Traditional Arts - non traditional technique/principle

[punisher73]

A couple of thoughts. If you are teaching a traditional art, then for the sake of tradition you need to keep it pure. Meaning your techniques and katas remain the same as they were passed onto you. If you are going to change what you do, then change it and make it known that you changed it. Almost every traditional style was at one point a "new style" and took something and added to it or deleted things to create their approach.

If you are going to show a technique that blends with your style and can be added to it, but is not there. Then you need to tell the student where it was brought in from. The example that always comes to mind is when the "grappling craze" started, you had traditional karate people making stuff up to justify things. I have seen people teaching Naihanchi kata as a "secret" groundfighting kata and that the cross over step was really a triangle choke in disguise and that submission grappling was always there. HUH? That is just being dishonest.

Now, on the other hand, I have seen an application in another art that matches the movements almost exactly in a kata I have seen, but hadn't thought of that particular application for it. I don't see an issue with learning that application and applying it if it fits in with your style's strategy. I remember one person making the comment that if you want to find out the nasty dirty applications of traditional kata look at kenpo's self-defense techniques.

 

[jasonbrinn]

So the closest in your list is Daito Ryu, albeit rather controversially.

Chris,

Hate to disagree with you but koryu doesn't even have to refer to a martial art at all. Koryu bujutsu or "classical martial arts" are most widely held to be those birthed during the 16th century or earlier or before the restriction of wearing swords. I have NEVER heard anything controversial about Daito ryu as it pertains to its koryu status, care to elaborate (maybe in another thread)?

As for training "outside" techniques. To me it depends on whether you are training a modern art or a "classical" art. Modern arts are just that so why not. Classical arts are like learning ballet or any other kind of standardized technique - you don't see ballet adding hip hop because it is a cool way to move or effective.

 

[Nomad]

If it's a good technique and fits in well with other material in the curriculum (demonstrating some of the principles underlying core techniques for example), then not just "yes", but "hell, yes!"

 

[pgsmith]

Hate to disagree with you but koryu doesn't even have to refer to a martial art at all. Koryu bujutsu or "classical martial arts" are most widely held to be those birthed during the 16th century or earlier or before the restriction of wearing swords.

Actually, koryu are most commonly held to be those Japanese schools codified before the the Meiji restoration of 1868.

I have NEVER heard anything controversial about Daito ryu as it pertains to its koryu status, care to elaborate (maybe in another thread)?

This is from the Wikipedia entry on Daito ryu, and is pretty much the attitude that is held by non-practitioners as regards Daito ryu ... " Although the school's traditions claim to extend back centuries in Japanese history there are no known extant records regarding the ryū before Takeda. Whether Takeda is regarded as either the restorer or the founder of the art, the known history of Daitō-ryū begins with him."

As for training "outside" techniques. To me it depends on whether you are training a modern art or a "classical" art. Modern arts are just that so why not. Classical arts are like learning ballet or any other kind of standardized technique - you don't see ballet adding hip hop because it is a cool way to move or effective.

Actually, it is very much like ballet. Ballet is not a particular dance, it is a particular dance form. There have been a number of ballets produced which incorporate hip hop movements.

Urban Ballet

 

[Chris Parker]

Chris,

Hi Jason,

Hate to disagree with you but koryu doesn't even have to refer to a martial art at all.

Yeah, I'm more than aware of that. You can get Koryu Ikebana, Koryu Kabuki, Koryu Noh, even forms of Koryu cooking... but the context here (and the context of K-Man's comments) are in terms of martial arts.

Koryu bujutsu or "classical martial arts" are most widely held to be those birthed during the 16th century or earlier or before the restriction of wearing swords.

There is a push among some corners of the Koryu world to further differentiate between "battlefield" systems (those that came from usage in battle, pre Edo Jidai), which are referred to as "Koryu Bujutsu" and those that developed in peacetime (Edo Jidai), which are referred to as "Koryu Budo". The problem is that that is a completely artificial distinction that has little support in the main... after all, if you are training in something like Owari Kan Ryu, which is a Sojutsu system very much designed with open battle in mind, are you training in Koryu Bujutsu or Koryu Budo? If you say "Bujutsu", I'd point out that it was founded in the late 1670's (peacetime), and if you say "Bujutsu", I'd point out the battlefield concepts that surround the system.

Then you get personal protection methods (non-battlefield) that originate prior to the Edo period.... what are they classed as?

When it all comes down to it, Koryu Bujutsu and Koryu Budo are really the same thing, with some people preferring one term over another for what they do.

I have NEVER heard anything controversial about Daito ryu as it pertains to its koryu status, care to elaborate (maybe in another thread)?

Another thread? There are thousands of them! Basically, the controversy is that Daito Ryu is not Koryu, as it was founded by Takeda Sokaku in the early 20th Century. And there's a lot of material supporting that.

 

[jasonbrinn]

Daito Ryu is not Koryu, as it was founded by Takeda Sokaku in the early 20th Century. And there's a lot of material supporting that.

