PDA

View Full Version : Contemporary Arts Stripped of Principals and Applications



Charlie Kondek
18th September 2002, 20:03
Hi, all. Me n' Cady were talking in another thread, when these comments, from Cady, came up. I asked her if she could elaborate on them, as I think I disagree (but am not sure til I know more, and at any rate could use some food for thought). We agreed to start a separate thread rather than hijack the previous one. So without further ado, Cady wrote:

"...contemporary arts have largely removed the principles (and their applications) that made certain arts more sophisticated. Judo, while it has effective techniques within its repertoire, was stripped of combat jujutsu principles and applications in order to sportify it...

"Being introduced to a koryu that maintains all of its martial principles, can be a genuine eye-opener. It makes you aware of what is lacking in even in some of the best gendai systems."

Principals? Applications?

elder999
18th September 2002, 20:57
The sad fact, in the case of judo or “modern”/gaijin/goshin jutsu –jujutsu forms, is that priniciples are often lost. The same has been found to be true in various other forms of martial arts. While this is often attributable to “sportification,” all too often it was the result of a focus on a particular aspect (competition/sport) that lead to this.
In the case of judo, while the Koshiki no Kata are still part of the judo curriculum, very few instructors teach them or require them; indeed, for a martial art/sport with such a well catalogued syllabus as judo, the requirements for each rank vary from dojo to dojo, association to association, and country to country. As for the Koshiki no Kata, or “Forms of Antiquity,” I believe it has often been disregarded because of its relation to koryu principles and applications. Because the forms are intended for grappling in armour,
it is essential that one practice them with the feel of wearing heavy armour-or wearing armour, both of which are rather difficult. Dr. Kano preserved these techniques because of the principles they embody, but they have been disgarded by many for irrelevance.
Anyone who is fortunate enough to have experience with them knows that not only are the principles relevant, but only has to wear restrictive clothing, such as a three-piece suit, to see how practical they can be.
The same can found to be true in many other martial arts/sports and even in the practice of some koryu, not only because of simple disregard, but often because the applications and principles have been lost or untransmitted in that particular line.

Question:"Why do we do it that way, Sensei?"
Answer: "Because we do." or "Because we always have" or, if you're lucky,"I don't know."

How many applications/principles are embodied in simple gestures/salutes/foot placement/steps/head turns in your art? Does your instructor point them out?
If not, are they truly lost, or merely there waiting to be rediscovered, either through other instruction, insight or personal experience.
I'd say I agree and disagree. The principles and applications that formed judo are still present, it becomes a question of focus and quality of instruction/knowledge/insight.The same could be said about the bunkai of various karate kata, or even the way that one bows.

Charlie Kondek
18th September 2002, 21:17
Thanks for chiming in, elder. I will abstain from further comment until Cady and some others get to jump in here. By the way, I refer you also to an article by Kim Taylor in www.ejmas.com under the Physical Training section entitled "Why koryu? Does rare really matter?" I quote in part:

"Learning a koryu means learning from a very small set of potential instructors, a tiny bit at a time (unless you actually live near one of the instructors in which case it makes sense to study it). It means that most of the time you aren't learning a damned thing, and what you aren't learning much about, isn't all that different from other, much more readily available arts."

Brently Keen
18th September 2002, 22:05
I have to agree with Cady here.

With one caveat, not all koryu are bastions of principles and applications - I'd wager that many koryu practiced today are merely shells of what they once were - some may still have such knowledge, but they aren't taught and/or passed down openly or explicitly to foreign, or long distance students. In many cases the "secrets" may only be shared within an "exclusive inner group", or among more advanced/senior practitioners, or perhaps in some cases only to the designated successor.

Personally I'd interpret Kim Taylor's comments to either reflect his own personal experience of such koryu, or take it as a dissuasive attempt to discourage the hordes from coming to learn koryu - perhaps a traditional/purists attempt to keep the koryu arts smaller and less defiled by the masses(?).

Brently Keen

Cady Goldfield
19th September 2002, 00:14
What Brently said. I didn't mean to imply that koryu somehow have, across-the-board, maintained some awesomely high level of sophistication and practicality. Nor that all practitioners of any koryu are somehow up there in the stratosphere of skill and knowledge.

My only thought was that after experiencing old arts that still follow a mokuroku containing the origional curriculum, it became quite evident how much was pared away in order to modernize combat arts into judo, karate and kendo.

Neil Hawkins
19th September 2002, 01:52
I have to say that I don't think that the practice of shaving away techniques from the curriculum stopped with Koryu Schools. With todays trend toward CQC and 'effective' self-defense there are many instructors taking what they learnt from respectable gendai schools and simplifying, streamlining and 'practicalising' it for the masses. I saw an add in a magazine awhile ago for 'Combat Karate', "in six weeks you too can learn the real self defense hidden behind the katas and competitions."

Many people that are in the business of martial arts, rather than the experience of martial arts, are doing what it takes to increase revenues and if that means finally discarding the trappings of karate or judo and making it look like something they think W.E. Fairbairn or Rex Applegate would have done, so be it.

What's more, I think there is already a group of 'gendai snobs' who are seeking to maintain the purity of their arts.

To paraphrase Harry Chapin, all of life's a circle.

Regards

Neil

Charlie Kondek
19th September 2002, 13:56
Again, I say, interesting.

Can we talk a bit more about the paring down process? Can we bring up examples? I'd still like to hear, specifically, what principals have been discarded, what applications.

I think, in re: Kim Taylor's comments, part of his discouragement was for people studying koryu in the west or at any rate apart from the instructor, where they can only learn a little bit at a time. But the rest of the article also suggests there isn't anything in koryu that can't be found in gendai, in the writer's view (and it was focused more on swordsmanship), unless I am mis-reading Mr. Taylor.

Interesting about "gendai snobs!" But you're right. "Modern combatives" can be just as exclusive, I think.

Cady Goldfield
19th September 2002, 15:37
Charlie,

It's mainly the things that can seriously and easily maim or kill someone that were removed. Joint dislocations, neck and back-breaking moves, certain seizing, upper- and lower- body-controling methodologies, along with strategic and tactical principles the sole purpose of which are to kill or cause serious injury.

Think of it this way: Would you want those things in an art that was to be used for sporting competition? Look at how potentially lethal the remaining techniques are in good judo -- the chokes and strangles, pins and throws. You can't keep lethal methods in an art meant for "non-warrior" purposes.

This is true for kendo as well. If you have an opportunity to view tapes of Otake Risuge (and his sons and senior students) of the Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto-ryu, or of Donn Draeger, and compare them to good kendo practioners, you will get some idea of the difference between combat and sport methodologies. Both are great, but both are forms that are meant to serve different purposes.

Charlie Kondek
19th September 2002, 16:03
Okay, now I see where you're going. I have no experience in koryu jujutsu, so I have a hard time imagining what these techniques might be like. Also, from your description of them, they could only be practiced in kata, eh? (Very, very carefully!) Is this that "something extra" or "it" that koryu practitioners say is in their training, that separates them from gendai arts?

I have some experience in this with kendo/iaido in my background and you'll get no argument from me there*, but am less experienced in judo. I think I'm going to have to take your word for it on these different techniques/principals, unless you can give me some specific examples. And I hope you can! Are there really back-breaking techniques? I had begun to think such things were exaggerated. Also, strategically, what's different? ("Win the competition" vs. "kill the opponent?" But aren't they so similar as to be nearly indistinguishable?)

Also, I should remind us, though others would do this better and you're probably already aware of it, that judo was not intended as sport, but as a safe way of practicing jujutsu randori. So to say it was pared down for sport is slightly incorrect. Question: Don't some of these koryu techniques still exist in the wider judo curriculum?


*However, I still maintain that kendo or some kind of "sword randori" is necessary to create a "total package" of swordsmanship.

Cady Goldfield
19th September 2002, 16:45
Charlie,

It's not my place to discuss principles here. Maybe if some of my seniors have more freedom to do so, they will. However, I can recommend that you get a hold of some good articles. I'll make a short list for you and post it here. If you subscribe to Stan Pranin's Aikido Journal, there is a lot of substance there, and if you have an enquiring mind, you'll learn a lot about judo, jujutsu and koyru (oh yeah, and aikido too!).

It's better to observe for oneself, rather than to be told and expected to accept everything on faith. Don't take my word for anything. Read and get out there and observe.

Meanwhile, as I said before, there is very good judo. You want good judo? Here's good judo:

http://www.onlinesports.com/pages/I,CEN-18712.html

:)

But I'm afraid that you won't see anyone like Mifune around again, any time soon.

elder999
19th September 2002, 16:49
As a first, there often was a sort of "sword randori" with bokken. People often were crippled or died.

As for your statement about judo, you're correct, which was really part of my original point: many of the throws in the judo gokkyo are part of koryu syllabi, and many of those throws only require slight modification to be used with their original intention: to drop the opponent on his head. A few of them have hidden atemi: yama arashi and koshi guruma, for example, both have applications that result in the potentially fatal injury of the opponent before he is thrown.While Ms. Goldfield is somewhat correct in her view that many of these techniques have been pared away due to a focus on competition/sport aspects, the fact is that many, by no means all, of the very principles she speaks of and applications she speaks of cannot help but be embodied in the techniques, even if they are practiced without their original intent.

Mike Williams
19th September 2002, 17:48
OK, we've heard about judo, and shotokan karate.

Can I ask - what about gendai jujutsu? Do modern forms of jujutsu contain the same principles and techs. found in Koryu?

Just as a for instance, many modern JJ styles look pretty much like judo with additional atemi (i.e. strike to create kuzushi, and grip the body rather than the gi).

Certainly the British post-war styles (in general) seem to be based on judo, with the addition of some WWII combatives, some Catch wrestling, some karate, and some general 'streetfighting' nastiness (plus things like scissoring leg throws, leg locks, standing wrist locks and pressure points - the origins of which I'm unsure of)

Although mainly taught in two-man kata form, in our club, a lot of the 'dangerous' techs (spine locks & wind chokes, for instance) are permitted in randori, too.

Somebody might be able to correct me on this, but I don't think any of it is Koryu derived - but I suspect a lot of it looks similar. Or is what I have described 'old-style' judo?

Thoughts? I'd be fascinated to hear more about the relationships (if any) between the koryu and gendai arts.

Perhaps, if it's mainly about principles (aiki) it might be easier to first establish what they have in common, before discussing the differences?

Cheers,

Mike

Cady Goldfield
19th September 2002, 18:01
Aaron wrote: While Ms. Goldfield is somewhat correct in her view that many of these techniques have been pared
away due to a focus on competition/sport aspects, the fact is that many, by no means all, of the very principles she speaks of and applications she speaks of cannot help but be embodied in the techniques, even if they are practiced without their original intent.

Aaron,

That said, I invoked the spirit of Mifune to point out what Kano wanted judo to be.

elder999
19th September 2002, 19:02
Well said, Cady!

Mike: My journey through this very question has been a lifelong one. I started out in tae kwon do as a child of 11, and only after attaining a black belt and being exposed to shorin-ryu, and other forms of karate did I really start to question why we did certain things a certain way, only to find out that what I had been told was just not "the" truth.
My journey through judo, modern jujutsu and koryu jujutsu has been similar. Just as an example, I practice(d)a modern jujutsu form in which we execute(d) a sort of half-zarei, or kneeling bow, in which one goes to a single knee and places one hand on the floor. It was not until subsequent study of the koryu that my teacher had studied for a short time that I understood that this bow was meant for samurai in the field wearing armor, who would often have a difficult time rising from a full kneeling bow. Close to 12 years of simply calling it a "jujutsu bow," without understanding its true significance!(Never mind what I was told...)
So who knows....
Without actually seeing them or a non-western name, it would be difficult at best to determine any origin to the techniques you describe, let alone ascribe them to koryu.Do not forget that techniques are limited/determined by the design of the human body. Many similar techniques exist in fighting arts around the world, from Southeast Asia to the Russian Steppes to the Middle East and so on..there are only so many ways to turn a wrist or lock a joint.While probably not from koryu, as you say, it is also just as unlikely, though not impossible, that they were derived from Silat or Chin-Na or even Greco-Roman wrestling.
Of course, many modern jujutsu styles were derived by judo practitioners with no exposure to true Japanese jujutsu,who added karate techniques and/or aikido techniques and called them "atemi" or"whatever" waza. Some, such as the Yoshitsune-waza of the DePasquale's or Pereira's Miyama-ryu, were created by men who had a wide experience in the fighting arts, including jujutsu, though to many might question the depth of that knowledge in certain realms.
Others were formed in what is historially a jujutsu tradition, in that they resulted from the founder's study of koryu and insight, Hakko-ryu being a good example of this, at its inception, anyway.

Nonetheless, I'll stick to the position that if they are judo OR koryu derived they cannot help but embody at least a measure of their original principles and applications, even without their "founder's" knowledge of them.

Charlie Kondek
19th September 2002, 21:44
Aaron, you wrote: "[At] first, there often was a sort of 'sword randori' with bokken. People often were crippled or died."

