'Returning to the root' of your martial art

[Buka]

I often wonder about a lot of things. One of them is the notion that Martial Art founders of yesteryear know more about everything than Martial Artists today of equal or more experience, study, sacrifice, sweat, tears and far more resources.

I'm not sure why that is. Anybody have any thoughts?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I often wonder about a lot of things. One of them is the notion that Martial Art founders of yesteryear know more about everything than Martial Artists today of equal or more experience, study, sacrifice, sweat, tears and far more resources.

I'm not sure why that is. Anybody have any thoughts?

I think that despite all the modern advantages we have today, they had some parameters to deal with that we do not.

No phone. No TV. No social media.

And in many cases, actual danger to deal with.

So they had the time to work on their self-defense techniques without distractions, and for many of them, many opportunities to put their ideas to the test in real life against real danger.

We have many advantages these days. No doubt about it. I am sure we know many things that would be of interest to those who have gone before.

However, reality sometimes has a way of making theory look a trifle silly. I remember the first time I was in the field in the Marines and the Marines from the city didn't actually know how to dig a hole and poop into it without making a mess in their trousers. They knew the theory, but the technique required actual experience.

 

[skribs]

I often wonder about a lot of things. One of them is the notion that Martial Art founders of yesteryear know more about everything than Martial Artists today of equal or more experience, study, sacrifice, sweat, tears and far more resources.

I'm not sure why that is. Anybody have any thoughts?

I think it's both. I think sometimes the training gets misunderstood or lost, and then new students reinvent the wheel. A lot of times nowadays, students don't practice against resistance, and so details about how to make the techniques work gets lost over time. I think that's what happens with a lot of TMAs and why they have such a bad reputation. Arts like Aikido and Wing Chun have a reputation for having poor quality control. While a true Wing Chun practitioner knows how to deliver a straight punch with power, a lot end up just flailing their arms. A lot of schools focus on sticky hands and less on fundamentals and sparring, and it shows when they strike and have no power.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

DOS is not superior than MS Window. The back wave pushes the front wave. the front wave crashes on the rock.

 

[isshinryuronin]

I often wonder about a lot of things. One of them is the notion that Martial Art founders of yesteryear know more about everything than Martial Artists today of equal or more experience, study, sacrifice, sweat, tears and far more resources.

I'm not sure why that is. Anybody have any thoughts?

Good question. A lot of it is simple respect and reverence for the old masters. I had more education, money, travel, physical abilities, and worldly experience than my father. Yet, when I think of him, I seem to pale in comparison. Much of my success was due to his efforts in the distant past. As Sir Isaac Newton said "If I have seen further than others, it's because I have stood on the shoulders of giants."

The old masters did not have the advantages and resources we have today. They had only raw experience and dedication. Their MA was not a sport or just a job requirement - it was their way of life. They did not train and learn in commercial gyms depending on clientele to stay in business, from instructors with varied and sometimes questionable skills. They learned from other established, proven and well respected masters; handed down in private lessons under strict conditions and then taught others in the same way.

They, themselves, did not stop learning - they sought out other masters. And they DID make changes to what they learned. TMA has continually evolved (contrary to some who criticize TMA for being static). Only they had the experience in years and technique, skill, understanding and peer respect that earned them the right to do so. Unlike today, they were not some 4th or 5th degree who decides to put on a belt with some red on it and call themselves a "master."

No doubt, there are some excellent, dedicated, martial artists: Stronger, faster, trained with all the hi tech equipment, etc. than some of karate's founders. But somehow, like me, they pale in comparison to those who came before.

 

[isshinryuronin]

However, reality sometimes has a way of making theory look a trifle silly. I remember the first time I was in the field in the Marines and the Marines from the city didn't actually know how to dig a hole and poop into it without making a mess in their trousers. They knew the theory, but the technique required actual experience.

I know how those city Marines felt. When I was in rural Japan 38 years ago, I was similarly stumped on how to use their old style public toilets requiring a deep squat. Not to mention they were co-ed.

 

[Tez3]

I know how those city Marines felt. When I was in rural Japan 38 years ago, I was similarly stumped on how to use their old style public toilets requiring a deep squat. Not to mention they were co-ed.

