He removed the dangerous techniques and focused on techniques that could be practiced relatively safely. This increased the general skill level of his practitioners.
And this is what you refer to as the "fluff"? The dangerous techniques... are the "fluff"? You, er, do get the idea of "martial art", yeah?
Besides which, did he? Did he "remove" them? Or just remove them from randori practice? There's a big difference there... was it that he "rejected" anything, as you suggested?
I would happily argue that Judo and it's descendant systems have done a very good job of proving their worth in the practicality department.
Ninjutsu on the other hand....
Snide digs aside, did you want to read what I actually wrote? What I said was that the reasons for the changes were largely pedagogical, based in Kano's work in the education system in Japan, rather than for the reason of "practicality"... I said nothing about whether or not anything was or wasn't "practical", or had any results one way or the other... so, sure, argue away... but, once again, you're arguing with something that no-one has ever said...
I'm arguing for a refinement of the methodology in order to bring it into the modern era. As for Ninjutsu not fading into obscurity, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Agree to disagree? No. I'm speaking from a factual standpoint regarding the membership on a global scale, and you're thinking that, as it's not represented in areas you inhabit, it's not still around. One is a comment based in reality, the other on a limited perspective giving a skewed understanding... and, again, practitioners of an art that is not in line with your own doesn't mean it needs to change to be what you do in order to "bring it into the modern era"... if people want to train in something like Judo, or BJJ, or MMA, then guess what? They will. But if they want something more along the lines of what is found in the Takamatsuden arts, then guess what? They'll end up there. And if they want something different again? This is why there are so many options... and if you've found what you like, that's great! It doesn't mean anything other than that you've found what you like, though... so, perhaps you should try to understand what something else is, and (more importantly) why it is what it is, before you insist on changes to bring it into line with your limited approach?
Didn't Judo's success show that a high level of safe sparring and a minor emphasis on kata created more effective martial artists whom were far more capable of executing their techniques under duress?
Kano didn't think so. Randori was only meant to be a minor aspect, a limited approach with limited (realistic) value... it was a training method that was, by definition, only really usable in a small facet of martial art study... and was never meant to be the focus or defining factor of Judo or the Kodokan.
In fact, Kano didn't consider randori to be the most important aspect... he felt that the Kime no Kata, followed by the Katame no Kata, were the real "heart" of the Kodokan's methods... as that was where the actual "martial art" of Judo lay (especially in Kime no Kata). He also wanted the Kodokan to not just be Judo, but to be a kind of central location for all Japanese martial arts. He felt that only training Judo would lead someone to be a rather one-trick martial artist, incomplete, and that would be further amplified by focusing on randori as a primary focus. This is why he maintained the Koshiki no Kata (Kito Ryu), and developed another dozen or so sets of kata, either newly created (Kime, Katame, Nage, Ju), or were imported from Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu (Itsutsu no Kata) or Kito Ryu (Koshiki no Kata). He also wanted the Kodokan to be the central base for the newer, and newly developing arts, such as Kendo, Jodo, and later Iaido, as well as a number of koryu. This is why he sent students to Ueshiba, why he brought in Shimizu Takauji to teach Jodo to his Yondan and above students, why he invited four shihan of Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu to the Kodokan to teach his senior students "real" martial arts...
Randori, really, was just a training method that could be utilised by any school... Kano talked the newly formed Butokukai into having a jujutsu division (initially it was focused on what they referred to as "kenjutsu", basically early kendo), and brought in a number of teachers of a range of koryu to help preserve them in some fashion. Remember, the samurai era had ended less than half a century before, and many of the old generation teachers were wondering if they had a place anymore... Kano was convinced they did, and that what they taught had value, so he worked with them, and created the Randori no Kata (Nage no Kata and Katame no Kata) to get a core, somewhat simplified set of techniques that could be drilled in randori, and the Kime no Kata to preserve the "heart" of Japanese jujutsu (I've had some great conversations with members of the schools whose techniques went into the formation of the Kime no Kata, comparing how they were altered, and so on... very interesting!). But randori wasn't really meant to be it's own thing, and especially not a focus... back in those days, you only competed with it up to Yondan at the most... and weren't a teacher until Sandan... it was, really, for early development, to be done while you were still young enough... but has come to signify "Judo". It's the beginners version, really.
When it comes to the idea of "high level of safe sparring and a minor emphasis on kata creat(ing) more effective martial artists", well... no. It created competitors who got good at applying a more limited skill set in a restricted format... if that's the same thing to you, though, that's going to be your perspective... it wasn't Kano's...
The aim of the sparring would the same aim as in other MAs like Judo, BJJ, Boxing, Muay Thai, etc. It is all done to enhance the general skill of the practitioners, and teach them how to apply those techniques under duress. That in turn increases the general effectiveness of the system.