Right! That's why the shinai and bogu were developed. Over time, and especially due to the new atmosphere after WW II, kendo drifted more toward sport, but I maintain that it still has close ties to its kenjutsu forbears. It's not "a game of tag with sticks" by any means. Also, as I have often pointed out, the kendo community encourages all of its practitioners to cross-train in both shinai kendo and iaido and, if possible, kenjutsu, for the total package. Or, as the saying goes, they are all wheels on the same cart.

Cady, thanks again. You can't expound on the priciples because you are not an instructor, or because the principles are supposed to be kept only within the family of the ryu?

I think perhaps this is something I'll never be able to really "get" from the internet. Common opinion among modern combatives and gendai crowd is that koryu are cool and we must give props but koryu are not as combat effective as modern stuff (although there are exceptions) - this is a big paraphrase. Your position is the opposite. I have heard modern's argument and experienced some of it, am interested in the other side, and not sure I'll ever "get it." Right now, I'm leaning toward the modern's point of view but want to be educated on the other side.

Still, I hope this thread keeps going. I mean, it boils down to:

"Koryu is more combat effective cuz it ain't sport."

"No it's not, cuz y'all don't randori."

"Sometimes we do. Plus, lookit these wrist locks."

"Man, that don't work as well as a double-leg takedown."

"Does too."

"Does not..."

We're much to mature for that, though! Would like to continue to hear more informed opinions, specific ideas. Thanks for good discussion so far!

Charlie Kondek
19th September 2002, 21:53
P.S. Here's a thread where this very thing was discussed quite a bit already ("What if a koryu entered an NHB match?")...

http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=2214&highlight=koryu

Brently Keen
19th September 2002, 22:10
"Perhaps, if it's mainly about principles (aiki) it might be easier to first establish what they have in common, before discussing the differences?"

I'm not sure why you followed principles with "aiki" in parentheses - I don't equate principles with aiki. Aiki is based upon principles, as is everything else of substance but principles are not aiki.

It's not just about principles, or lethal techniques, it's also about kihon, okuden, history, mindset, philosophy, the method of training and transmitting the tradition, and the way the arts are systematized and taught/trained as a comprehensive whole. It's also about the way the techniques are actually done, and the why and how the techniques are done the way they're done. It's also about the different purposes and objectives for the creation and practice of the arts (imo).

As for most gendai jujutsu, I agree it's all pretty much deriving from judo with other bits of karate, aikido and what not thrown in. Of the modern systems (especially the non-Japanese ones) that I've seen, most are a real hodge-podge, usually stripped down, and much less-precise - some are effective for self-defense and/or competition - but still remain as shadows of their precursor arts (imo). Probably most people practicing these arts have absolutely no idea how ineffective the techniques/methods are that they're learning - even the supposed lethal pressure points, spine locks, chokes, etc... It's all highly relative. Now before everyone flames me - there are certainly exceptions, I'm making sweeping generalizations here and I'm not insinuating any particular modern systems or styles (so if the shoe don't fit...).

Brently Keen

Cady Goldfield
19th September 2002, 23:57
Originally posted by Charlie Kondek
Cady, thanks again. You can't expound on the priciples because you are not an instructor, or because the principles are supposed to be kept only within the family of the ryu?

Both. I've had my butt pan-fried and handed back to me on several occasions for the latter reason. :)


I think perhaps this is something I'll never be able to really "get" from the internet. Common opinion among modern combatives and gendai crowd is that koryu are cool and we must give props but koryu are not as combat effective as modern stuff (although there are exceptions) - this is a big paraphrase. Your position is the opposite. I have heard modern's argument and experienced some of it, am interested in the other side, and not sure I'll ever "get it." Right now, I'm leaning toward the modern's point of view but want to be educated on the other side.

Still, I hope this thread keeps going. I mean, it boils down to:

"Koryu is more combat effective cuz it ain't sport."

"No it's not, cuz y'all don't randori."

"Sometimes we do. Plus, lookit these wrist locks."

"Man, that don't work as well as a double-leg takedown."

"Does too."

"Does not..."

We're much to mature for that, though! Would like to continue to hear more informed opinions, specific ideas. Thanks for good discussion so far!

That has a Monty Pythonesque flavor to it. :laugh:

Going back to comments written earlier (and on other threads), just because a koryu is old, doesn't mean that it contains a completely valid curriculum or is "effective" for a multitude of purposes, ancient or modern. Nor does it mean that its practitioners today could prevail over a gendai artist. Again (ad nauseum), a superior practitioner of a simple art can easily trump a mediocre or poor practitioner of a sophisticated one.

OTOH, there are some mighty fine koryu (such as TSKSR and Takenouchi-ryu) and direct descendants of koryu (and certain existing schools of Daito-ryu) that not only have a spectacular curriculum full of brilliant principle, applications and strategy, they also have modernday practitioners who are as brilliant as the art they practice.

The above mentioned older arts came from root combat technologies that were thought out, survived trial and error, and had their principles, strategies and tactics refined over the course of centuries and molded to fit the circumstances of the day and where they were to be applied. Then, as they evolved into the classical koryu, they were refined further still.

Then, along come the modern days, in which the culture and society is turned upside down, martial intent is looked down upon, and -- through political pressure -- new arts are modified from the ancestral ones. Keep in mind that during the Meiji restoration and into the Taisho era, there was great pressure to demartialize the martial arts, come up with group physical fitness regimens, sports that would generate national pride in the world arena, and allow Japan to move toward a more Western approach to pedagogy.

Hence, Kano's judo and Funakoshi's karate were both commissioned and established as paradigms for the newly formed Japanese society, post-Edo.

Lethal technique and sophisticated "internal" methods that took years to learn, were not part of that paradigm. Fitness, self-defense (a very different thing than combat) and group activity were. The emperor didn't want combat-able warriors who could unseat his rule, but he did want to engender a sense of unity and national pride in his subjects.

So, the gendai arts were modeled to suit that purpose. I don't believe that Kano was too happy to bury his best jujutsu stuff, but he conceded that times had changed and that it was time for new art forms to replace the bloody combat arts of the past.

Since that time, as the Japanese arts have become more popular around the world than they are in Japan, independent practitioners of some of the gendai arts have often been frustrated by something they felt was missing from their art. Some deserve credit for having researched these shortcomings and found the origins of their particular system, and having spent years trying to replace the missing principles elements.

In other cases, practioners, not knowing what else to do, have tried many different arts and then pieced them together into a "Frankenstein martial art," (or "chicken soup/stew" art, as a friend of mine calls them). A little of this, a little of that, trying to fill in the gaps. What most end up with, though, are non-systems with no common thread of physical or martial principles in them.


I'm sure you've heard of arts that claim to be "8 systems in 1" and "A complete system derived from Tai chi, Taekwondo, Kempo and Kendo!"

Anyway, I've rambled long enough with no point in sight. ;)

I'm still working on the recommended reading list, which I'm sure others can contribute to mightily (Hoping Joe Svinth -- my bibliographical hero -- will show up). But, the first stops anyone makes in finding factual history about koryu, is at koryu.com -- Meik and Diane Skoss's site. A stop at Stanley Pranin's Aikido Journal site is on the route, too. And if you can, get a copy of his book, "Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu: Conversations with Daito-ryu Masters."

20th September 2002, 00:07
As far as Judo goes there are still some people here in Japan that teach the "old style" Judo with all the "nasty" applications that they don't allow in modern sport Judo.
There is one member on this BB that studied from one such gentleman here in Japan.
One reason for it's not being so wide spread could be lack of interest, it seems most present day Judoka (here anyway) are only interested in waza they can use in tournaments.

20th September 2002, 00:40
Originally posted by Cady Goldfield

Hence, Kano's judo and Funakoshi's karate were both commissioned and established as paradigms for the newly formed Japanese society, post-Edo.
Lethal technique and sophisticated "internal" methods that took years to learn, were not part of that paradigm. Fitness, self-defense (a very different thing than combat) and group activity were. The emperor didn't want combat-able warriors who could unseat his rule, but he did want to engender a sense of unity and national pride in his subjects.

I was in 100% agreement with you until this section.
As for Karate it was never intended to be used as a battlefield art, it was for the most part designed for self-defense.
Of course sword arts are a different story.
Also the bit about the Emperor is a bit questionable too. The Emperor hasn't had any real power for centuries........in fact the Queen of England has more power, and she has very little at that.



Originally posted by Cady Goldfield
So, the gendai arts were modeled to suit that purpose. I don't believe that Kano was too happy to bury his best jujutsu stuff, but he conceded that times had changed and that it was time for new art forms to replace the bloody combat arts of the past.

I would say it was the Judoka after Kano that "pruned" the art of Judo of all it's non-sport techniques.
For example in the I art I study, Karate, many systems have watered it down to make it easier to practice for large classes and to make it less injury prone..........which is why full contact sparring is pretty much gone in most dojo and , tuite (grappling) doesn't even exist in Japan. When it was first exported to Japan they most likely thought too many people would not want to put up with the discomforts of training and made it ore "health" oriented.
In my own dojo here I have to admit I don't have a lot of students for just such reasons. We don't pull punches and do lot's of grappling which is not always pleasant.


Originally posted by Cady Goldfield
Since that time, as the Japanese arts have become more popular around the world than they are in Japan, independent practitioners of some of the gendai arts have often been frustrated by something they felt was missing from their art. Some deserve credit for having researched these shortcomings and found the origins of their particular system, and having spent years trying to replace the missing principles elements.

In other cases, practioners, not knowing what else to do, have tried many different arts and then pieced them together into a "Frankenstein martial art," (or "chicken soup/stew" art, as a friend of mine calls them). A little of this, a little of that, trying to fill in the gaps. What most end up with, though, are non-systems with no common thread of physical or martial principles in them.
I'm sure you've heard of arts that claim to be "8 systems in 1" and "A complete system derived from Tai chi, Taekwondo, Kempo and Kendo!"

I think it is not always the art that is lacking but the practitioner. We live in a world that has been conditioned to the "fast food restaurant" style of getting things. People lack patience, we want our food in less than 5 minutes, we want fast modem speeds, fast chip processors......... we want everything faster.
The MA are no exception, everyone wants to be able to kick butt after only a few lessons. They lack the perseverance to stick with one art to find out what it truly has to offer so they "dojo hop". Going from one place to another looking for that magic end all beat all technique.
Most arts contain everything you need........most students and some teachers just don't know it.
Going back to the food analogy, I call them "quizen arts" (as in the blender thingy) because those people think they are getting the best of each art and making a superior art. What they are doing reminds me of someone going through their frig and taking all food inside and sticking it in a blender and then saying "ahhh a gourmet meal".

Neil Hawkins
20th September 2002, 01:54
Nicely put Robert, I like the blender analogy.

I think there are a number of factors that led to the pruning process and I don't believe it has been restricted to modern times.

Firstly, the majority of the arts continued to exist because of their combat effectiveness. They wouldn't survive through the pre-Tokugawa era otherwise. As a feature of that effectiveness they had to evolve to take into account the changing tactics of their enemies. Some techniques that were no longer used would have been dropped or modified to suit new conditions. Many would still remain in the curriculum but they were not taught as much because the important thing was get a level of skill and get out on the battle field.

Senior practicioners would have learnt the techniques because they were part of the school, but not with the same intensity as the more effective ones. Gradually the meaning behind the techniques would become obscured as it passed through the generations, and more techniques would be added to that category.

Secondly, different people have different interpretations of how and why things are done. As the son takes over from the father, or kohei from the sensei, they want to imprint something of their own into the style. Different body types move in different ways, influences are picked up from other schools, and so on. These changes are often small and at the time do little to affect the overall style, but over time they are amplified.

During a time of upheaval drastic changes can take place, styles completely vanished and others changed either because they needed more trained men in a hurry, or because the seniors were killed and those that were left did not have the full instruction, even if they retained the scrolls of the school.

Finally, the ethereal changes would have begun to take effect. Philosophies change, many of the styles that had strong religious roots would have felt these changes as practices changed or new religions were introduced. In a time of peace the intensity of training is reduced, people are less likely to risk serious injury in the name of training. Governements pass laws banning certain activities, people begin to look at martial training in a different light.

This all has an effect on the schools and the way techniques are interpreted. Many schools will begin to soften or internalise the training to appear less agressive and so not invite the scorn of a new peaceful society.

In conclusion, I believe that the schools that are principles based rather than technique based are the ones that have survived more intact. They have a core set of principles that can be applied to various techniques and as the techniques change the principles remain. This keeps the school true to its ancestry whilst allowing the evolution that keeps it true to its future.

Some koryu purists today frown on evolution of the art, but I believe that it is essential, and, provided that the principles are maintained, nothing is lost.

In today's world it is the principles that have been overlooked because of the 'drive thru' mentality of many practicioners. They see the arts as collections of techniques, and like some big shopping mall they browse through, take what they want and move on to the next. I don't believe that this leads to a longevity in the arts, but I suppose that history will tell us if that is the case.