Probably best stay away from many French public toilets then
'co-ed' is quite common throughout Europe.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I think a lot of it depends on what you want out of the art, and why you're going back to the root of it. Let's take Taekwondo for example. Taekwondo started off as basically Korean Karate. It was Karate, as the Koreans learned it, with a heavy emphasis on powerful hand strikes. It evolved over time to be the kicking art, and boy does it have wonderful kicks. But it's largely gone away from the martial aspect it used to have, with many schools focused on memorizing forms and then doing the kicking game.

Someone who trains Taekwondo and does the kicking game may want to learn more about the self-defense or martial aspects of the art. In this case, they'd go back to the roots - learn the forms and techniques that were taught when TKD started, in order to learn the aspect of the art that they want to learn. Maybe they reject the advancements in kicking, maybe they try and do it all.

Another aspect is what's been lost over time due to translation issues or poor quality control. Let's say that I know everything about martial arts (I know I act like it sometimes, but let's say it's true for right now). As the supreme arbiter of martial combat, I teach the future leaders of the martial arts world. However, I'm only able to teach them 70% of what I know. There may be 10% I think they know and don't teach them. There may be 10% they just never understand. There may be another 10% they forget by the time they open up their school.

The same thing happens to them. Their proteges, their best students, only retain 70% of what their master taught. Now we're at 49% in just 2 generations. Another generation would have us down to 34.3%. In just 3 generations, we barely know a third of what the original Master wanted us to learn. Our options at this point are:

• Cross-train to fill in the gaps
• Evolve the art on our own to put our own ideas in
• Look at what the original master left behind (in the form of books, journals, etc) in order to try and get back to the root of what was taught

I've used similar examples before to show the danger of attempting replication in martial arts. Remember that this ignores (or exempts) any additions by each generation. This can be re-discoveries (students figuring out something the instructor had learned but never taught), improvements (teach 100 people and hopefully a few of them will be better than you at something you taught them), and information leaks inward (visiting instructors, things brought in by their students in subsequent generations, etc.). I think 70% pass-along is probably reasonable generation over generation, but 30% loss isn't.

At the same time, the third input (information leaks inward) would include your third bullet point. And your second bullet point naturally includes both of my others.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Something just occurred to me in another flash...

I see often many practitioners attempting to return to the 'roots' of their martial art, in an attempt to understand it better.

But I wonder if this is really necessary.

People often consider the 'root' of their martial art to be solely time-based. What they did 'back then', and in looking solely at the origin of the art.

To me, I find more richness in looking at the evolution as a whole, and delving into the aspects that actually speak to you.

Karate for example mainly originated in Okinawa (as in the main development and creation of the specific art of karate, not going back further). Many state that the root of Okinawan karate was/is self defence. And as it entered Japan it underwent a bit of a transformation, or redirection of focus. Sure they aimed to teach it and reach more people, but there was a direction of perfection of character through perfection of technique. A more personal, spiritual direction which focused not only on defending oneself physically, but learning to defend oneself WITHIN oneself. Finding the use of karate as a vehicle towards self-development and inner harmony grew as a need for that time. Then of course the movement towards competition and sports karate grew too.

Just as the practice of Zen started in India with Boddhidharma, then grew in China, and blossomed in Japan, each stage served a different purpose or emphasis. It evolved naturally through understanding, and each had its place.

Just because something happened a long time ago in the chain of events, doesn't mean that where to find the gold you're looking for in it. That may not be the reason you are drawn to it. Look along the pathway of how it's evolved as a whole, and go beyond the linear stages, and in believing one stage is more important or valuable than another.

Do we need to return to the 'root' of civilisation to gain greater depth and meaning? If so, we could go back to the Neanderthals and earlier, and purely just their focus on surviving for our lives and continuance, then use that to justify our focus in life. I don't see purpose as linear, but being born out of understanding and experience.

I would say to honour the emphasis which grabs you, and not feel the need to conform to what others may say is the sole only reason for doing something.