So... Judo... sport, training in a competitive format to work in a competitive format... BJJ... sport, training in a competitive format to work in a competitive format... Boxing... sport, training in a competitive format to work in a competitive format... muay Thai... sport, training in a competitive format to work in a competitive format... really, the only thing you can say is that training in a sporting, competitive format helps you in performing in a sporting, competitive format... uh... okay....
But, more to the point, you've basically looked at one aim, one context, and looked at four different variations of the same thing. That's not the same as looking at what the randori aims would be in an art that doesn't fit that context or mentality at all... which is my point. You aren't looking at the art itself, you're looking at your (bluntly) very limited and narrow perspective and value set.
In other words, there are any number of other aims for various "sparring"/free-form/randori approaches, each of which will alter the structure employed... and that aim has to be congruent with the art, otherwise, what's the point? You want to to BJJ, do BJJ, you want to do MMA, do MMA, you want to do Judo, do Judo... but thinking something different is going to necessarily match it in aim, mentality, approach? You're doing a disservice to all involved there.
I also note you've linked a BJJ page from the Akban site... okay, so they may have begun to work with someone from BJJ... it's not featured in any of their approach that I've seen, but it's possible... of course, they have a habit of putting things up to claim they are teaching (and have been taught) a number of things, such as Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu (
Portal:Traditional weapons)... and, believe me, they haven't (I do kinda love the comment about "all criticism is welcome"... when I called Yossi out for his Katori posting, he blocked me... ha!).
Yossi started under Doron Navon, a judoka and Feldenkrais teacher who was one of the first non-Japanese training with Hatsumi in Japan, starting around 1966, for the record... which is where the Bujinkan and Judo comes from. BJJ? Without listing who the teacher is? Any rank? Affiliation? Yeah... not sold. And absolutely no HEMA in their work at all. So I still hold that, no, Akban is not what you claimed.
I should have been more clear on my usage and discussion of the term, "RBSD" and elaborated a bit more. Those guys (the ones you mentioned) developed a "civilian self-defense" model appropriate for more modern times and use that term to describe it.
Cool.
My reference was to those instructors who use the term "RBSD" and teach things like WW2 combatives AS a civilian self-defense model as it was taught and meant to be used by the soldiers back then and the disconnect between the two methods (wartime military vs. civilian) and the trouble you could get into if you try to use them on someone to protect yourself in most situations (for example, eye gouging in response to a shove).
Yeah... that ain't RBSD, no matter what they call it. Really not too dissimilar to people with a bit of karate, maybe some TKD, possibly a bit of Judo, suddenly claiming to be teaching "ninjitsu"... it ain't, no matter what they call it...
We are in agreement that systems are designed for a specific environment and function. When you change those parameters the system doesn't always function the way it was meant to be used.
Yep!
I always remember reading an interview with Rickson Gracie (its been years and I can't remember the martial arts magazine it was in). but basically he said that BJJ was designed for the Brazilian culture where everyone would circle up and watch the fight and not get involved (question was along the lines of bystanders and kicking you on the ground) he also said that if he ever got in a fight in the US, he would punch and run and also probably carry a weapon because other people like to get involved.
And this is what I was referring to when I spoke about cultural understandings of violence... Brazil has a fairly major focus on "machismo" and "manliness/toughness" as part of it's image, tempered with a sense of fairness in conjunction... so fights between young men in public is just an expression of that... the circling is both so there could be witnesses to the toughness and macho-ness of the men, as well as to enforce the societal expectations and rules... all of which leads to the adoption of tactics that are allowable (and safe) in such a situation that might be a bad idea in others... to go back to the beginning of this post, the idea of a limited repertoire to enable a form of free-training (randori) in Judo has the same result... things that work well in that environment, but aren't necessarily the best plan in others (which is why Kano didn't want it to be the big aspect... Kime no Kata teaches the "martial art" side of Judo... randori doesn't).
Now, we're talking here about a modern, largely Westernised culture, in the last half century... what happens when you look at a cultural understanding of violence from a completely different (Eastern) culture, with a completely different social structure and expectation, from centuries ago?
This thread makes me realize how little I know about anything.
It makes my head go like this.....
Ha! We're only scratching the surface here....
The core principles still basically work though.
You are going to have a hard time holding Rickson down so your friends can womp him.
Where you would have a much easier time with your average ninja.
Which I think is the difference between modernization vs just working well.
Rickson is much harder to hold down because he trains in that environment. It's not a matter of a difference between "modernisation vs just working well", as you haven't really differentiated them for one thing, but more importantly, you're just saying that training to a focus and a context works better for that focus and context... well, yeah. The biggest issue is you guys all want to use your focus and context to represent all martial approaches... and the world is a lot bigger than that.
