Dear lord above...........
This will be for pretty much all of you. Again, there are literally only two people here who know what they're talking about. That goes for the entire thread. And this will probably repeat a few dozen times, as most of you are seemingly incapable of thinking outside of your own ideas... or completely unable to register when things are explained to you.
I believe that anyone who wishes to be a credible martial artist of any persuasion should be able to fight
Taiji.
Kyudo.
Iaido.
Capoeira.
I can go on, but the point is that you really need to expand your idea of "credible martial artist", as well as "be able to fight".
And it's perfectly possible to test classical technique under pressure (which is different from free sparring or a comp)
True, but how that's done is not the same as you imply later.
As you and many others on this thread point out there are too many practitioners from the classical side that don't pass muster in this criteria
And, I will say one more time, you need to apply the correct metrics to assess something. Hanzou and Drop Bear have no idea what that metric is... and honestly, Dunc, I don't think you do either.
There is big difference between the objectives and context of the two which results in different techniques, different focus in training, and critically, a different mindset
This is very true... the question of carts and horses comes up, but can be left for now.
Unfortunately very few people seem to be able to appreciate the pros and cons of these differences and we seem to spend hours talking across purposes with participants staying in their respective trenches
This I disagree with. It's not talking at crossed purposes... it's one side understanding both sides, and the other not... which would be okay, if the second group had the willingness to listen to the first one. They don't.
For example I would say that for me (putting my classical hat on for a minute) martial arts are most correctly expressed by surviving a dangerous encounter
Sorry, Dunc, but to be blunt, you don't have a classical hat. The Bujinkan is not classical by a long stretch... it's barely close to traditional, to be honest. It's technical heritage has classical arts in there, but there is nothing resembling classical methodologies, pedagogy, principles, concepts, and so on... the closest is some reference to classical-concept contexts, but the understanding isn't there. It is, at the end of the day, a modern semi-traditional Japanese art (Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu).
And, again, I'm going to direct you to the above small (and thoroughly incomplete) list.
In this case the mindset (maybe strategy?) is far more important than the technique. Musashi's life story is a good example of this concept I feel
The technique is the least important aspect. The emphasis on techniques is a sports thing. As for Musashi's life being a "good example".... I think I see what you're meaning, but can you clarify?
I should "be an actual man?" Really? That's completely uncalled for, son. It's rude, and it's also pretty sexist. Look, all you have is your arrogant bluster, and the internal validation of your training. Notable that your rant above reinforces that. You seem to be stressed out about something, kiddo. Take a deep breath and come back when you're ready to act like an adult.
You're acting like a 5 year old who thinks he's being clever. So, no, telling you to be an "actual man" (ie an adult) isn't uncalled for... nor is calling you "son" for that reason. Your use of the term is just another case of you thinking you're being clever. You're not.
Err... did you read his entire temper tantrum? He cast a wide net. Honestly, though, I don't blame you for not reading it carefully. I think he's under a tremendous amount of stress or something. Acting a bit hysterical.
No, I didn't cast a "wide net", I was aiming directly at you. Oh, and for the record, telling a man to act like one (and be an adult) isn't sexist... but the term "hysterical" is.
Of course, I don't know what you think your defence is, as we see you do exactly what I've told you to stop very shortly. Which is you demonstrating my point. Again.
I agree, but would put a finer point on it. I think anyone who wishes to be a credible fighter should be able to fight.
True, but you'd need to define "credible fighter".
It's really that simple. Anyone who wishes to be credible in any complex skill set should be experienced within that skill set.
See, now this is interesting... do you consider "fighting" a complex skill set? Or are you discussing complex skills sets that can be applied in "fighting"? And, if we're going down that path, have you the first idea how complex the skill sets are in classical arts? In other words, in the context of the thread (the realities of both BJJ and classical/traditional Japanese Jujutsu), do you actually know what you're talking about....?
Really? I'm intrigued. Can you elaborate on this?
I could (and will with Dunc's reply), but I'm not sure you'd understand the words written down... you seem to have issues with that when I write them...
Personally, it's not about the differences of objective and context. It's that the two are inextricably linked (context and training objectives). Some martial arts styles have a consistent and obvious relationship between context and training objectives. Others have conflict between the two.
Example, please? And, to be clear, you would have to be able to clearly enunciate what the context and objective is in both cases, as well as demonstrate the conflict you think is there...