Today the first techniques that are discarded are the ones that are hard to learn, hard to teach or just so subtle or complex that understanding takes so long that most won't take the time.

I am glad that there are 'snobs' trying to keep the arts alive and intact, provided the principles remain, koryu arts won't become museum pieces and in another few decades neither will gendai arts.

Regards

Neil

Brently Keen
20th September 2002, 01:55
I could be wrong, but I think with the establishment of the Meiji era and the abolition of the shogunate - power was returned to the emperor at least until we Americans took it away in the Pacific War (WWII).

Brently Keen

Cady Goldfield
20th September 2002, 02:04
In conclusion, I believe that the schools that are principles based rather than technique based are the ones that have survived more intact. They have a core set of principles that can be applied to various techniques and as the techniques change the principles remain. This keeps the school true to its ancestry whilst allowing the evolution that keeps it true to its future.

Well put, Neil.

Robert,
Maybe I gave the emperor more credit for input than he was due, after the Edo period. :) However, the body of the Japanese government was beginning to exert its nationalistic and mass-education bent, and that was where the gendai arts made their entrance. Kano, Ueshiba... the fathers of mass instruction of de-martialized martial arts. I agree (and ammend my comments) with your point about karate as self-defense. It was an Okinawan import, not a Japanese combat art. But I had my eyes on its role as part of the Japanese government's broad plan to systematize education, including physical education and cultural indoctrination (funny that they would go with an Okinawan art to do that...).

20th September 2002, 02:10
Originally posted by Brently Keen
I could be wrong, but I think with the establishment of the Meiji era and the abolition of the shogunate - power was returned to the emperor at least until we Americans took it away in the Pacific War (WWII).

Brently Keen

The Emperor was a puppet ruler at best. If you research Japanese History you will find that the Emperor has not had any serious power since the Shogunate system started.

A list of the Japanese Prime Ministers can be found here starting in 1885.

http://www.mizuho-sc.com/english/ebond/politics/pms.html

Brently Keen
20th September 2002, 02:17
Like I said, I could be wrong - my interest in Japanese history begins mostly pre-Meiji. My (mis)understanding though was that the shogunate held the power pre-Meiji, and that what ushered in the Meiji-era was the victory of Imperial forces against the shogunate, along with the move to modernize Japan of course.

That does explain why some supporters of the shogunate also held that they were loyal to the emperor.

Consider me enlightened now, I'll have to start wearing shades. :cool:

Brently Keen

20th September 2002, 02:19
Originally posted by Cady Goldfield
But I had my eyes on its role as part of the Japanese government's broad plan to systematize education, including physical education and cultural indoctrination (funny that they would go with an Okinawan art to do that...).


Prior to the Sino/Russian War around 1900 the Japanese Military was hell bent for leather on modernizing it's military. They saw that they were seriously behind the west militarily and they basically took anything that would help them achieve their goal of modernization and readiness.
Karate had several noted people pushing for it to be introduced into the public school system, most notably Itosu Anko who not only was a famous Karateka but also a local magistrate. This served both Okinawa and Japan. Okinawa got to pay tribute to it's new overlord, Japan, and Japan would benefit from the increased physical readiness of having it's troops trained from early childhood in martial arts.

20th September 2002, 02:22
Just as an extra note for those interested.

A decent Outline Chronology of Japanese Cultural History can be found here:

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~fljpm/chron/jc01.outline.html

MarkF
20th September 2002, 11:09
http://www.bstkd.com/JudoHistory/HistoryOne.htm

20th September 2002, 11:38
Originally posted by Cady Goldfield


Robert,
Maybe I gave the emperor more credit for input than he was due, after the Edo period. :) However, the body of the Japanese government was beginning to exert its nationalistic and mass-education bent, and that was where the gendai arts made their entrance. Kano, Ueshiba... the fathers of mass instruction of de-martialized martial arts. I agree (and ammend my comments) with your point about karate as self-defense. It was an Okinawan import, not a Japanese combat art. But I had my eyes on its role as part of the Japanese government's broad plan to systematize education, including physical education and cultural indoctrination (funny that they would go with an Okinawan art to do that...).

I think you are on the right track it just wasn't the Emperor. It was probably more like the Minister of Defense and his cronies.
Many things in Japanese history were done in the name of the Emperor, quite often with out his approval or knowledge.
There is a new book out about the Showa Emperor. I have heard it is very interesting and enlightening, although rather unpopular here in Japan. Must have something in it that is true and not very flattering for the Emperor.

It is my opinion that the "Gendai-ing" of the koryu arts was due to the modernizing of the whole Japanese military machine. Sort of an overhaul from the ground up if you will. They obviously saw that koryu in its present form was rather useless against tanks and guns that could kill from several hundred meters away and therefore found an alternative purpose for it..........physical fitness and discipline.

Charlie Kondek
20th September 2002, 14:41
Can someone expound on what a principle-based martial art is as opposed to a technique-based one? Can you give examples?

For example, isn't judo as it stands principal-based, the principle being: "Soften the opponent with well-placed blows, throw him to the ground, and finish the fight with a pin, arm-bar or choke?"

Is "ground and pound" a principal?

Cady Goldfield
20th September 2002, 15:26
Charlie,

Principles here refer not just to strategic or tactical, but also to physical/physiological and mechanical ones.

Charlie Kondek
20th September 2002, 16:11
And I know you can't be more specific (although I appreciate your trying). So you're saying principle-based is more like "Don't start none, won't be none?" (Which is one way Hyaku described the philosophy of Niten ryu.) Or, "Sword that gives life, sword that takes life?"

gavinslater
20th September 2002, 18:14
Hi,

I think ground and pound would be be a technique rather then a principle.

A principle based art has kata that embody a particular principle, so a particular kata is made up of the actual technique, principal and so on. So hypothetically, as time goes by, a particular kata may change on the surface i.e. the technique might be updated to a modern day equivalent, but the kata, is still the same kata because the principal transcends the technique.

Gavin.

Richard Elias
20th September 2002, 20:04
That was really good!

Cady Goldfield
20th September 2002, 21:06
Gavin, that sums it up well!

Charlie Kondek
20th September 2002, 21:58
But still no one can give me an example of a principle?

(Not trying to be inflammatory, just confused.)

Bjorn
20th September 2002, 22:10
Originally posted by Charlie Kondek
But still no one can give me an example of a principle?

(Not trying to be inflammatory, just confused.)

Karl Friday's Legacies of the Sword examines the principles of Kashima Shinryu in detail. They cover the ground from philosophic ("offense and defense are one"), to mechanical ("a wedge becomes direct").

Principles define what is good technique. If you understand the theory, then you don't need kata or "named techniques": you can spontaneously derive movements that are "good" in the context of your martial art. So (at least as I understand it), the example principle for judo you gave above isn't a "principle" in this context, because it doesn't tell you how to throw. "Maximum efficiency," however, is a principle, because it tells you that picking a guy up, lifting him over your head, and dropping him on the ground isn't good judo. ;)

Nathan Scott
20th September 2002, 22:17
Hi all,

Great thread. I'd like to contribute to this one - 1 because nobody is getting defensive so far, and 2 because I think this is something Mark F. was trying to call me out on in a thread in the AJJ section.

First off, I'd like to emphasize that the discussion of sophisticated vs. fundamental principles should not be thought of in a "value" sense. Let's not get into which approach is better, and which art is better or worse as a result. No value judgements, just objective discussion!

Traditionally, I really don't think there are "principle based/technique based" arts. They are ALL principle based. If a traditional art appears to be technique based, it is either because the student is still in the beginning stages, or because the teacher never reached/understood the higher stages of the training.

The "shu-ha-ri" formula of instruction used in Japan (and discussed a lot recently) demonstrates this idea. If you never get to the "ri" stage, then you might believe that the art being studied is a technique-based art.

All techniques rely on principles. If the principles aren't applied, the techniques don't work. If they are applied, the technique can (usually) be applied in varied circumstances, and against opponents of various size and strength. But traditionally, the principles are learned/understood through repetition of kata/technique.

However, there do seem to be some arts that overtly encourage their students to think in terms of principles early on, rather than the more "shu-ha-ri" method of self-discovery (which most students never complete, and as such, never really "learn" anything).

As far as sophisticated principles vs. fundamental principles, my take on it is that, the more sophisticated principles tend to be far harder to learn, but allow the proponent to perform techniques with (typically) smaller, more refined movements and with less strength and leverage than the more fundamental principles. For example, the difference between typical police arresting techniques and a classical art like Tenjin shin'yo ryu jujutsu. Taihojutsu is easier and quicker to learn, and works most of the time on most of the people, but is not nearly as easy to apply and as effective as properly executed traditional jujutsu. Coincidentally, taihojutsu is often taught simply as techniques rather than applied principles, which is part of the limitation and problem with such methods.


Following is an attempt at some examples of principles. Many, but not all, traditional/classical arts have sophisticated movement principles that take a great deal of time to learn and apply correctly. Many of these more sophisticated principles have been removed in modern times either because the "teacher" never trained hard enough long enough to obtain them, or, because the teacher attempted to make the methods easier to learn for practical purposes (like modern day CQC):

1) Going back to Judo, Mifune Sensei may have simply perfected the existing principles that exist in Judo. Perhaps specializing primarily in hyoshi/choshi (rhythym and timing) and kuzushi (balance breaking).

If ya'll can work with me a bit here, let's say that for throws (like ippon seionage), Judo uses primarily kuzushi (off balancing), tsukuri (fitting into the opponents unbalanced body) and kake (proper execution of the throw). These three principles could be considered fundamental principles, and essential building blocks for (possibly) developing more sophisticated principles. For example, some jujutsu traditions perform body throws using primarily kansetsu (joint/body locking) rather than tsukuri. However, to achieve this level of skill in kansetsu takes far longer than to become accustomed to the feeling of proper tsukuri.

2) Speaking of kansetsu, from my experience there seems to be 2 main types. That in which a joint lock is established by winding/twisting the joints, and that in which the joints are locked using a cumulative locking sequence applied by precise alignment (not winding). The former is easy to teach, but has varied results and requires more strength, whereas the latter takes far longer to perfect, but requires far less strength/leverage and is considerably "sharper" than winding locks. However, winding locks are a good building block for learning cumulative locks, and gives the student something they can use while they are developing more sophisticated methods (as well as something to fall back on should they blow a more sophisticated principle).

**

Anyway, I've got more to ramble on about, but this is getting pretty long, so I'll wrap up this post and hear what ya'll have to say.

Regards,

SBreheney
20th September 2002, 22:27
I train in a Hakkoryu-derived art. We practice kata, which embody the principles or "gensoku" of our art -- so, for example, a given kata may embody the principle of nage, or throw -- "cause uke to fall."

The kata are standardized -- everyone learns and practices them the same. So a given kata embodying the nage principle "causes uke to fall in a particular way, so that training together can happen."

Then come henka, or variations. These are the applications of the principles we learn and refine in kata practice. So, "we respond to the attack of uke's choosing, and cause uke to fall in a way of tori's choosing." Lots of different nages, but they're all nage.

Does this work?

Nathan Scott
20th September 2002, 22:57
FWIW, I would classify "maximum efficiency" as a theory, rather than a principle. The theory of maximum efficiency is broad, and incidently, common to all fighting arts.

A principle would be something more specific in my mind, such as kuzushi. Most if not all principles are designed to be used in conjunction with other principles, whereas a theory might be something that stands alone (and uses a variety of principles in order to be applied).
Overly anal?

Elliot Harris
21st September 2002, 00:22
This thread is great. A lot of good input, but I think there is a lot more to be offered here.

I can’t really say whether maximum efficiency would be a theory or a principle, but I certainly concur that it is an underlying/overarching element of any good martial system. I would just like to add a little something to what Nathan stated – if you see maximum efficiency as a principle – it is certainly a grandly overarching one, with many potential interpretations (and according to many historians not actually all that common among the koryu until Kano came along). And in the case of Judo, it is intimately attached to the principle/theory that this must be done with the goal of enhancing the mutual welfare and benefit. The principle is based on the theory that the most efficient resolution, that also takes into account the long reaching effects of potential outcomes to a given resolution, is the most desirable. This is in opposition to a principle/theory that might state “when I am confronted with a problem I will simply beat it into submission, because this demonstrates my dominance and makes me feel good,” (even in the rare case when beating a problem into submission may be the immediately most efficient resolution, obviously beating a problem into sand does not generally take into account the long term strategic implications of such an approach). Thus, the most efficient solution with the most desirable strategic implications may not involve a “technique”(in the combative sense) at all, but a completely different approach that takes into account some of the other elements Sun Tsu discusses in the first chapter of The Art of War (a discussion of the 5 fundamental elements of strategic relevance as he saw them).