First - agreed on all other points.

As for what I quoted though, this is not true. Sokaku did NOT create Daito ryu and NEVER claimed to have done so. I understand there is written material out there in support of such things but, this is the internet and you simply can't trust everything you read even if the majority of what you read says the same thing.

Sorry for the derail but I have "inside" knowledge on this one per my training. My teacher was Okamoto Seigo, his teacher was Horikawa Koda and his teacher was Takeda Sokaku. Despite the historical written proof the truth remains the same, Daito ryu was long before Takeda Sokaku.

 

[Chris Parker]

You seem to have missed the first part of that sentence, Jason...

I'm aware of your training in Daito Ryu, however that doesn't stop there being controversy, nor there being a commonly held belief that Daito Ryu has no history past Takeda Sokaku. The sheer breadth of the curriculum (which was largely systematized under Takeda's son, Tokimune) show it to be a peacetime art, rather than thousand year old battle-tested one, there are no records that pre-date Takeda, and he was changing the name he was using over the time that he was issuing licences, which is a hallmark of a system in development. There are old records of a "Daido Ryu" in Aizu province, but it is an unrelated system. It has been suggested that the name "Daito Ryu" was used due to this connection.

None of this is said to discredit, or diminish Daito Ryu itself. Personally, I love the system. I think it's an incredible art with a lot of fantastic methods. It's also not to say that the belief of Takeda being the originator of Daito Ryu is definitive either, with there being supporters of the historical claims as well, including Tokimune himself (who has his reasons for believing his arts history), and many other practitioners of the system. All I said was that Daito Ryu was the closest in Russ' list to Koryu, but that it was not without controversy.

 

[Flying Crane]

A couple of thoughts. If you are teaching a traditional art, then for the sake of tradition you need to keep it pure. Meaning your techniques and katas remain the same as they were passed onto you. If you are going to change what you do, then change it and make it known that you changed it.

I can't agree with this. I train a traditional Chinese art, and my sifu definitely changes things. Other lineages within our system have also made their own changes, and these differences are often recognized as lineage differences. But nobody says it has become a different system. Traditional systems are often changed, or they are dead. The notion that a "traditional" system, by definition, means that it is not changed, or changes are not allowed, is something that I believe is not accurate.

If you are going to show a technique that blends with your style and can be added to it, but is not there. Then you need to tell the student where it was brought in from. The example that always comes to mind is when the "grappling craze" started, you had traditional karate people making stuff up to justify things. I have seen people teaching Naihanchi kata as a "secret" groundfighting kata and that the cross over step was really a triangle choke in disguise and that submission grappling was always there. HUH? That is just being dishonest.

Now, on the other hand, I have seen an application in another art that matches the movements almost exactly in a kata I have seen, but hadn't thought of that particular application for it. I don't see an issue with learning that application and applying it if it fits in with your style's strategy. I remember one person making the comment that if you want to find out the nasty dirty applications of traditional kata look at kenpo's self-defense techniques.

Again, in my system, what is really being trained is the ability to understand how certain fundamental principles can drive any and every technique, and any movement can then become a powerful technique even if that movement does not fit the description of a "standard" punch or other strike. The techniques that are in our curriculum serve two purposes. The most basic purpose is that they are effective and useful techniques. The more important purpose is that they are expressions of those principles that I mentioned, and they act as examples to teach you how to use those principles. Eventually you are able to move beyond the standard techniques, and make any movement a potentially powerful technique. It's a learning process and developmental process that takes a lot of work to get there. But that's really the final goal. This is where the traditional arts say, practice the technique/form/kata, so you can then forget it. If those examples have served their purpose and you have learned how to use the principles, then you do not need them anymore, you do not need to rely on them in a fight.

So if something is "introduced" from another system, from our perspective all that really matters is whether or not it can be used with our foundational principles. A specific technique, or scripted pattern doesn't really matter to us much, but something is useful if it can be an accurate expression of our principles.

If something is brought into the system, such as a form from a different system that doesn't follow our principles, or has a significantly different idea of how those principles are put to work, then it just clashes with how we do things. Breaking up the consistency in our methodology would just be confusing to the training method and does not make sense. So I would be very cautious about doing so. I think a lot of times people see something different, that someone else is doing, and they just decide that they must have it, because it must be valuable. People forget to ask themselves, does that thing even make sense for me to have at all? Some things you are better off without, because it does not work properly with your system and method. It's not just a matter of collecting forms or techniques.

 

[jks9199]

You seem to have missed the first part of that sentence, Jason...

I'm aware of your training in Daito Ryu, however that doesn't stop there being controversy, nor there being a commonly held belief that Daito Ryu has no history past Takeda Sokaku. The sheer breadth of the curriculum (which was largely systematized under Takeda's son, Tokimune) show it to be a peacetime art, rather than thousand year old battle-tested one, there are no records that pre-date Takeda, and he was changing the name he was using over the time that he was issuing licences, which is a hallmark of a system in development. There are old records of a "Daido Ryu" in Aizu province, but it is an unrelated system. It has been suggested that the name "Daito Ryu" was used due to this connection.