Am saying this as much to myself haha. Just some ramblings and nothing definitive, take it with a grain of salt if you'd like

I think there are many reasons for this. I do look back at the roots of the art (such as they are) in NGA for cues to how to develop it. I do this for a few reasons:

• There is a single choke-point in the art, twice (founder, and the guy who brought it to the US). These are points where all information came through a single person, with no cross-pollenation I'm aware of. Looking back at Daito-ryu (the primary source) can help me understand what may have been lost at these choke points.
• There is natural drift over time, which can make some drills less useful. They're habitually in the system, but if their meaning/purpose is lost, they lose their value. Looking back at older training methods (again, mostly to Daito-ryu) helps me understand the drills a bit better.
• Everyone puts their own focus in an art. NGA is said to have a Judo component, but you'd be hard pressed to see much of it in most practitioners, except for a let sweep and a few close-in movements you wouldn't see in most aiki-oriented arts. Looking at Judo can help me understand why the founder drew from that particular art. Since I have some familiarity with Judo, I can draw more of it out in the system as I teach it.
• Without understanding the system and its roots fully, it can be hard to understand the purpose of some training approaches. In the case of NGA, some of the Classical Techniques are, in my opinion, not meant for application. They teach principles, only. I had to go back and look at the foundation to figure that out, which affects how I teach and use them in my curriculum.

At the same time, I could make most of the same progress without going back to the roots. I could simply look for grappling training I like and incorporate it. I could find drills I like and incorporate those. While I've done some of that, it's harder to keep the system coherent with that approach. And it also begins to beg the question of whether the result is still NGA or not. I like NGA, and want to keep it as my base. I just want to use it better and teach it better. So I go back to the roots for some of that.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I know how those city Marines felt. When I was in rural Japan 38 years ago, I was similarly stumped on how to use their old style public toilets requiring a deep squat. Not to mention they were co-ed.

I was in Okinawa 37 years ago - 1983. Same.

 

[_Simon_]

That old quote I just love by Zen master Matsuo Bashō comes to mind...

"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise; seek what they sought. Seek the meaning behind their footsteps, and not upon the steps themselves. For in seeking the footsteps you shall be glancing only upon the next footprint. And you're sure to stumble upon an unforeseen obstacle.

But in seeking the meaning behind their footsteps you're sure to see ahead; comparable to looking up while walking. Thus allowing you to easily manoeuvre around the hurdles on the path you walk.

…And if you walk like this long enough, you'll one day, to your surprise, find yourself among the wise."

 

[jobo]

I often wonder about a lot of things. One of them is the notion that Martial Art founders of yesteryear know more about everything than Martial Artists today of equal or more experience, study, sacrifice, sweat, tears and far more resources.

I'm not sure why that is. Anybody have any thoughts?

theirs '' nostalgia'' for a time they dont remember, there is the delusion that there are secrets to be discovered and the paranoia that they are missing out on something, its not just ma, there is a lot of this mental illness about

a young friend of mine has spent many thousands on authentic 70s hi fi equipment and even more on original vinyl as some how he has got himself believing its superior, despite considerable evidence to the contrary.

his conclusion when he hears the same song played with new technology on my system, isn't that he has been taken for a ride, but that he has to spend more money on better equipment, no mate i tell him, it sounded rubbish in the 70s 50 years hasn't made it sound better. i can use DSP to make mine sound rubbish if i want to relive my youth

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

I was in Okinawa 37 years ago - 1983. Same.

My friend John Ray (I may not spell his last name correctly) was there at that time (may be few years early than you). Have you ever met him?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

My friend John Ray (I may not spell his last name correctly) was there at that time (may be few years early than you). Have you ever met him?

Not that I recall, sorry.

 

[pdg]

theirs '' nostalgia'' for a time they dont remember, there is the delusion that there are secrets to be discovered and the paranoia that they are missing out on something, its not just ma, there is a lot of this mental illness about

a young friend of mine has spent many thousands on authentic 70s hi fi equipment and even more on original vinyl as some how he has got himself believing its superior, despite considerable evidence to the contrary.

his conclusion when he hears the same song played with new technology on my system, isn't that he has been taken for a ride, but that he has to spend more money on better equipment, no mate i tell him, it sounded rubbish in the 70s 50 years hasn't made it sound better. i can use DSP to make mine sound rubbish if i want to relive my youth

There's a different quality to music reproduced on old equipment (vinyl and valves) to music played on modern solid state digital kit.