Also, I really like your previous discussion using judo principles of technique (low level (?) principles of a combative system). Now back to the original question: how do these differ (if at all) from similar principles in Koryu systems? What makes the koryu so special/deadly? Is it that they’re just really cool; maybe the principles are not all that different, but the specific techniques are; or do they take into account a more comprehensive set of principles that include a higher level of tactical and strategic possibilities the ryu favors – based on Cady’s posts I can only assume that – at least in some cases – these would also include specific psychological and moral applications of those principles; or is it something else entirely? Not having experienced a koryu, I too would appreciate any enlightened input on this.

Elliot Harris
21st September 2002, 00:46
Also try these links for more on military theory:

Air war college (lots of stuff on Sun Tzu and John Boyd):
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-thry.htm#suntzu - ai

Page on current U.S. Principles of War:
http://www.cadre.maxwell.af.mil/ar/MENTOR/vol1/SEC06.PDF

Elliot Harris
21st September 2002, 01:05
This link to definitions of current U.S. principles may be a little more user friendly to the uninitiated.

http://www.du.edu/~jamorgan/war/

Nathan Scott
21st September 2002, 01:06
Hello Mr. Harris,

Thanks for your input.

As far as "deadly techniques" goes, this is not a result of principles as much as the result of technical (combative) application. Judo could be just as deadly as any of the koryu, having been derived from koryu, and could again become "deadly" very easily if that was the desired result. Whether techniques are deadly or not is dependant on the intended application of the art. Most if not all of the older koryu were originally designed for combat in which it was acceptable to kill your opponent. Deadly techniques are not higher level, but are in fact (generally) easier to perform than sparing/arresting type techniques.

Arts that encourage free exchanges (randori, jiyuwaza, shiai etc.) often have to adapt their methods so that students can test their techniques against resisting opponents, attacking at full or nearly full speed and intensity. This is good and valuable experience, but "deadly" techniques, and even the more dangerous ones, would obviously have to be adapted or removed in order to minimize accidents (such as in Judo).

Saying "deadly techniques" does sound hoaky, but it should not be considered a bragging right. It is simply the intended application of many classical techniques (originally).

As far as maximum efficiency goes, I submit that any combative art that does not emphasize this theory is useless combatively. That belief is why I made such a bold assumption when posting about this last time. Kano sensei may have had his own take on it, and the various arts surely have their own set of principles and ways of reaching the ideal of maximum efficiency, but it would have to be a common aspect to fighting arts around the world or they would lose.

Regards,

21st September 2002, 01:15
Possibly a better analogy than Judo and Jujutsu might be Kendo and Kenjutsu.

Modern kendo hardly has the same intent and mind set as say Katori Shinto or any of the other koryu.
In Modern Kendo you are only allowed strikes to the armor where as in koryu kenjutsu you are aiming for where the armor is not and obviously far more deadly in intent.

Cady Goldfield
21st September 2002, 02:22
I can give an example of a principle from karate. It concerns the generation of projectile force from a limb.

You are probably familiar with the physics formula for creating force: F=ME (Force equals Mass times Acceleration). That is a physical principle. Where it becomes a tool for martial arts is find a way to express that formula using the human body.

The adaptation of the concept to a mechanical application involves another principle: the manipulation of the human body in a way that utilizes mechanics and physical laws (gravity, momentum, acceleration).

Let's use a straight punch as our example TECHINIQUE to illustrate that PRINCIPLE.

Here is the process for generating force:

1. Hands in "on guard" position with fists lightly (not tightly) closed in front of your body, about waist to chest height (in line with the target you plan to strike. Keep the body relaxed (a relaxed, untensed muscle means stored, unexpended potential energy; a principle in itself), legs slightly bent (part of that potential energy principle).

2. Push forward off the ball of the rear foot to launch the body forward. This creates forward momentum.

3. When you are 3/4s of the way to your target, begin to torque your hip so that the punching-hand side shoots forward.

4. While the hip is at its peak of acceleration in the torque, and the body is still moving forward from the push off the rear foot, shoot out the punching arm (muscles still relaxed) toward the target.

5. As your punching fist makes contact with the target, straighten the arm almost completely (just a slight bend at the elbow, almost unnoticeable) and squeeze the fist tight while also tensing the body for a fraction of a second. And, drop your center so that your punch is slightly downward into the target. All of the power from the forward momentum, torque of the hip and the gravitational drop of center creates a heightened amount of force to penetrate the target.

6. Relax the body and retract the fist immediately following penetration.

A bunch of physical-mechanical principles have formed the components (forward momentum, torque, mass X acceleration, gravity) one basic martial principle for power production.

Now, take that principle and figure out other techniques that will use it in their own way (e.g. hook punch, uppercut, spinning backfist, shuto and fingertip thrusts, front kick, roundhouse kick, sidekick, turning sidekick, axe kick, etc.).

Voila! Lots of techniques that all work as a result of a single principle.

Now, strategic principles, such as how and when to use the straight punch, are another matter.

Elliot Harris
21st September 2002, 02:45
Mr. Scott & Rousselot (how do you pronounce that?),

Thank you for your replies. This may digress a bit from the posted topic, but I think it is still relevant to the current discussion.

I suppose then, that for the older koryu – being primarily, if not exclusively, meant for the battlefield – the quick/deadly techniques were the most efficient way to achieve a desired result that was to the mutual benefit of your army and attempted to avoid protracting conflicts causing further injuries to both sides because the techniques were decisively deadly thus reducing the possibility of an enemy resuming a conflict at some unannounced future date (or did it?).

Then (assuming my assumptions are correct) during the Edo period, when battles were largely unheard of and martial systems were trained primarily for the purposes of self-defense and preparing for duels, would not the systems have sets of techniques meant to subdue an aggressor/opponent? Would these typically be taught as groups of techniques to specific situations or would they be built around/taught in the context of certain physical/tactical/strategic (perhaps within a social context) that would tend to engender a desired outcome beyond the immediate subdual of said aggressor?

Mr. Rousselot,

It seems you are saying that kendo does not apply the tactical principle of attacking weak points. While I have no experience with kendo either, I’m sure there are kendoka who would say that this principle (if I may take the liberty of calling it such) is less obvious/consistent but still exists, only you have to look for the weaknesses from another perspective (obviously less combative/stupid to really attack the armor when there are more vulnerable openings available – hence the most significant difference between kendo/kenjutsu – but then of course that all depends on the strategic context).

Thinking about it – I would imagine that the koryu are not simply responsive in their initiative (for example: in that they attack weak points provided by the enemy), but would have techniques that are positive in their initiative in that they use physical and psychological techniques/ploys/tricks to create specific weaknesses/vulnerabilities in an opponent that go beyond judo’s methods of kuzushi.

Neil Hawkins
21st September 2002, 02:48
Another comparison would be Kyudo and Kyujutsu, the latter is deadly effective, the former no less lethal (an arrow fired from a bow always has the required potential) but it is taught in a totally different manner with combat effectiveness being almost non-existent in the training.

I do believe that there are technique based arts, but none of the koryu I have had exposure too is one of them, but they would have existed and died out much as the gendai ones have and the modern ones will.

Nathan did a good job of explaining principles, and to me they are 'why the technique works' rather than 'why we do the technique.'
In the judo analogies already tabled, the 'crash and bash' is not a principle, neither is 'make the guy fall over'. The principles are low centre of balance, enter below opponents centre of balance to more easily break his balance, continue the unbalancing in a certain direction that forces his feet to leave the floor, and then assist him in his re-introduction to the ground so that it is more memorable for him. ;)

Or in the kansetsuwaza example the principles are sabaki to get into a position advantageous to breaking balance, the direction of unbalancing, the grip on the limb that best allows alignment of the joints, allowing the momentum of the opponent to to put him into position (rather than pulling or pushing using strength) and finally application of pressure at the right time to dislocate the joint, tear the tendons, ligaments and muscles and finally position the opponent for a continued attack to finish the situation.

This also introduces the differences between koryu and gendai, at least in my mind. Many gendai jujutsu will try to use the same principles but the goal is submission, so they apply pressure to seek pain. In my training pain was but a side effect relating to the near destruction of the joint being attacked and an indicator of wether your direction and angle is correct. Kansetsuwaza were designed to disable not control, this is where the whole pain complience agruement started and I don't want to re-start it here.

So I'll quickly jump back to throws. As much of judo is based on submission fighting, the focus of the throw is to keep the opponent close and be able to 'finish' the fight on the ground with a choke or lock that ensures sumbission. After all you can't always rely on the ippon! Relativey few of the takedowns I have seen from koryu arts keep the opponent close, they are often used to create enough room to draw a blade and so they throw away and then follow up quickly. Those that do keep the opponent close are designed to act on joints or throw in such a way that the opponent falls awkwardly. This is again to prevent him from employing a blade or other weapon because either the arm is damaged or he falls on his face or side making the draw of even a tanto difficult.

I suppose what it comes down to is the in many instances koryu jujutsu was a companion to weapons and the primary goal was to either employ the weapon yourself, or stop your opponent from employing his.

But that is just my observation and I expect some arguement! :)

Regards

Neil

Cady Goldfield
21st September 2002, 03:58
Neil,
Some koryu and koryu-derived arts don't leave any space in a takedown. The opponent is "glued" to you and unable to move. You are still (and perhaps even moreso) at liberty to draw your knife and finish him. :)

Brently Keen
21st September 2002, 05:52
But how is the opponent glued to you like that? Or more importantly why does he stay glued to you while you draw your tanto to finsh him off?

It's a secret magic power of course, er... I mean careful application of principles. ;)

Brently Keen

Nathan Scott
21st September 2002, 07:08
Neil,

I mostly agree with your reply. I'd be curious to read of examples of technique-based arts though, if your willing to post them (publicly or privately).

Kendo and kenjutsu is a good example, but it is quite similar to jujutsu and judo. Kendo definitely has a number of good fundamental principles, and attacking the openings is definitely one of them. However, with Kendo please keep in mind that this has become a sport that is based loosley on unarmored swordsmanship (suhada kenpo), not armored swordsmanship (kaisha kenpo).

Theoretically, the opponent whacks the armored parts of your body so that they may practice suhada kenpo without injuring their partner. The targets (datotsu) and footwork very much reflect suhada kenpo, and in fact, kendo footwork has been adapted specifically for use on hardwood floor dojo.

The dangerous techniques and sophisticated principles have been removed from mainstream kendo, but fundamental level principles are still followed. Such as: don't move with an identifiable rhythm, don't bounce up and down or become back weighted, align your hips properly to your opponent at all times, use the left hand to generate power and the right hand to guide the blade, ki-ken-tai-ichi, etc.

But koryu kenjutsu are often far more complex in application and in more sophisticated principles. Advanced use of the grip, principles of kakudo/tachisuji/hasuji necessary for actual cutting, various principles necessary for more refined block/deflections (quality of motion as well as part of the blade used), attacking the ura when possible, soft controls hard/ hard cuts soft; if pulled enter, if pushed, turn out, etc.

There are of couse a number of sophisticated principles in various koryu kenjutsu that are designed to increase efficiency and/or effectiveness of motion as well. But learning them would require extensive long term and correct practice of kata, which competitive arts are (generally) not interested in.

Also, while I would agree that a large amout of kansetsuwaza was designed to disable rather than control, I know of at least one art that uses various levels of kansetsu as a method of entering safely into an opponent in order to gain the initiative and affect a throw (in my opinion, aikido requires this in many cases as well). More sophisticated kansetsuwaza does not require speed, and in fact, does not work if the technique is performed too quickly. Conversely, kuzushi waza typically requires more speed of movement in order to maintain the initiative gained after breaking the balance. And in reality, you typically have varying levels of both combined in most jujutsu/aikido techniques.

Atemi can be considered a principle (especially with regards to kyushojutsu). Irimi and kaiten are fundamental level principles to many Japanese arts (perhaps using different terminology though). The use of kokyu can be a technical principle when applied as such.

To my way of thinking, like many aspects of budo, principles can be catagorized as physical in nature, mental in nature, or spiritual in nature. The principle of kiai is a good example of this. Physically, the act of applying correct kiai aids your own body in a number of ways physically, but it also can be used to disrupt the concentration or timing of the opponent (mental), or, if strong enough, intimidate or crush the spirit/resolve of the opponent. Mastery of kiai should attack the opponent on all three levels, which might be considered a more sophisticated application of a fundamental principle (simply yelling at your opponent and ensuring proper breathing).

Anyway, I guess you could say that the arts that have become primarily competitive or "martial sports" are the best examples of fundamental principle based arts that typically don't extend into the realm of the more sophisticated principles, for better or worse. Again, this is because of the lack of emphasis on kata, and the "watered down" seitei kata that is constantly being simplified to make it easier for the art's students to learn (since they don't practice it enough to correctly learn the more sophisticated versions).

As Mr. Skoss says, it all comes down to keeping the pointy end towards your enemy. But there are many methods of ensuring that your pointy tip wins over their pointy tip. The longer and harder you train, the better you will get at not getting killed.