None of this is said to discredit, or diminish Daito Ryu itself. Personally, I love the system. I think it's an incredible art with a lot of fantastic methods. It's also not to say that the belief of Takeda being the originator of Daito Ryu is definitive either, with there being supporters of the historical claims as well, including Tokimune himself (who has his reasons for believing his arts history), and many other practitioners of the system. All I said was that Daito Ryu was the closest in Russ' list to Koryu, but that it was not without controversy.

Chris & Jason,

Is it possible that the truth is somewhere in the middle? That Takeda brought forward one or more styles, taught quietly and discretely, and named the combination? Kind of like Hatsumi and Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu? It seems, from the very little I know of Daito ryu, that it has rather more than I would believe likely for a person to simply invent..

 

[Chris Parker]

Takeda Sokaku was certainly very well trained in a number of martial traditions, both unarmed and armed, but honestly, the large syllabus (some three thousand techniques) is one of the things that indicate the art isn't as old as it's claimed to be. It's not actually like Hatsumi and the Bujinkan when you get down to it, although I can certainly see the similarities!

Once again, Daito Ryu is a fantastic system, and I don't think anyone who has encountered it would disagree with that. It doesn't need to be a Koryu to be great by any means either. But the view of a large number of persons is that it isn't a Koryu, due to a range of reasons, and personally I agree with that take.

 

[punisher73]

I can't agree with this. I train a traditional Chinese art, and my sifu definitely changes things. Other lineages within our system have also made their own changes, and these differences are often recognized as lineage differences. But nobody says it has become a different system. Traditional systems are often changed, or they are dead. The notion that a "traditional" system, by definition, means that it is not changed, or changes are not allowed, is something that I believe is not accurate.

As the head of a lineage or system, then you are entitled to make changes because you know why the changes are being made for the better. I should have been more clear as to who is making the changes. I also never said that it made it a different system (although if you change it enough it probably should be called something different), but even in your example you list the lineage differences. Almost every traditional art has different lineages that have minor differences in it, but their concepts are the same. I would also state that what you are calling "changes" in a system, I would call a "refinement" in the system. I also, think there is a cultural definition of "traditional" as well that varies between the chinese, okinawan, and japanese derived systems.

Again, in my system, what is really being trained is the ability to understand how certain fundamental principles can drive any and every technique, and any movement can then become a powerful technique even if that movement does not fit the description of a "standard" punch or other strike. The techniques that are in our curriculum serve two purposes. The most basic purpose is that they are effective and useful techniques. The more important purpose is that they are expressions of those principles that I mentioned, and they act as examples to teach you how to use those principles. Eventually you are able to move beyond the standard techniques, and make any movement a potentially powerful technique. It's a learning process and developmental process that takes a lot of work to get there. But that's really the final goal. This is where the traditional arts say, practice the technique/form/kata, so you can then forget it. If those examples have served their purpose and you have learned how to use the principles, then you do not need them anymore, you do not need to rely on them in a fight.

So if something is "introduced" from another system, from our perspective all that really matters is whether or not it can be used with our foundational principles. A specific technique, or scripted pattern doesn't really matter to us much, but something is useful if it can be an accurate expression of our principles.

If something is brought into the system, such as a form from a different system that doesn't follow our principles, or has a significantly different idea of how those principles are put to work, then it just clashes with how we do things. Breaking up the consistency in our methodology would just be confusing to the training method and does not make sense. So I would be very cautious about doing so. I think a lot of times people see something different, that someone else is doing, and they just decide that they must have it, because it must be valuable. People forget to ask themselves, does that thing even make sense for me to have at all? Some things you are better off without, because it does not work properly with your system and method. It's not just a matter of collecting forms or techniques.

Very much in agreement with this, and was in part what I was trying to say.

 

[Flying Crane]

As the head of a lineage or system, then you are entitled to make changes because you know why the changes are being made for the better. I should have been more clear as to who is making the changes. I also never said that it made it a different system (although if you change it enough it probably should be called something different), but even in your example you list the lineage differences. Almost every traditional art has different lineages that have minor differences in it, but their concepts are the same. I would also state that what you are calling "changes" in a system, I would call a "refinement" in the system. I also, think there is a cultural definition of "traditional" as well that varies between the chinese, okinawan, and japanese derived systems.

yes, true, the authority to make changes resides with a limited few. It is not something to be done on a whim, by just anyone. But I think if that point isn't made, it does give the wrong impression: that a traditional art is meant to never change, for any reason. That is something I do not agree with.




Very much in agreement with this, and was in part what I was trying to say.[/QUOTE]

 

[Black Belt Jedi]

I would definitely try it out and teach those new techniques in class. The Martial Arts is all about progression and development. I'm a pragmatist.