It's not better, in fact it's measurably worse - but it can be more enjoyable. The act of putting on an album is one of it's own, and the softness and warmth (/ lack of response and minor distortion) has it's own unique feel.

But, it's subjective - if your young friend prefers the sound of your kit then the vintage stuff just isn't for him.

I used to like the classic sound, I made my own valve amps and stuff - but I seem to have grown apart from that now...

 

[jobo]

There's a different quality to music reproduced on old equipment (vinyl and valves) to music played on modern solid state digital kit.

It's not better, in fact it's measurably worse - but it can be more enjoyable. The act of putting on an album is one of it's own, and the softness and warmth (/ lack of response and minor distortion) has it's own unique feel.

But, it's subjective - if your young friend prefers the sound of your kit then the vintage stuff just isn't for him.

I used to like the classic sound, I made my own valve amps and stuff - but I seem to have grown apart from that now...

you dont need to tell me about tubes, i was born in the late 50s, tubes were all there was when i was growing up, we had tube radios tube tvs abd tube record players and they were all ????, the only time they wernt giving a !!!! picture/ sound is on the very frequent occasions they were broke, it was very very bad technology. the invention of the transistor is right up there with inoculating small pox and discovering antibiotics in building the wonderful world we have today


the ironic thing is i can and have set my system up using DSP to sound like a fuzzy 1970s amp, that necessary when playing 70s tunes as the recording standards were so abysmal for vinyl that playing them in high fidelity is near unbearable, hell there even an add on that puts noise and scratches on if you want the authentic 70s listening experiences


i can still hear the scratches on my old copy of dark side of the moon when i listen to it now, after i left it on the deck for a while, i came back to find the cat asleep on the turntable, so instead of carefully lifting the cat off, i turned the deck on at 78 rpm, that was a mistake

to be fair they have yet to come up with an acceptable modern replacement for the record sleeve when skinning up at parties

 

[dvcochran]

I train under an instructor who trained under two instructors, both of whom were students of the founder. I am third-generation, so to speak. We do have frequent contact with other first-generation students of the founder, who assist us in keeping our training as close as possible to what the founder taught.

Not sure how much further back I could go.

I have said before that I am 3 1/2 generations. My instructor, Seoung Eui Shin and his eventual instructor both started under Hwang Kee about the same time. My instructor stopped training to enter the ROKA. Then came back and trained under his instructor Jong Hyun Lee, eventually moving to Nashville, TN in 1974. I started with him in 1982.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

There's a different quality to music reproduced on old equipment (vinyl and valves) to music played on modern solid state digital kit.

It's not better, in fact it's measurably worse - but it can be more enjoyable. The act of putting on an album is one of it's own, and the softness and warmth (/ lack of response and minor distortion) has it's own unique feel.

But, it's subjective - if your young friend prefers the sound of your kit then the vintage stuff just isn't for him.

I used to like the classic sound, I made my own valve amps and stuff - but I seem to have grown apart from that now...

There are still guitar amps (incuding high-end ones) marketed around that sound, too. Many of the DSP systems even claim to have some of that warmth to them. As you say, it may not be objectively "better", but many seek that sound.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

There's a different quality to music reproduced on old equipment (vinyl and valves) to music played on modern solid state digital kit.

It's not better, in fact it's measurably worse - but it can be more enjoyable. The act of putting on an album is one of it's own, and the softness and warmth (/ lack of response and minor distortion) has it's own unique feel.

But, it's subjective - if your young friend prefers the sound of your kit then the vintage stuff just isn't for him.

I used to like the classic sound, I made my own valve amps and stuff - but I seem to have grown apart from that now...

Did someone say tubes? I rebuild tube amps as a hobby, and I listen to vinyl records.

 

[dvcochran]

View attachment 22708

View attachment 22709

Did someone say tubes? I rebuild tube amps as a hobby, and I listen to vinyl records.

Let the smoke out of one lately?