Where there is conflict, the skills get muddled up and people start learning things that are inconsistent from what they think they're learning.
I'm pretty sure I know what you think you're talking about (and, for the record, you don't know what you're talking about), but this pretty well describes the BJJ classes I attended, including the seminar with Royce Gracie... inconsistent, muddled, and people didn't know what they were learning... that was pretty much the end of my BJJ time.
By contrast, classical arts training is highly systematic, with each section building on previous levels, with the result of highly consistent skills and understanding. This goes from the curriculum of a school (and the way it's segmented into levels), through to the very teaching and training methodology, including how senior and junior students all interact with each other.
Styles that have a congruous objective and context build very reliable, predictable competency on a very consistent timeline.
You know, that sounds pretty much like koryu (classical arts) training...
Styles that are incongruous produce inconsistent proficiency, if at all, over a very unpredictable timeline.
And, you know, that sounds exactly like BJJ to me... after all, as the saying goes, "three years randori, three months kata"....
So you guys are more focused on situations that are more likely to happen in medieval Japan, than the modern world. Okay, but you're far more likely to be in a situation where someone is on top of you trying to turn your face into hamburger than a guy trying to attack you with a katana.
Exactly what part of "We aren't concerned with modern self defence" are you not getting?!?!? I don't give a damn what I'm likely to encounter in a street fight if I'm training a cultural art from another country and four centuries ago. Is it really this difficult for you to understand that YOUR VALUES DON'T MATTER when it comes to these arts?
I'm running out of ways to get that through to you... even when it seems like you hear what you're being told, you struggle to accept and understand it...
Aren't you offering JJJ as a method for self defense?
No.
I teach jujutsu methods in a class. I also teach modern self defence. Note the separation.
The BJJ school I attended was also offered as self defense.
The one I attended said the same thing... it was deeply lacking in many regards for that, by the way.
Actually, I got that in your first response.
Did you? Cause... it really doesn't seem like you get it even now.
My question is why do you admit that that's what you do, and then get offended when someone says that what you're doing is no different than dressing up as a knight at a renaissance faire?
My god, you really are unable to listen to what you're being told, aren't you? I get offended because that is precisely NOT what it is, your description is reductive and deeply inaccurate, it is used to imply a number of highly inaccurate stereotypes, and is the equivalent of saying that someone who joins the police force is the same as someone who dresses up as Batman for Halloween.
I heartily recommend you stop.
See, if you'd actually had classical training, you might see the issues with Steve's descriptions there...
You can develop and test pretty much any technique with specific sparring and safety gear
You can, but it's not the most common (or even a particularly common) method of testing classical techniques... more commonly, we break the kata... but for me to explain that, a proper understanding of kata would be required first (that's to everyone, Dunc, not you).
You do have to triangulate around it a bit for safety. eg spar the set up of a dangerous throw, but don’t complete it, then spar the situation when you’ve yet to stabilise the position after the throw, add counters and various adaptions to the exercise and so on
Yeah... that's just drilling, really. To do that in sparring is... problematic, as you typically will almost never actually end up "sparring" it in any meaningful or accurate way... certainly not in any way that genuinely tests the technique. And that said, this is just a technique approach... which is kinda base level, honestly.
In principle this is the same way we train at my BJJ academy
Oh, I know....
Well my values are valid they just are not shared by you.
Oh, for Frith's sake and the love of el Hah-Hrairhah... one more time?
YOUR VALUES ARE MEANINGLESS WHEN LOOKING AT A SYSTEM WHICH DOESN'T USE OR APPLY YOUR VALUES.
It's that simple. Yes, your values are valid. They may even be shared by me in certain ways. But that's not the point. The point is that applying your values to classical arts, where they are simply not a factor at all. Insisting that they be used to measure and adjudicate arts that don't have the first interest in such values and metrics is just being bloody-minded ignorant and arrogant. If your values and those of classical martial arts don't match, it's pretty simple. Don't train in classical martial arts. If your values match BJJ or MMA or tennis or whiffleboard or crochet or stamp collecting or whatever, do that! This is the point from the first page... BJJ is not replacing classical jujutsu, because it's a completely different set of values... both valid, and both good, but not the same. The values of a steak house and a vegan restaurant doesn't mean that one is better than the other, use that they suit different people with different values.
Please tell me you get this by now.