Back at ya,

PS. Cady and Brently, how 'bout we just not bring up the "D" word throughout this whole thread - just for fun? We've got a good thing going here, and we wouldn't want to ruin it with the tired aiki debate, would we?

:cool:

Brently Keen
21st September 2002, 07:23
"The longer and harder you train, the better you will get at not getting killed."

Doesn't that really depend more on how you train than the length and intensity with which you train?

I know some instructors who have trained decades longer and harder than me, but after a few short years of principle based training, I was able to handle them with ease, and frankly I was as baffled as they were at first. Granted we weren't exactly trying to kill each other, but still, I think that might have been the gist of what Cady was originally getting at in this discussion.

The depth of principle based training/instruction in some arts is so far beyond what is more commonly taught in others as to make comparisions seem rather ridiculous.

As for examples of technique based arts - I think it has to do with teaching primarily a collection of techniques with little emphasis on what makes the techniques work. If someone attacks with attack #1 and your first thought is whether to respond with technique #1a, 1b, or 1c, or worse if you automatically always respond with #1b because it's your favorite technique against that attack, then you're probably learning a technique based art. Also if your advancement in the art is based more on the number or group of techniques/kata you've learned as opposed to your actual grasp of those techniques/kata, the lessons contained within them, or their principles and their applications, then you're probably learning a technique based art.

Brently Keen

Aw you weasel, you edited your post while I was responding! I liked the way you spelled "dieing" in the first - a random application of phonetic principles?! ;) I'm ok with keeping any references to the ryu in question nice and generally cryptic and mysterious - I've no intent of reigniting any old fires in this thread.

Elliot Harris
21st September 2002, 07:27
Nathan (may I call you that?),

Very enlightening. You have given me a lot of food for thought with your “3 levels” concept.

Neal (same same?),

I see your point, and I appreciate your thoughts on kansetsu.

While I certainly understand the combative limitations of judo, and can appreciate and have seen how many of its techniques could easily be modified to become highly destructive, don’t the same physical principles still apply (whether or not you actually understand/can teach them) within the various koryu (Nathan, on your suggestion I eliminated a D-word comment here). As it happens, I was taught that the holding methods of judo (some variations [not typically presented in most books] more effective than others – although I couldn’t say whether these same holds/restraints can be seen in various koryu) were not origionally for the sake of submission as an end, but to control an armored (or otherwise clothed if necessary) opponent while you unsheathed and employed a knife or waited until your buddy showed up with his weapon of choice – in addition to serving as transition controls while fighting for more permanent grappling solutions as required – and if you are standing and he is down (ie. – ippon) …while not necessarily decisive in itself, doesn’t that create the room and control (yes with the appropriate technique - again not typically part of most judo curriculums) you need to efficiently employ an available weapon – and if no weapon is available some kind of choke/kansetsu (not really that different from what I understand you to be saying in my mind, but of course there are virtually no judoka who train this way).

Either way, I see these (how to off balance, etc…) as principles of physical mechanics and may incorporate techniques of employing weapons or otherwise managing those principles toward more dangerous and deadly ends - certainly an important distinction but this can’t be all there is to it. Unless you also see these concepts apart from their technique applications to their tactical applications such as kuzushi (off balancing in a technique sense) in that tactically you want to disrupt his course of action through manipulation of the situation which may employ various psychological methods among other more physical means, ie. “off balance”/disrupt your opponent(s) desired course/plan of action – this disruption will of course create openings which can then be taken advantage of – I can only imagine that the various koryu have worked out some very effective methods of utilizing this kind of idea – assuming they typically view these tactical considerations in this way…if at all. Also, wouldn’t concepts such as miia, metsuke, timing, positioning, etc… be no less important but perhaps more useful in spontaneously dealing with a dynamic situation? Would these also be considered principles or something else?

MarkF
21st September 2002, 12:57
Cady,
You have a wonderful way with words, and I mean in creating them..."demartializing, sportification, sportified," etc.

Elliot and Nathan have brought up good questions and answers. The way I look at the "demartialized" judo (IE, using safer technique) which come straight out of principles of most, is an agreement. "I agree not to allow you to fall onto your head, thereby breaking your neck, and pull you out for a soft and helpful landing, if you agree that you will lose our combative match by hitting the ground so I can feel superior until the next one." Contract signed.

Frankly, it doesn't really take much to see that fully-combative judo is already there if I break the agreement not to allow myself to be demartialized or sportified, even though I love those words. There are few techniques used in randori no kata which do not immediately return to remartialzied state by breaking said agreement or contract. In a better world, doesn't such as agreement really take a leap of faith for granted if I retract my pull on you just as you are headed for the floor? How do you know I will? Ohhh, it's a JUDO dojo.

In reality, don't we all practice mutual welfare and benefit AS a principle?
****

OK, forget that. Elliot asked about the Kodokan Kata Itsu tsu no kata, the forms of five (you can catch it if you want to go slumming in the judo forum). This was part of my answer, but I'll paraphrase. According to Mikonosuke Kawaishi, the forms of five is the first of the superior kata as he related that this kata, one practiced so little, that even the Kodokan is getting to a point of dismissing it outright (that's an opinion, because I learned tai-sabaki, but not this kata). But for Kano, this kata contains the fundamentals for *all* Tai-sabaki, something none of us can do without and just could be the fundamental principle in all budo, grappling, striking or weaponizing. I think the combative nature of judo is evident if you look at it as Elliot put it. In actuality, it is a study of the tai-sabaki he had learned as a student of several schools of jujutsu of the time, so this kata should be found in most forms of jujutsu, even if not by that name.

For example, the second in the series of five, is the principle of "Reaction and Non-resistance."

I see similarites all over the place, frankly. Elliots description and the dual roles of the waza of standard contest judo is something to be pondered, as the only difference I can see is the one in one school being kata-based and one of randori-based, but on what is based randori? Isn't it the kata of tai-sabaki, Itsu tsu no kata, and can't it be just as deadly, combative, martial, demartialed, friendly, a contract, an agreement to play a combative game which, while the beginner (first ten years or so) may not realize it, he has death or morbidity in his hands just as he has mutual welfare? It just takes a quick decision and a slight non-turn to make it just as useful the ugly way, just as Elliot stated and described. The teachers I know do teach it at some point (not necessarily the kata, just the waza). Some don't, as in reality, they aren't really teachers yet. There are a lot of those.:)

My point is that there may just be the one principle. You enter a learning place (dojo) and immediately agree not to hurt uke, in some it is granted if asked, in others it is hit or miss, but the gist of it is all based, at least today, on an agreement not to hurt you too badly.

Shiai is a combative sport of judo. While learning, some need the attraction of beating the crap out of someone now and then to stay through the middle years, then later, they can learn the "old guy" stuff when the fight is gone. As much as it is "pruned" it is still the better of the two ways of learning to fight, if you can fight, and how to fight.

But the first "Superior Kata," itsu tsu no kata, isn't that just as essential. To be complete, I have to agree. I'm getting too old to do much else. Hard ukemi isn't a whole lot of fun anymore even when the spirit is willing the body is screaming no, no, no!! Arrraffgh!:eek:
****

OK, I had to stick my nose in, but it isn't the budo, it is the budoka, isn't it? Everything else, on a fundamental level, is the same thing.


Mark

Cady Goldfield
21st September 2002, 14:24
Originally posted by Brently Keen
But how is the opponent glued to you like that? Or more importantly why does he stay glued to you while you draw your tanto to finsh him off?

It's a secret magic power of course, er... I mean careful application of principles. ;)

Brently Keen
Brently,
...and I do mean this sincerely...

:pPTHPHTttttt!!!!!!:p

Cady Goldfield
21st September 2002, 14:34
Mark,

You're missing my point entirely. Of course judo has the capacity to kill or maim. So does kendo. So do football and hockey, which both are sports that simulate combat and represent an abstraction of both territoriality and combat.

But the point of them is not to kill or maim. Just as the point of volleyball is not to kill or maim (and yet, volleyball is the #3 cause of trips to the emergency room.) OTOH, the original point of koryu was to maim and kill. They are combat systems.
You can't have friendly competitions with koryu because people die or get seriously injured, even when the participants are going easy. In order to have friendly competitions, you have to take out all of the things that are designed to instantly kill on contact, and leave in only the things that can be "softened" into a milder use (such as throws and chokes, pins and holds).

That's all I meant. As Neil pointed out, many (but absolutely by no means all) of the physical principles that fuel lethal combat methods are the basis for judo. But many more, were taken out because they had no place in the world of civilian peacetime life, nor of sport and competition.

Elliot Harris
21st September 2002, 22:19
As Neil pointed out, many (but absolutely by no means all) of the physical principles that fuel lethal combat methods are the basis for judo. But many more, were taken out because they had no place in the world of civilian peacetime life, nor of sport and competition.

Actually Cady, that’s exactly what I (and others) am trying to discern. So far I have not heard anything that contradicts or adds (except Nathan's enlightening comments) to what I have learned in Judo (granted I’ve had some very good instructors) at least as it has been presented. You say that some principles have been taken out – like what? Aiki for instance :D ! (sorry, I couldn’t help it – you don’t have to answer that). Do you mean that typically, the principles of physiology and biomechanics of what make techniques work are taught more as pertaining to individual techniques as opposed to being taught from a more comprehensive/unifying perspective that would facilitate more freedom in applying technique variations? Or are specific principles actually removed from the execution of technique – beyond the minor adjustments needed to make judo – or other gendai – techniques more lethal that otherwise fundamentally differentiates gendai techniques from koryu techniques (aside from the use of weapons – yes I see the significance of this - I think :look:)? If so, like what?

Oh, and just so we’re clear on this, while I love judo and obviously have a strong background with this art, yes I do recognize its combative limitations as it is typically taught and trained. I am most certainly not trying to create a judo/gendai vs. koryu argument (although I guess it may sound this way), but am simply relating my understandings as a conceptual basis for comparison in the discussion.

Thanks for all your input.

Elliot Harris
21st September 2002, 23:27
In not trying to belabor what may be a moot point I went back and reread some of the previous posts and I will try to summarize what I am getting out of this and reformulate my question.

I will first say that I think it would not be too much of a stretch to make much of judo very dangerous if not outright lethal. For example, there is a famous picture (maybe more than one) circulating in the judo community of someone being thrown directly on his head in a high level competition (maybe someone could find the pic and post it here), my own sensei was famous in his day for KOing his opponents with his o-soto gari in shiai, I myself have had to be careful not to blow out uke’s knee with hiza garuma, and these are the “sport” techniques (actually I recognize other elements of the technique that make them more “sport” than the end result – but stick with me a minute).

Now, if you tell me that koryu have more dangerous versions of these techniques (and maybe a few more that just plain didn’t translate into randori), then no problem, I understand and accept that. If you also say that what tends to make uke react in a fashion that makes the technique more lethal are a different or more complete set of biomechanical principles, then I see where you are going, although I don’t necessarily agree with this distinction (we’d probably have to actually work together to mutually understand that level of minutae). Being in the military, I actually train for and study warfare pretty much full time, what tends to be far more decisive in combat than technique, is having a strategy and applying appropriate tactics. These can, and probably should be, based on principles. What I find missing from judo, aikido, etc. is a systematic or principle based method of learning, understanding, and applying this in a combative context. When you say principles are missing, this is what I envision. And, I would be interested in learning how various koryu approached the topic of strategy (heiho?). Of course, when you all say principles, you may have something else in mind entirely. If so, like what?

Cady Goldfield
22nd September 2002, 01:49
Elliot,
I appreciate your well thought out post. Addressing your last question first, IMO strategic and tactical principles and methods are the most universal ones, and the easiest to transfer to sport. Certain principles of combat are as applicable in the arena as on the battlefield, just as they are applicable with and without weapons or with weapons of certain different types.

But back to the missing technical/physical combat principles, since that's what everyone is so all-fired interested in. ;)

Yes, aiki is one of the things that is not in the gendai arts. That isn't to say that certain individuals haven't injected it into their personal gendai arts, after having learned some of its principles in other, older systems. But, the curricula of the arts themselves lack this set of sophisticated principles (it's certainly nowhere to be found in any projectile or percussive art I've ever studied or observed, and it's lacking in gendai grappling and other systems too).

But that aside, many of the mechanical-skeletal and joint manipulation/destruction methods, certain foot- and legwork principles, whole-body skeletal locks and breaks, certain kinds of strikes and systematic body attacks and other purely-destructive combative principles are not in judo (nor aikido, which has no remnants of jujutsu principles, at least none of the 8 or 9 systems I've observed or tried).

What remains in judo's repertoire -- principles of kuzushi and controlling center, the concept of torque and fulcrum -- are all fabulously effective. A talented judoka armed only with that repertoire is still well-armed. Up against someone with the repertoire of, say, Sokaku Takeda or Morihei Ueshiba (after studying with S. Takeda), however, you would see the considerable contrast in size, sophistication and range of uses of the two repertoires.

