natural development of a relatively new art. The changes in the early generations of other arts I know are far more dramatic, but they all still stick to the way the art is at it's core.

Regarding an art addressing virtually every combative context, or even most, I agree with you; they don't. However, within the context of civilian self defence, an art can develop to address the changing needs of that context and still remain that art, if it is an inclusive art.

If part of the idea of the art is that it looks to address such needs, and therefore constantly looks to keep up to date and cover what is felt to be needed, well, that's still just an art staying true to itself.

Just to clarify, when I say inclusive, I do not by any means refer to an art addressing many or every combative context.

Oh, I got that.

Does that make sense to you?

Yeah, still disagree, though. I think we're just addressing it from different perspectives, though.

Hi Kframe,

I find the Koryu arts to be very realistic and brutal. A lot of people see the kata in Koryu and think it is not realistic however because they do not train in the Koryu
they can not understand the feeling of what is really happening. This does not only apply to Koryu of Japanese arts but also applies to the Chinese arts as well.
I feel being able to train in the Koryu has been a great experience and alot of people I have met doing so have all been nice, humble people. Training in it will change you for the best.

Hi Oaktree,

I didn't know you'd trained in Koryu... which Ryu-ha, out of interest?

I agree that Koryu can be very brutal and realistic... but, then again, they can be quite the opposite as well. It depends on the Ryu-ha in question. Additionally, I wouldn't say that Koryu training (which Kframe isn't doing, for the record) will change anyone for the best... it's more that Koryu is a little more, uh, particular about who stays, in the main.

And, with that, back to Brian...

Hey K-Man nice post. I would say that in regards to the above Chris learned from his instructor an early pioneer in Budo Taijutsu. This may be just the way they teach. Which could be in turn be like with several other early pioneers in the U.S. who had rather limited grasps of the material and went out teaching and adding things in that were not part of the system in the first place. (both physical and mental from books) This is in regards to that their depth and understanding of what they had may have been very limited and passed on in a much different way than what was intended. (hence eventually issues) Whether this is the case in Australia with Chris's instructor I can only guess and am not saying that it is but it certainly was this way in the United States. I would let Australian Budo Taijutsu people comment on that. (unfortunately I do not think we have any on the board) The very few I have met in Japan from Australia were quite good, with a good approach to reality!

Brian, one question... what the hell are you basing that on at all? "Added things in"?!?! What basis do you have for that idea at all? Frankly, and you might not like to hear this, the entire Bujinkan adds stuff in... from Hatsumi on down. In fact, he's constantly ignoring the material in the systems he heads in order to come up with completely different methods (which is what Budo Taijutsu really is)... so you're aiming that in exactly the wrong direction. Do you know what I taught at the class K-Man attended? It was only traditional material... I taught Ichimonji no Kamae, Jumonji no Kamae, Shizen no Kamae, and Hoko no Kamae... there were fundamental strikes (Fudo Ken, Omote Shuto Ken, and Ura Shuto Ken), Ude Uke as a fundamental "block", two basic movement patterns based on Ichimonji no Kata (Kihon Happo), one form with a Ken Kudaki aspect to it, some fundamental Gyaku Waza (Omote Gyaku, Ura Gyaku, Muso Dori and Oni Kudaki), two throws (Ganseki Nage and Osoto Gake), then some basic weapon handling for Hanbo and Ken, with a form of Koshi Ori and Tsuke Iri for Hanbo, and variations of Kocho Dori and Kiri Age Sayu Gyaku for sword... it covered the reasons for our stepping punching method, why the distance is so different to modern violence, understandings of the effect that different clothing and gear has on the mechanical methods, and so on. There was nothing added (I don't add anything, Brian... to do so is to miss the point of training in the traditional systems), and the traditional methods are not suited for modern violence... that's just the reality. If you think they are, then there's a real gap in your understanding of either the traditional methods or modern violence.

Tell you what, when you can match me in my discussions of the Ryu-ha, or traditional martial arts at all, then you can talk about who has limited grasps on things. In other words, your entire comment here is off base, baseless, and ignores what has actually been said by both myself and K-Man (you know, the guys who were there). I really don't need you to offer any form of "apology" for what you think I was showing, as you don't have the first clue what I presented.

I would still say that there are a lot of really good self-defense practitioner's and instructors from older systems. Just like there are some really good ones from systems with a more modern starting date. Just like there are ones in almost all of them that are not so good! Just because some things says Modern or RBSD does not mean it is good and the exact same applies to some thing that is older. I see you practice Systema and Krav Maga and I like and appreciate both of those systems. Very solid fundamentals and practical on many, many levels. Yet, within each of those systems there are some really, really good instructors and practitioner's and some others that are not so good. (a few that are even goofballs) In the US many Krav Maga instructors were an instructor in another system, went to a weekend seminar and became a Krav Maga instructor over night. Most of those guy's or gal's are jokes in that particular system. So when training with anyone verify who and what they are, what they know, who they trained with and what depth of training they have had. This I feel is essential for anyone seeking out martial training whether for fitness, self-defense or personal growth or any other reason.

And, again, what on earth does this have to do with anything? It really doesn't matter if an art has both good and bad teachers, good and bad practitioners, or whatever... if it teaches for a context, it's not teaching for another one. That's it. This type of forced diplomacy just sounds either ignorant or disingenuous, honestly. Your advice at the end there, for the record, although common enough is largely unrealistic, and not quite of the importance you're giving it (and I do hope it's not a veiled reference to my teacher).

I personally understand the point of self-defense being the driving force behind a system or does the system have a driving force behind it that is different. Really that is not to hard to understand but.... just because some systems may have had a different driving force does not mean that is cannot function in another area particularly if it's instructors understand that area fully and pass it on to their students. Just because some thing was designed for a battlefield does not mean that it cannot function very effectively in a self-defense encounter particularly if the individual understands the self-defense laws in their country, state, etc. Similarly a sporting martial system can be really effective in self-defense as well. Like wise a RBSD practitioner can be effective in self-defense and also probably in a battlefield setting with some additional training and a different mind set. Heck I know a couple of RBSD guy's that have been effective in the cage or a sporting context. Everything is not always black or white, quite often there are shades of grey in between! I have always lived by the idea of "no absolutes" or not letting some thing confine me or my approach to training. I think this is essential!!! Do not allow anyone to put you or your training in a box. Instead train but think outside of the box!!!

"No limitations"

So your answer is that all arts can do whatever you want them to, regardless of what they're actually designed to do? Seriously? You prefer to just ignore reality in favour of your idealised version?

No. It just doesn't work that way. And the argument "hey, you can still probably use it" is completely missing the point of the argument... which is to do with what it's designed for, and how that manifests itself (as well as how it might need to be altered for a different context and need). You're arguing something that no-one else has. Again.