The value of practical application of martial arts being the ability to make someone do what they don't want to and prevent someone from doing that to you. Is a very common martial arts value.
But needs to be understood in context. The context of that ability in Aikido is very different to the way it's engendered in TKD, which is different to Olympic fencing or boxing or MMA or BJJ or classical swordsmanship.
And so I want to learn stuff that ultimately works from people who are tried and tested making it work.
Great. So?
The thing is that you're looking for what you believe works in what you believe is the context for application, which is incredibly far from the totality.
This is self defence this is industry training this is sport or games. Anything really where you might want to use this skill in almost any context.
Well, each of those are different contexts, and the application is not the same... there can be (and often is) some cross-over, but each of those are not the same thing...
Now there is no evidence of practical application in your system.
No, there's plenty of evidence... just not the kind you are looking for. Nor, to be blunt, the kind you would understand or appreciate. And that's okay... unless you keep insisting that your idea of evidence is the only one that counts. It's not. It's barely evidence in most cases.
And you are suggesting that you don't value practical application so therefore makes it comparable.
No, we value practical application within the context of the skills and art... I have no idea what you are talking about with regards to "makes it comparable"... comparable to what?
But if I can value what I want.
Yes. You can. No-one is stopping you. All I'm saying is that your values aren't universal, they aren't the only ones that matter, and they aren't the only ones that should apply.
Then I could be a traditional Japanese master of martial arts as well. Because I don't have to value tradition or Japanese culture or martial arts. And now we sit on equal standing both of us masters of traditional martial arts according to our own values.
Are you completely deranged? Seriously?
No, you cannot be a "traditional Japanese master of martial arts" if you don't value anything even close to it... I am at a complete loss as to how on earth the misfiring synapses in your brain are even trying to say there....
And we are nowhere near on equal standing. On pretty much anything.
The issue is people with no martial arts survive dangerous encounters. So is martial arts having an effect at all? or is this expression of martial arts purely luck?
Or, to put it another way, is surviving dangerous encounters really the major reason for training martial arts?
Many sports martial artists have a grounding in self defense.
I would dispute that. In fact, I'd suggest that many self defence experts have groundings in sports arts... and often see past their limitations, which is why they move on beyond them.
So the cross purposes there are not necessarily as crossed as people would like to believe.
Here's the biggest problem with the way you post, DB... there's little to no context to what you're saying. This is a vague half-statement that, really, means nothing (admittedly, it's spurred by another largely context-deficient comment, but that's almost besides the point)... without defining what these "crossed purposes" are, we don't even have an argument being made here.
So for example we had a group from integrated martial arts in the Sunshine Coast come up for the weekend. Now they are sport guys. But one of those guys runs a security company, another trains all their bouncers, half those guys bounce and regularly fight people. I have bounced i have regularly fought people.
I am going to a seminar this weekend and the guy who trains the Australian army in self defense will be there.
So when we discuss context I do have a deep pool of practical experience in self defense to draw from.
No, you don't. You have a relative pool of fighting to draw from. These are not the same thing. And really, bouncing and fighting aren't the same thing either... unless you're not overly good at it...
Otherwise what form of pressure testing do you feel is credible? And can you find a video?
Are you incapable of recognising other forms of evidence?
Because for me fully resisted with intent is the best test. And MMA is about the best mechanic for that test.
Again, great. So? Means nothing in this context at all.
So for example. Say I wanted to drill a handbag snatch. I could do that with the MMA mechanic. And I feel I would get more realistic feedback than any other method.
You could, and you may feel that. It doesn't make it true in any sense other than it validates your beliefs... which could be at least in part because you're expecting it to. But again, this is meaningless. You like the methods of MMA? Great! Do MMA. You don't like (or appreciate or understand) the methods of classical arts? Who cares? Don't do them.
Your values work for you, and you find things that match them. It doesn't mean that things that don't match your values are valueless.
Or an opinioned sceptic. Which kind of sound the same.
To be clear, you're not an "opinioned sceptic", you're an opinionated ignoramus. And, to be clear, I'm meaning that accurately... you are highly opinionated about things you are even more ignorant of.
At the end of the day BJJ does work functionally better than a lot of systems.
Within it's context.
We don't have to like it. We don't have to participate in it but that is just the case.
Self-perpetuating beliefs and self-supporting case-studies aren't always the total story... in fact, they rarely are...