I have been watching a lot of judo tapes over the past few months, including Mifune. Mifune is awesome. But when I watch him and then watch a high-level practitioner of certain classical jujutsu systems, I see another layer of sophistication, a deeper syllabus, a more martial (as in spontaneously lethal) application.

Until others here observe outside their own system and experience those things, it is difficult to discuss differences and contrasts. Even watching a superb and exquisite swordman such as Otake Risuge, you can get a real indoctrination in what a true direct-combat art contains, and what would have to be taken out of it to render it safe for competitive practice.

Andrew Craig
22nd September 2002, 13:12
Dear All,

First I would like to say this has been one of the most interesting threads to appear here in quite a while, thank you to everyone who has contributed so far.

From the discussion it seems that older arts seem to have multiple layers of principles from the level of overall strategy right down to mechanical and physiological principals to apply during a physical encounter.

Cady gave some examples of these latter kind, which are not found in gendai arts...


many of the mechanical-skeletal and joint manipulation/destruction methods, certain foot- and legwork principles, whole-body skeletal locks and breaks, certain kinds of strikes and systematic body attacks and other purely-destructive combative principles are not in judo (nor aikido, which has no remnants of jujutsu principles, at least none of the 8 or 9 systems I've observed or tried)

I am interested to know how principals such as those above with inherently dangerous applications could be taught so as to be accessible and effective in a live situation? It seems to me an interesting parallel to the problem some students of gendai arts have had where by through the practice of pulling their punches in training for so long in a live situation again they pull their punches.

Best wishes,

Andy

Cady Goldfield
22nd September 2002, 17:11
Andy,

Principles of that type can be demonstrated and practiced in a controlled manner during paired kata practice. It's randori where practitioners have to avoid using certain ones, as they pose too much risk. There are some things you see demonstrated and sometimes try in slo-mo, but would never be able to do with full force. That's one of the consequences of studying such systems.

However, I suspect that their original practitioners must have had similar limitations. I often wonder whether they practiced on prisoners and/or corpses. ;)

As for practical application, the beauty of such arts is that there is such a spectrum of alternatives to choose from, that practitioners can make a decision of which action to take based on the degree of combat or danger he or she is in. You don't need a sledge hammer to handle a walnut, nor would you rely on a ballpeen hammer to break up granite.

Also, some of the applications of classical combat mechanical principles can be pretty mild, terribly destructive or somewhere in the middle, depending on how the user administers them (the force and extent). On the other hand, there are some things that are meant only for one kind of application, and are not appropriate for use by non-combative civilians such as most of us, under pretty much any circumstance. Even so, it's instructional and eye-opening to learn or at least so things demonstrated as part of one's education in a system.

Richard Elias
22nd September 2002, 20:10
This has been a fantastic discussion.

Here’s my two bits. (For what it’s worth)

I believe that the differences between judo and koryu arts that are being discussed is not so much about the principles in the arts (unless you’re speaking morally) but about the motivation behind the training of the arts and their applications.

It is my understanding that the principles inherent in the arts CAN be applied to any art, any system. They are the components of physics, anatomy, and psychology that that make the techniques work, not whether they are deadly or not, or how they are practiced or applied.

I don’t think that there really are to many “techniques based” arts, just arts or teachers that don’t illuminate the principles in their teachings. Techniques and principles go hand in hand. One doesn’t really exist without the other. You have to have techniques to teach the principles, and the techniques work because of the principles. The real question is “are the principles being taught, and if not, why?”

There are systems that only teach a series of techniques and don’t make any connection between them or show interrelationships. They have a particular attack and they teach you a particular defense. You are not necessarily taught how to do the same techniques from different attacks and situations, I have seen this more in some Korean arts and self-defense systems. The principles are still there, but they are not taught and not used.

To reiterate, I think it is not so much that the principles have been stripped away of some arts but that they are not being taught as they once were, or might have been. The principles are always there, it just a matter of being aware of them and utilizing them with the utmost efficiency. But if practitioner is not aware of the principles then they might not be able to make the technique work as effectively as they could, though some just have a natural ability and can do the stuff without even being aware of it intellectually. Often times the teacher can pass these on to students through the example of his body without any references to principles or isolating them as a teaching, he might not have been taught them as principles to be aware of himself. Oftentimes, especially in the older arts, the principles are not really taught per se but they are emphasized in the techniques and the techniques arranged and taught in such a manner that hopefully the student will see. But it is up to the student to figure it out. I think that is why some of the older arts exist today only as museum pieces with no real substance. Those practicing the art are not even aware of the principles contained in the techniques and have no real understanding of how art works or the intention behind it, they just copy them because that is what they were taught. They don’t think about really needing to use it.

Joseph Svinth
22nd September 2002, 20:14
Y'all must be aiki types, as you make this a lot harder than it has to be.

The technique: "Punch him in the nose." Principles involved: Literally dozens. Some blatant examples.

* Triangulation.
* Mis-direction.
* Controlling the centerline.
* Blending.
* Going where he is not.
* Breathe, center, and relax.
* Proper skeletal alignment.

Etc.

If that explanation is too arcane, then think mathematical equations. Technique-based says, "Memorize that 2+2=4." Principle-based says, "What is 4?"

Richard Elias
22nd September 2002, 20:35
"Principle-based says, 'What is 4?'"

WAY too zen.

Cady Goldfield
22nd September 2002, 22:04
Way too Zen for me, too.

I prefer Bruce Lee's remark, something like: "When I didn't know anything about punching, a punch was just a punch. Then I began studying punching, and experienced how complex and difficult it is. Now that I can punch, a punch is just a punch."

Joseph Svinth
22nd September 2002, 23:20
Last time I looked, there were an infinite number of ways of getting to 4, and only one of them involved 2+2. Some examples

4 = 4.

2 squared = 4.

44 / 11 = 4.

Square root of 16 = 4.

6-2 = 4.

1+1+1+1=4

3.51 rounded to the nearest whole number = 4, as does 4.49.

2(3 cubed) - (7x4)divided by 6.5 = 4

Etc.

Now, this is not to say that 4 cannot be Zen-like. For example, all questions about zero and negative numbers bear analogy to Zen. (Literally, as zero was the Arabic answer to the question that the Ch'an Buddhists saw as the Void.) Even here, however, getting to 4 isn't all that hard, once you understand the principles.

-5 + 9 = 4.

-4 x -1 = 4.

(0 x 10) + 4 = 4.

Etc.

Finally, there are times when 2+2 may not equal 4. For example, in Roman numerals, II + II = IV. 2 and 4 do not exist, so are nonsensical annotations. Fast forward a couple thousand years, and let's say that I'm using a numerical system that is not base-10. Maybe I'm using base-2 or base-3 mathematics, in which 4 does not exist.And why would I be so stupid as to use base-3, you ask? Well, let's say that I was working with electricity. A wire conducts one way, the other, or not at all. Period. This gives us base-3. Meanwhile, computer switches are on or off. This gives us base-2.

In other words, depending on what I'm doing, 2+2 may NOT equal 4, and to say that it must shows a misunderstanding of the principles.

Finally, four honestly does have mystical values in some cultures. Fail to understand this, and you might say "chi" instead of "yon" when speaking to a Japanese, and thereby remind him of death. Likewise, failing to duck whenever President Jerry Ford shouted "Fore!" could have resulted in being struck by a golf ball. (Same sound, different meaning, and how is a touring golfer from Argentina supposed to know?)

Bottom line? Principle-based says, "Teach them to understand four." Technique-based says, "Teach them that 2+2=4."

Cady Goldfield
23rd September 2002, 00:51
Ah, that's so much better, Joe. Now that you've expanded the concept into an over-rationalized, over-verbalized, overly analytical treatise, it makes much more sense to the Western mind.

:laugh:

Seriously, though, your definition, "Principle-based says, 'Teach them to understand four. Technique-based says, 'Teach them that 2+2=4'" is a good one.

Neil Hawkins
23rd September 2002, 02:12
Thanks Richard and thanks Joe.

Richard elaborated on my technique based verses priciple based arts and illustrated to me that all the instances I could think of of technique based arts were probably just premature incantations of a principle based art.

I would disagree slightly with Joe however. I don't think that 4 is the principle, I would say that the principles are algrebra, trigonometry or any other systems that let us take some numbers manipluate them and come up with 4.

So to expand on that.
1. 4 is the result, opponent neutralised or match won (not 1).
2. Technique based arts teach that to arrive at 4 you must do 2+2, or perhaps 2x2, or even if it is a good school with lots of techniques 9-5.
3. Principle based schools will teach you firstly, do 2+2, then 9-5, then 2x2, then 44/11. They then explain to you that the product of two numbers is a relationship of the numbers and the operator. That's the omote level. The next level is that more complex equations can be built that still give the answer 4, or that possibly the answer was 4 but owing to external influences the answer should be 7 or 5 or whatever. Finally when you reach a level of understanding you know that the way you get to 4 is irrelevent, and that it is important to not hold onto the concept of 4 because sometimes 4 is actually 7.

We know the principles, but we don't think about them any more, we know the answer but we don't consider it, we just take the numers as they are thrown at us, sometimes we feel that division is required, sometimes trigonometry or maybe addition, we don't think about the equation or the answer we just take the numbers as they come up and after a series of permutations end up with a result that should be a surprise to us, the fact that it is often 4 is irrelevent.

Neil

Richard Elias
23rd September 2002, 05:26
Joe, you're too much.

I would have to say though, (using only part of your extensive example) that principle based does not say "Teach them to understand four" or "What is 4?" but "how do you get to four?" and "this is what 2 is and why this 2 plus that 2 will = 4.” You, by my understanding, have been more describing the principle based art in that 4 is always the result, and the numerous ways of getting there are the use of the numbers in different ways. Thus, from your first post the numbers equal the principles.

The principle isn't about the result but how the result is achieved. Not to be focused on but recognized and understood as they occur. Not about the technique but about how it is set up and why the set up allows the technique to work.

Not “what is 4”, but “what is it about the 2’s that make 2+2=4.”

Cady Goldfield
23rd September 2002, 12:25
Hm. Good point. However, Joe does make the distinction between being given a "thing" to just do, and given an idea to understand at its core. I interpreted "What is 4" to mean what comprises it. 2+2 is one of the elements that comprise it. 1+1+1+1 is another -- itself a breakdown of 2+2 into even simpler common denominators. Now we can understand what 2 is, too.

Charlie Kondek
23rd September 2002, 16:19
Ahhhh.

Nathan's description of the difference between kendo and kenjutsu really knocked things into perspective for me. It's not that kendo and kenjutsu don't have principles in common, they do. It's just that kenjutsu has principles that kendo doesn't worry about.

For example - and this is oversimplifying it - both kendo and kenjutsu have this principle in common: "Cut the other guy down before he cuts you down." But kenjutsu also concentrates on the following principle, whereas kendo does not: "When you cut him down, make sure your blade doesn't wobble and bounce off; rather, you gotta cut all the way through that mother."

Anyway, that's a simple way of looking at it. The judo/jujutsu differences get hazier in my mind, simply because a) I am less experienced in judo and b) it seems to me that the full scope of judo's curriculum is nebulous and may contain a whole lot more than some of us participants in this thread understand; in other words, add up all of judo - and not all instructors do - and you may get something comparable to jujutsu. (Or even beyond jujutsu, but that's going down the gendai vs. koryu thread.)

So it's not that gendai arts generally are *not* principle-based, just that they have discarded some principles? (Cady, as the original recipient of this thread, is this in line with your thinking?)

It seems to me that perhaps what we are illustrating works this way.

A gendai practitioner and a koryu practitioner were talking about 4. Gendai and koryu both noted they had techniques in their curriculum to get to 4, including 2+2, 2x2 and 3+1. When koryu started talking about 44/11, gendai looked at his friend and said, "Aren't you making this more complicated than it needs to be?" Koryu then began explaining to gendai about algebra, and gendai was with him until koryu got into calculus, at which point gendai said, "Wait, wait. I'm really not interested in whether 4 is sometimes 7. Four is 4 and that's good enough for me."

I understand this but this seems deceptively simple, also I'm not sure that the historical context supports it. In other words, in times of war, wouldn't the professional warrior be more interested in 4 and less interested in calculus?

Cady Goldfield
23rd September 2002, 17:01
"So it's not that gendai arts generally are *not* principle-based, just that they have discarded some principles? (Cady, as the original recipient of this thread, is this in line with your thinking?)"

Yes, that's pretty much it. My original intention was to point out that gendai such as judo and kendo have had certain principles pared away and retained those which serve their particular purpose.+

I did mention some of the modern "systems" that are technique-based rather than principle-based, but that was in a different part of the discussion, and was in no way meant to imply that that's my take on all modern MAs. As others pointed out, such schools usually are the product of someone who didn't spend enough time in any one art to absorb and understand its principles, and thus created a superficial hodge-podge based only on techniques.

Also, as some had mentioned, there are gendai arts that, while they maybe have been derived from principle-based systems, no longer have their principles being taught or perpetuated, largely due to the skill and comprehension level (or lack thereof) of the instructor.