For MMA, I do a different version which is colloquially known as wrestle jitsu. And I feel that tweek is more in tune with self defence because it prioritises stand ups and striking defence.
How do you feel that makes it more "in tune with self defence" (whatever that means)?
But I still can't beat or escape from a really good BJJ guy.
Tried pulling a gun on him? Or a knife? When he doesn't know it's there? Getting in your car before he catches hold of you? Spitting in his eye? Asking him for the time and sucker punching him before anything starts? Having friends come along with baseball bats and crowbars?
Get the idea of different contexts yet?
And we could do tests and find evidence. We could put other systems in to a cage with a top BJJ guy and see what happens. And most systems would come up short.
That might defend on what you let that system bring into the cage with them...
So to suggest BJJ is some objectively better system isn't really wrong.
It is, however, the false argument to make.
I'm going to take this back to the first post. The question is if BJJ is "replacing" traditional/classical jujutsu. Not if it's better. Not if it suits MMA more. Not if it wins more tournaments. Not if its' the bestest of the bestest of all the most bestest of ground systems (there's virtually no ground work in classical jujutsu, by the way). Is it "replacing" classical jujutsu. And the answer is that it isn't. BJJ might be the more prevalent image in popular imagination, but that doesn't mean classical jujutsu has gone anywhere... it's never been the popular image anyway. There are lots of BJJ schools around, but that doesn't mean that classical jujutsu schools have gone... they've always been small, and largely private, with small memberships. In fact, today, there are more members of these old schools and more branch dojos in Japan and outside of it than there was 30 years ago. So is BJJ replacing Japanese jujutsu? Not in the slightest. They just aren't the same thing.
I think that you're describing good training. But you'd still need to apply the skills somehow. Look at it this way. You train BJJ. Right? Not every BJJ practitioner is going to be able to fight effectively on the street. But every BJJ practitioner will know how good they are at BJJ. I mean, like the folks who are bad at it will know they're bad at it. The ones who are good at it will know how good... and relative to whom. The ones who compete are going to progress faster and get more (and more helpful) feedback. The ones who compete in various competitive rule sets (IBJJF, Sub-only, MMA, etc), will be even more well rounded and skilled. And at the end of the day, the ones who fight will know they can fight. And equally as important, the ones who can't fight will know it.
Absent the usage of competition for a form of feedback, what makes you think this is that different to other arts and approaches? Do you really think that "application" only means one thing? And do you really think that such a potentially haphazard approach to skill development is really "good training"? Or only for those who start to develop skills, due to some innate talent? Wouldn't it be better training if it could get everyone to a particular skill level consistently, so no-one had to know that they were "bad"?
Absent application, we have guys who think they're experts in things because they've trained in some other thing for a long time. For example, 30 years of training in ninjutsu, even with a self defense "orientation" doesn't make you a self defense expert. It makes you a ninjutsu expert who may or may not have any useful self defense skill at all.
Yeah, that's you being a child again, Steve.
I'm going to say this one more time. You don't have the first clue what my training is, nor do you have the first clue what self defence actually entails, as a subject. Nor do you have the foggiest idea what methods are used to test and develop skill and understanding in the field. You have, in fact, admitted this multiple times.
You have insinuated again and again that my "ninjutsu" background, as it's a non-competitive one, is inferior to a sporting approach, with absolutely no idea what I do (for the record, Dunc is a Bujinkan guy... you know those videos you guys don't like? That's his group, not mine... but more to the point, you're insulting him at the same time). You have insinuated that I couldn't have developed anything close to usable skills by training in this art. Again, insulting to far more than just me.
I have pointed out that we test the skills, that we have methods of testing them, that we use forms of free-form training and scenario training (strategic and tactical based free-response training... think of it like sparring, but with both sides doing different things), and more. I have pointed out that my background also includes a number of sporting systems, including BJJ, boxing, karate, TKD, and Judo, as well as aikido, a variety of koryu arts (jujutsu and weapon systems), Wing Chun, and more, which you ignore. You insinuate that close to 30 years of study and training in RBSD methods (Reality Based Self Defence) doesn't make anyone any kind of expert, or grant any expertise, as you simply don't understand what any of those terms mean in this context.
You have tried to then belittle my education, training, and skills (that you have exactly no clue about, and ignore constantly) by saying that that there needs to be some kind of experience aspect. You ignore the way experience is gained in this field, as you don't understand it, and ignore my experience in sparring systems and competitive systems with no basis. You insist on "self defence experience", of which I have given examples of de-escalation, avoidance, awareness (these are really the primary skills of self defence, by the way), as well as physical encounters I have had, including straight out assaults, as well as a group assault. I have told you about my teacher's real life encounters, including ones with firearms, domestic violence situations, and so on. I have related cases of my students being successful in applying skills learnt with me in muggings, knife-encounters, and assaults. And still you ignore all of this, as it contradicts your narrative about me.
Consistently using 'hypotheticals" that match exactly what I've said shows that this is an issue you have with me, and are unable or unwilling to accept any facts that contradict your biased and delusional ideas. So I say again... grow the hell up. And recognise that you don't know what you're talking about.
By my own set of values. I don't need 30 years. I am a ninjitsu expert now. And a self defense expert.
I mean there is no objective measurement. Just a subjective one.
Are you just a complete idiot? Okay, I know that's kinda the line, but.... what the hell are you talking about? Your "values" are just you deciding your reality... literally all this says is that you don't know what values are, and think it means you can be utterly delusional.
Yeah I think we agree
So I train in a BJJ academy that puts a lot of focus on specific sparring. ie training specific situations and techniques under pressure with people trying to make your life difficult. I believe this is where you develop skill at techniques
What makes that different to graduated drilling? In other words, what makes that sparring instead?
Free sparring isn’t the best way to learn specific skills, for me at least it’s an opportunity to learn how to bring people into my game and to get me exposed to different/new situations
That's a fair way to approach it, I'd say.
So for martial arts that have techniques that are, by their nature, highly likely to break/injure your partners I find that it’s perfectly possible to develop practical skill with these techniques by training them with both drills and specific sparring
Yeah, from a classical perspective, or even from my modern one, I'd just class that as graduated drilling... not sparring.
So at least a classical martial artist can, in my view, develop the practical skills to be able to fight using their system without having to rely purely on theory
Who says we rely purely on theory?
I'm going to be as clear as I can be here. At no point whatsoever has any classical practitioner suggested that things are taken on face-value "because teacher said so". At no point whatsoever has any classical practitioner suggested we operate "purely on theory". At no point whatsoever has any classical practitioner suggested that we don't develop practical skills, or that we are not concerned with our skills being practical. All we have said and suggested is that the practicality is within the context of the art itself... and that means the idea of modern situations and contexts aren't really much of a concern.
That doesn’t necessarily make them, or any other martial artist, a self defence expert
Let's be clear... this whole "self defence expert" thing is a rather sad bugbear of Steve's that dates back years, when he put up a thread arguing that there was no such things as a self defence expert, as no one could have experience in self defence, and was then told over and over that he was incorrect in pretty much all cases, and somehow he's latched it all onto me. No-one brought up the idea of "self defence experts" except Steve as another insinuation against myself (here and in numerous other threads), no-one claimed anything regarding being a "self defence expert" other than Steve attributing it baselessly. The only time I've said that I am one is in relation to his woeful lack of understanding of the topic.
In other words, it's a non-topic for this thread (and pretty much every time Steve introduces it), please don't feed it. I'm sick of it, and he can't get past it.
Yeah. This dynamic is a weird one for me and rings back to Tony's idea of traditional archery.
Can you expand on that? What about his comment on traditional archery are you referring to?
Ultimately if you have your fundamentals right it shouldn't matter that much. If I am some sort of spear master of some ancient system. It should practically translate to say fending a hatchet welding home invader off with a broomstick or something.
You might not say that if you actually were trained in sojutsu.... jodo, sure... sojutsu? I'm not so confident that that's a huge benefit there...
But the validity of spear mastery kind of sits in the same place as everything else. In that you should be better at it than everyone else.
And exactly what would make you think that that would not be the case? I'm really unsure what your argument is........
I think though there is a disconnect here. So someone is a master of an ancient spear system and looks confused at you when you ask if he can fight with it.
What? Who's looking at you confused? What we say is that we're not expecting or training to fight in the street with one... not that we can't fight with it... I really don't think you get what you're arguing about...
And that becomes the difference in values.
The difference in values is you're looking for something you think applies in one context, and we're looking for something that applies in another context. That's... page one stuff here. Are you just catching up now?
And probably a really important difference to nut out before you spend ten years learning spear off the guy.