Joseph Svinth
23rd September 2002, 21:55
Although Neil begs to differ, there are, in my thinking, just 10 truly fundamental principles in a base-10 system, namely the integers 0-9. Understand the relationships between those 10 integers, and then you can do anything you want -- in a base-10 system.

Meanwhile, to respond to Rich's comment, yes, 4 can be 1+1+1+1. However, when you subtract 5 from 9, your initial answer is not 1+1+1+1, but 4. Meanwhile, if rounding is allowed, then 3.500001 is 4. However, if rounding is not allowed, then 4.000000001 is not 4. Amazing, isn't it, that sometimes 3 is 4, but other times 4 and a micron is not?

Anyway, the traditional number to contemplate is 9. Why 9? Well, for one thing, it's the first yang (even, male) integer whose square root is a whole integer other than itself. Moreover, nine is fun because its whole multiples add to 9 (9x1=9, 9x2=18, 9x3=27, 9x4=36, etc.) For its part, 4 is the first yin (odd, female) integer whose square root is a whole integer other than itself. However, unlike 9, 4 does not lend itself to so many different combinations when composing magic squares. Thus, it isn't quite as much fun. Nonetheless, it still works. (And yes, you could use 2, but really, isn't it easier to say that 2 is the square root of 4 than to say that 1.4142135 is approximately the square root of 2?)

Bottom line? Those who want to go beyond, can. That is why we have mathematicians, physicists, and rocket scientists. Meanwhile, those content to simply memorize math facts should be able to do 99.9% of everything most humans will ever want, need, or desire to do with numbers in daily life. Both in math and in martial arts, the trick is using what is appropriate for the situation.

Richard Elias
23rd September 2002, 22:27
Actually mine was not the "1+1+1+1" thing. My point was that principle based teaching is not the result (4) but the pieces of the different permutations that can be used to achieve the result (4). Those equal (theoretically speaking of course) how the principles can be combined and used in different ways to achieve the desired result, a throw, technique, or whatever number.

I am no mathematician and really don’t understand a lot of it, I don’t really even care. I was just using the already given example of 2+2=4.

System- Algebra, trigonometry, calculus, geometry etc. = Ryu or style of MA
(The method you are going to use that determines the sequence you will use to achieve the desired result)

Integers, numbers, letters, representative characters = Principles
(The tools used to achieve the desired result)

Result of equation = Throw
(The end)

Joseph Svinth
24th September 2002, 00:07
I'm not a mathematician, either, but I suspect that the base is actually the ryu. After all, algebra is algebra, and whether you're using base-2, base-10, or base-60 is irrelevant to the end learning objective, which is determining how many miles per gallon your car got on its last tank of gas (or dumping the other fellow on his butt).

On the other hand, what 010 + 010 equals depends entirely on the base. For example, in base-2, 010 + 010 = 100 and gives us the base-10 value of 4. Meanwhile, in base-10, 010 + 010 adds to 20, which is 5x the value the fellow using base-2 intended.

Well, you say, everybody knows we're using base-10. Oh? Modern ethnographers found that about 70% of North American Indian cultures counted using either base-10 or base-5. Another 20% used base-2 and 9% used base-20. Base-4 was used in less than 1% of the cultures sampled.

Cady Goldfield
24th September 2002, 00:50
Arrrrgggghhhh!!!!
Enough with the math analogies already!

Charlie, I hope this thread served its purpose to answer your question, because it's gone to hell in a handbasket now. :laugh:

Jeff Cook
24th September 2002, 00:57
I have read a couple of pages (but not all) of this thread. Interesting. In my opinion, way too complicated. Then again, I am one of those dreaded gendai/CQC types! ;)

Principles are universal. The human body has not changed for quite some time. Warfare has changed, and thus the emphasis and intent of systems.

In my uneducated opinion, TRUE koryu systems were concerned with very few things - how to kill the enemy with the chosen weapons of the time, and how not to be killed by the enemy. Pretty simple. Also, they wanted to take the shortest route to the goal of combat efficiency. Mysticism/over-intellectualization had no part in this process.

Once a principle is owned by a person, that person can then spontaneously "invent" techniques that have not been taught. Of course, techniques must be used to demonstrate the principles for one to attain ownership. Also, combative mindset has to be developed. (One must know how a mathematical formula works, and then develop a love for math in order to solve new problems. I hate math, by the way!)

The farther one gets away from combat efficiency, the farther one gets away from the spirit and intent of true koryu. "Modern" systems of self-defense and combatives generally try to adhere to this principle. The only difference is that they do not waste their time studying archaic and outdated weapons, just as the original koryu instructors probably did not waste their time by teaching students how to throw rocks at each other.

Jeff Cook
Wabujitsu

Neil Hawkins
24th September 2002, 01:39
Jeff,

I think that the koryu schools had a lot more depth than we give them credit for. I believe that there were two classes of student, those that were learning how to fight, because of a confilct looming or because that was their role, and those that were inducted into the school.

All of the koryu styles I have read about, and seen copies of scrolls for, had a huge number of techniques, principles and philosophies. Now they would not teach all of it to everyone, but they would teach it all to a select few. the former group would do the cqc course which would be primarily technique based and based on some accounts (Draeger & Ratti for example) would have taken perhaps 3 - 6 months to get to a level of proficiency. The ones inducted into the school would take a considerably longer period, maybe years, maybe a life time.

I believe that the philosophical aspects were very important to the teachers of the time, after all many of the styles are attributed to divine inspiration. By the looks of the various scrolls that have survived, these schools did not discard anything and did still teach the arcane weapons that, whilst not relevent now, did form part of the school and may have been re-introduced in the future.

Just think back to all those post-apocalyptic movies, where people revert back to a primitive lifestyle, and used stick and swords to fight with. Hollywood I know, but there are weird and wacky weapons being developed that destroy metals and plastics but don't harm the living, or weapons that destroy all electronic equipment. These are still flights of fancy (I hope), but who knows what you could be faced with in the future?

Unless there is an imprerative for speed, the more you know the better prepared you are.

Regards

Neil

Nathan Scott
24th September 2002, 02:05
I'm falling behind on the speed of this thread, so I'll just hit a few points for now:

Charlie,

Glad something made sense, and I agree with your last post. As I wrote before, the fundamental principles are often what the more sophisticated principles are based on, so these fundamental principles (like what Joe wrote) end up being present in most arts. I think the reason some of the more "sportified" arts don't get that far in the more sophisticated stuff is because the framework in which the art is being taught/studied (daily keiko structure, ratio of kata vs. jigeiko/randori, etc.) doesn't warrant it and/or make it possible.

As an afterthought about kendo/kenjutsu - some koryu kenjutsu arts also teach some type of harai (sweeping deflection) and/or maki otoshi (wrap the weapon and drop it downward) type techniques. Performing these techniques with a round shinai operates on different principles than those used for a blade (bokken or shinken) that has, in addition to a perceived edge, various surfaces on the rest of the blade that can be used to effeciently perform similar techniques. I would qualify these ideas as principles, though in this case they do not relate as much to the human body as much as it does to the weapon itself.

Also, in regards to Judo (and I'm sure this has been discussed by other more knowledgable in this area than myself somewhere on e-budo), I've heard that most of the kansetsu techniques were removed from randori since changes in speed and timing could easily nullify the technique or seriously injure the opponent. As a result, kansetsu would be a very useful principle that would not be learned by those who do not seriously study the various kata.

Brently,

I agree with you about the quality of training/instruction. Although I didn't specify that, I assumed that would be factored in. On the other hand though, theory is no good if the student has not trained hard and long to forge their body, spirit and mind. They will buckle under the stress, and will have difficulty performing the techniques/principles under various conditions with various opponents. I know a lot of people that are principle/theory smart, but do not have the training to back it up.

Mr. Cook,


In my uneducated opinion, TRUE koryu systems were concerned with very few things - how to kill the enemy with the chosen weapons of the time, and how not to be killed by the enemy. Pretty simple. Also, they wanted to take the shortest route to the goal of combat efficiency. Mysticism/over-intellectualization had no part in this process.

Mr. Cook, I agree with what your saying, and think that you might be misunderstanding a bit of what we're (I'm) saying.

First off, we are not trying to qualify or bash gendai arts or CQC.

Also, the KISS principle would have to be core to all combative arts that have stood the test of time or application. KISS is good. To reiterate, sophisticated principles are not sophisticated to employ, they just take more time to learn, and are sophisticated in concept, requiring a greater amount of training to apply correctly. Once learned though, the sophisticated principles tend to be EASIER to apply with less movement, less effort and with greatly enhanced results more of the time. That is the attraction behind learning them, not because it is academically interesting or mystical. Sophisticated principles are crap without good understanding of fundamental principles.

Military and LE simply don't feel their people need to train seriously enough in the areas of CQC, and this is why you have principle-light "seitei" techniques. It is all that can be forcefed into such students in the short amount of time given to them to learn them. That makes the techniques generally appropriate to the requirements, but does not make them gifted (as performed by those who have gone through the training).

BTW, as Richard mentioned (and he mentioned to me at Blade Show west last Saturday), there apparently are a few arts that teach a series of techniques that do not share a common "operating system". All techniques contain principles, but an art that does not have cohesive set of principles between their techniques cannot be considered an "art". That is why I keep coming back to taihojutsu/CQC. They tend to be a set of techniques that are compiled by a committee of people from different arts, and as such typically do not have the kind of cohesive operating system that "martial arts" have. I'm sure there are a few custom programs that are an exception, but from what I've seen this is pretty common.

While there is no "mysticism" to sophisticated principles (they all make logical sense), they do tend to be kept in-house, since it is these apsects that arts with sophisticated methods tend to consider "trade secrets" of their tradition.

Keiko time,

Brently Keen
24th September 2002, 03:20
Although I've not really been in the midst of this discussion I'll throw in a few other thoughts. I think I'm more in agreement with Richard than Joe here. The value of Joe's number analogy was (in my mind) showing the many ways of expressing, communicating, or achieving the objective (the number "4"). This fit's somewhat with Charlie's oversimplification that kendo and kenjutsu have this principle in common:

"Cut the other guy down before he cuts you down." But kenjutsu also concentrates on the following principle, whereas kendo does not: "When you cut him down, make sure your blade doesn't wobble and bounce off; rather, you gotta cut all the way through that mother."

However, the principle should not be confused with the goal or objective. The number "4" is not the principle. Nor is cutting down the enemy before he cuts you. The principle in my mind is more how did you arrive at the result? How did you succeed in obtaining the desired result, whether it be the number "4", or cutting down the enemy before he cuts you?

Although mathematics may give some of us headaches - it's really more straight-forward (imo) than kenjutsu or jujutsu. Understanding combative principles requires a broad grasp of all sorts of variables. As Richard mentioned previously, there are principles of physics, physiology, and psychology as well as strategy. Those are just the basic catagories in my mind - there are others as well as all sorts of sub-catagories. Does one need to know all this to be an effective martial artist that is successful in combat (whether real or sportive)?

Certainly not, but I personally think that having a grasp of these principles is crucial if you want to be able to effectively repeat your success and pass it on to succeeding generations of students. Otherwise your success is really only the result of either luck, intuition, and/or natural talent, or all three.

In my mind, principles are more like natural law(s). They are things we can count on - and we can use them sort of like common denominators to help make sense of a whole variety of fractions (factors) thrown together.

At a simple level, if achieving kuzushi is our short-term objective so that we can have an easier time throwing our opponent down and finishing him (the real objective), then I need to understand something about the laws of balance. As humans, we all (normally) have two legs, but sometimes we'll also balance in other ways. We're also flexible, have different levels of fitness and strength, various anatomical strengths and weakness, and we all (normally) have a similar skeletal structure, muscular functions, etc... albeit different sizes shapes Knowing a little about these different things may go a long way towards helping me off-balace my opponent regardless of their relative size, strength, skill. Knowledge of how the body works for example, may lead to a discovery of various principles we can apply in pursuit of our short term goal of off-balancing an opponent. Good techniques and martial arts will consistently utilize these principles in their techniques. In the final analysis it may not be that simple - but knowing those principles will make it easier to consistently achieve kuzushi - and as everyone knows, if your opponent is already off-balanced it's much easier to throw him down, because it's much more difficult for him to resist and counter when he's off-balance.

A particular technique that works against one person, or in one situation won't necessarily always work against another person - but a principle is something that can be applied consistently, therefore in a "principle based" martial art learning the principles takes precedence over learning techniques - it is what allows one to transcend techniques and respond appropriately to whoever may be your opponent and whatever the situation/circumstances may be. However like someone else indicated, techniques and principles are inter-related and really are inseparable - techniques that are taught and practiced in the dojo are (or should be) vehicles to teach and illustrate principles.

Without techniques how can we apply principles? Likewise without principles how can we apply techniques?