What?!?!
Eg fencing. Does being a master at fencing make you better than everyone else who just throws on a mask and grabs a sword?
Are you really asking if training in fencing makes you a better fencer than someone who isn't a fencer?!?!? What??!?! Is training in the thing something that develops skill in the thing? Well... yes. Isn't that your argument for BJJ? That training in BJJ makes you better at BJJ?
Dude... what are you talking about?
Because there are basic concepts that translate to other activities.
And there are concepts that are contextual.
It is like saying if I can run fast then I should be able to run away from an attacker.
Not if your feet are tied. Or you panic and run into a wall. Or trip as you're not used to the adrenaline dump. Or you freeze. Or you're trapped in a dead-end alley. Or they're holding your friend hostage. Or you'd be abandoning your partner to danger. Or any of a hundred other reasons.
The point is that it's contextual as well... and would rely, in a number of cases, on properly training how to run away from an attack. Could you still manage to run away without that training? Sure. But it's not a given, and is dependent on a lot more than being able to run fast.
It is more of an observation rather than a requirement.
Except you don't know what you're observing, or what the requirements are.
And.
They are fighting with that. Hopefully they are better than any random who picks up a stick.
You think those are sticks....?
Except BJJ deals with multiple circumstances, not just someone on top of you. The thing is (and Drop Bear discussed this) the training bleeds into multiple circumstances which actually makes your overall training more effective. For example, in the video showing the leg-lock style of BJJ, the leg lock entries that can be used for the ground were also used for sweeping a standing opponent, or an opponent on top. While standing, those leg lock entries were also used for multiple types of takedowns. What makes this all the more effective is that these were done against resisting opponents, some of whom were much larger than the Bjj practitioner.
Those aren't multiple circumstances, it's a variety of applications within the same context. And honestly, still quite limited. As well as being a bit lacking if that's a particular physical skill worked on before it's adapted to other areas, and before, as you say below, their "standard BJJ toolkit"....
I'll put it this way. One very famous classical sword art (well, a sogobujutsu ryu-ha, really) can be looked at as essentially one cut.
That's it. One cut. One single action. One movement of a sword.
And from that movement, you get all the various ways of using a sword in that system. As well as all the ways of using a short sword. And the ways of using a staff. And the ways of using two swords. And the ways of using a naginata. And a spear. And unarmed. And throwing spikes.
Another art, a classical jujutsu system, which in some forms has between 80 and 120-odd kata (techniques). And they can all be reduced to the basic movement of the system, which is to rotate your arms in a circle, inside to out, and outside to in (there's obviously more to it than that, but at it's heart, that's it). That art deals with grip escapes, locks, pins, throws, strikes, chokes, defences against short swords and long swords, seated techniques, standing techniques, and methods of using short sticks.
Another can be understood by extending the opponent's balance by forcing them to act on the outside of their arms reach. Again, some 130-plus techniques, dealing with an even wider variety of techniques than the above listed one.
This is how you have a basic principle that applies to different situations and circumstances. Not "oh, we can do leg locks from anywhere!". We don't concern ourselves with doing the same thing from anywhere, we work on one thing that can be done against anything.
Essentially what you end up with is a fighter who can snap your legs from multiple entry points and positions, and that is a very potent self defense.
No, it's actually not.
This is on top of their standard Bjj tool kit of chokes, upper body locks, throws, etc. Knowledge of positional dominance and control easily bleeds itself into multiple purposes.
Sigh.... and, one (hopefully) last time.... what on earth makes you think that's even close to unique to BJJ? I will say, though, that it seems not to bleed any further than the limited physical expressions...
Oh, and by the way, that's essentially a tactical approach... if you're saying "knowledge of", then you're doing it wrong.
This.
IMO, this is the basic idea behind good MA training (where that training isn't meant to focus on a single context). You want to train principles that you can use in situations you haven't really worked on. Working those principles in a variety of situations helps. BJJ, from what I've seen and heard, tends to do a good job with that - it's part of the reason they can so easily bring in new techniques when they find them elsewhere.
Yep. Except that's not what Hanzou is describing... see my list of examples for more what you're discussing... which is, for the record, exactly how classical arts are designed, structured, and applied...
Okay, that was a bit long... this is why I didn't go back to cover the 20 pages of, honestly, pointless discussion of completely misunderstood ideas.