Technique oriented MA's (imo) are simply those that either do not adhere to principles (and therefore have ineffective techniques) or they do not teach principles for whatever reason (usually because they don't have an understanding of how or why they do things the way they do). The latter may have effective techniques, if principles are adhered to in form (even if they're not explicitly taught or understood) - but most practictioners will have difficulty adapting and applying their art to challenging situations that do not follow the prescribed manner in which they train, and instructors will have difficulty passing on their "skills" to students. Likewise students will have more difficulty in making substantial progress in their abilities over time, unless they cross train (hence the growing popularity of cross-training these days, especially in technique based martial arts).

Brently Keen

PS Added: Nathan, I absolutely agree that sufficient training is a prerequisite to making theory (and even principles) work. To me, training & experience are necessary to "grasp" principles. Head knowledge is not enough - the root word for knowldege by the way has to do with "experiential knowing", and it is in that sense that we need to really "understand" principles. There's is much more to be said about cultivating the proper mindset, will, and spirit to appropriately apply principles and be able to take advantage of openings and the like especially while under duress.

Cady Goldfield
24th September 2002, 03:28
Nathan wrote:
Also, in regards to Judo (and I'm sure this has been discussed by other more knowledgable in this area than myself somewhere on e-budo), I've heard that most of the kansetsu techniques were removed from randori since changes in speed and timing could easily nullify the technique or seriously injure the opponent. As a result, kansetsu would be a very useful principle that would not be learned by those who do not seriously study the various kata.

That was one of my points (although you put it much better and with specifics) in my original comments, back when this thread began in the "Members Lounge" forum. It's what I meant by "sportification" and the loss of some of the principles that had more martial applications as jujutsu.

Kano had it all, but had to move away from kansetsu waza because it wouldn't work as a fast-paced, full-speed sporting competition without seriously injuring or killing the "players."

Brently Keen
24th September 2002, 03:52
"BTW, as Richard mentioned (and he mentioned to me at Blade Show west last Saturday), there apparently are a few arts that teach a series of techniques that do not share a common "operating system". All techniques contain principles, but an art that does not have cohesive set of principles between their techniques cannot be considered an "art". That is why I keep coming back to taihojutsu/CQC. They tend to be a set of techniques that are compiled by a committee of people from different arts, and as such typically do not have the kind of cohesive operating system that "martial arts" have. I'm sure there are a few custom programs that are an exception, but from what I've seen this is pretty common."

I completely agree with this, with one small clarification: All techniques (imo) do not contain (or adhere to) principles. All good techniques certainly would, but many techniques being taught these days simply do not adhere to principles - they are bad techniques, bad budo. I'm not just speaking morally either.

Nathan, what you (and Richard) are saying here is a very valid point though - no cohesive set of principles/operating system = technique based martial arts, and this is very common to many of today's popular MMA's and modern systems. The lack of cohesion makes for the more complicated (anti-KISS) need of shifting mindsets and/or operating systems. Likewise practice of one aspect of the curriculum does not improve the other different aspects.

For a common example, many karate systems that train traditional kata and bunkai, but then also spar and fight freestyle. Sparring practice doesn't really improve their kata, and the more jujutsu-like waza in traditional kata bunkai do not translate well to sparring or competition. Thus in order to succeed in competition, "training" must consist of sparring and learning competive techniques designed to "score". Such training is often in sharp contrast to the goals and needs of self-defense or traditional kata training. Also empty hand systems that practice another weapons system as an adjunct to their style, but the principles and kinds of movements in each are often grossly incompatible.

In a truly comprehensive and systemic art there is a cohesion of "guiding" principles throughout, that are consistent. In fact, training in the empty-hand techniques improves the weapon techniques and vice-versa. In one (un-mentioned ;)) koryu in which I am familiar, training in the seated techniques (hint: zatori) actually develops skills and attributes for standing techniques as well as ground grappling techniques and ken and jo techniques (all the other techniques really), and the opposite is also just as true. Training in the bo or tanbo techniques will also improve your kenjutsu, and empty hand techniques because the system is really systemic, the skills and the principles both are interelated and transferrable.

BK

Brently Keen
24th September 2002, 04:18
To continue a bit more from my last post, I think the above point also illustrates a difference between gendai judo and koryu jujutsu. Although Judo derived from various koryu and has elements that are more traditional (various older kata still practiced by die hard traditionalists) and those kata do contain various goshin waza, kansetsu waza, even knife defenses that are consistent with their koryu orgins, the practice of these techniques however presents (imo) some conflicts in the overall operating system upon which judo rests.

IOW some of the basics of competitive judo are at odds with some of the basics of traditional jujutsu and there is no cohesive, comprehensive system of basic movements and principles to tie the two parts together - they may be compatible to a degree and even have a lot of overlap - but they're not comprehensive (imo).

Now before the Judo Guard jumps all over me, do not take this to be a value judgement on the effectiveness of judo at all - it is just an observation and example of the gendai nature of judo, and how that pertains to the points raised in this thread about principles in koryu and gendai arts. I am not arguing about the effectiveness of judo at all (that has been proven again and again), what I'm saying is that traditional judo is an example of a modern budo without a completely consistent and comprehensive operating system. Modern sport judo is actually more consistent (within it's focus anyway).

imho of course,

Brently Keen

Benjamin Peters
24th September 2002, 06:09
Originally posted by Brently
"some of the basics of competitive judo are at odds with some of the basics of traditional jujutsu and there is no cohesive, comprehensive system of basic movements and principles to tie the two parts together - they may be compatible to a degree and even have a lot of overlap - but they're not comprehensive"

Do you think the same with Aikido?

I believe you have a good point. I believe, however, that modern/older arts both have good points that can even compliment each other.:smilejapa Different perspectives offer fresh insight into the way things work.

MarkF
24th September 2002, 11:43
Originally posted by Cady Goldfield
Nathan wrote:
Also, in regards to Judo (and I'm sure this has been discussed by other more knowledgable in this area than myself somewhere on e-budo), I've heard that most of the kansetsu techniques were removed from randori since changes in speed and timing could easily nullify the technique or seriously injure the opponent. As a result, kansetsu would be a very useful principle that would not be learned by those who do not seriously study the various kata.

That was one of my points (although you put it much better and with specifics) in my original comments, back when this thread began in the "Members Lounge" forum. It's what I meant by "sportification" and the loss of some of the principles that had more martial applications as jujutsu.

Kano had it all, but had to move away from kansetsu waza because it wouldn't work as a fast-paced, full-speed sporting competition without seriously injuring or killing the "players."

Yes, Cady, you're right, but you continually limit judo to that point and never get beyond it. I don't think you've ever been wrong about the faults you find, but you never move beyond them without dropping the subject of Kano and judo completely. "This is what it is and nothing more."

As you said, "Kano had it all..." He also was just a bit too intelligent to close the door there. Kano knew exactly what he had and admitted in his liftime there are too many unqualified instructors. He also knew that teaching all of judo was nearly impossible and stressed that no day should go by without practicing judo. His criticism had nothing to do with the manner in which judo was utilized but in the manner of one facet only: randori. He said "we need to return to that of Kodokan randori immediately (paraphrased)." He didn't mention technique or principle. He and a few others decided which will and will not be used, *during* this time of play and competition. You stop there, and never get beyond what your viewpoint sees. You see randori, shiai, but not anything else contained within the 99.9 per cent of the whole of judo, what some in advanced age are still attempting to perfect, as Kano described judo, "the path to perfection." But there is a lot more to it. The first "high" or superior kata show principles that the average shugyosha wouldn't understand, would not want to understand, probably, and even if part of the whole from a teacher geared toward the principles, one who wants his students to understand them, even he must admit that it better to wait until one cannot or does not want to play anymore. Many koryu teachers want students already schooled in judo or other MA, but mainly judo. I think it goes further than understanding the basics of the dojo. There is another message there, as well. There is the second, third, etc., superior kata which teach and are, fundamental principles and practical principles. There are principles for the principles. Kano did a lot more than "sportify" jujutsu (while he never interfered with anyone's plan to make it so, he did say that he would not be the one), but you simply do not want to accept that fact. Kano explained jujutsu so well that many koryu practitioners don't even realize that much of what they are doing is based in Kano's academic approach, his experimentations (Kata). He didn't mind, and I'll be the last to complain, but give it more than new vocabulary and a grudging nod that it exists, but "demartialized." Judo isn't demartialized, only compartmentalized, just as the founders wished it to be. The one, sadly, true fact is few go in that direction and few make better judoka than he is, the instructor, but as in anything, the importance to you is what drives it. If you want to do it, understand it, go and find the elusive instructor or research it so you aren't making uneducated opinion, but rather opinionated research even just to prove you are correct. Prove me wrong. I dare you. While I admit a dearth of such teachers, that in no way means I am leaving out koryu. Those budo have the same problem, but only on a smaller scale.
*****

As for the volumes of techniques found on scrolls, some claim thousands, and others claim few, some just one technique on which every other is a variant. Just now, thinking as I type, I've found twelve variations on the same shoulder throw and all have the same name, but some would claim each one to be separate, in the so-called bujutsu, even if in name only. So long as each variant are thought of as distinct technique, there will be an infinite number of technique, and if one were to really consider, not the fundamental principle, but the practical one, we can come to a reasonable number found in most martial arts, bujutsu, etc., we can agree that the number isn't so large, that there are entire groupings of techniques where the function, the basic and practical fundamentals make that grouping into variations on the one technique.

Charlie Kondek
24th September 2002, 14:42
Some more thoughtful posts. I, too, am having a hard time keeping up!

Just wanted to point out I don't think Jeff or anyone is drifting toward a gendai vs. koryu argument. (I don't presume to speak for Jeff.) However, I think Jeff and I are curious to know if historically in times of conflict the koryu didn't function more like the way the gendai are frequently described*. Some have explained here that a big bulk of the fighting force got a CQC version of the koryu, while a few experts devoted themselves to mastering the entire curriculum. I could see that.

Question(s): how did warriors-in-training randori before Kano? What role did sport play in martial preparedness? Ellis Amdur and others have noted a lot of bushi played a kind of everyman sumo to keep sharp. And I think a lot of scholars believe sport was one of the major ways the ancient and medieval world kept in shape for war and transmitted techniques in the west (from Greece to Rome to Europe). Surely this was not unknown in Asia? And, btw, is kata a solely Asian invention? Does the western military-type drill even compare?


*By the way, I read in another thread that Mark F. thinks the distinction between koryu and gendai is exaggerated. I think he's already sketched his reasons why. At any rate, his ideas make me uncomfortable with maintaining general stereotypes about the differences between gendai and koryu.

Mike Williams
24th September 2002, 15:23
it's funny that this thread drifted into "technique-based" vs. "principle-based", rather than "gendai" vas. "koryu".

I'm beginning to suspect that the principles really haven't been stripped from modern arts, but are there to be discovered by a dilligent student, just as in koryu. From what a couple of you have said about "simple", learn-it-quick techniques being available to battlefield combatants, and more involved study being available to those with the time to dedicate to it...

...well, to me that sounds a lot like (for instance) those who train in judo exclusvely for shiai, and rely on two or three key throws that they know will work most of the time, and those (Mark!) who pursue judo as a more complete martial study.

Sure the applications will change over time (we don't need to grapple people in armour very often), but the principles will either stay in place, or new principles will be included to account for more modern applications?

(one example I can think of as a modern principle is the ground-strategy of BJJ, to enable transition from being in guard to, side mount, to knee on chest, to getting out of there - which I don't believe exists in judo newaza. But then maybe it did exist in koryu jujutsu, who knows?)

Just some rambling thoughts from a novice in gendai arts whith no exposure to koryu whatsoever.

Cheers,

Mike

Brently Keen
24th September 2002, 21:51
"...a modern principle is the ground-strategy of BJJ, to enable transition from being in guard to, side mount, to knee on chest, to getting out of there - which I don't believe exists in judo newaza. But then maybe it did exist in koryu jujutsu, who knows?"

What is principle and what is technique?

BJJ has various techniques and methods for escaping the guard, etc... Those are techniques. The principle in this example would be (as Mike implied) "strategic". The principle is one of working to improve one's position gradually first, rather than to simply finish, submit, or reverse the opponent with one move. BJJ is a positional sort of strategic game where you generally move one step at a time (like in chess) to gain a position of superiority over your opponent from where you can lead your opponent into a trap, launch your own attacks, or simply take whatever he gives you.

While the above strategic principle is legit - simply passing the guard and moving to a side mount and then to a knee on the chest, to either mount or escape is simply a sequence of techniques. How do you pass the guard, taking into account the strengths and weaknesses of both bodies in that situation, the typical range of motion of both, and the typical reactions of an opponent who has you in his guard, the skeletal, muscular and other systems, etc...? What kinds of things are generally always true for someone employing the guard, and then for someone in the guard? What are the characteristic physics, physiology, and psychology of both those who are in the guard and who are using it? Principles would be using that understanding and knowledge to accomplish one's movement from the guard to the side mount, and so on.

It is my opinion that while BJJ generally adheres to sound principles of physics, physiology, and psychology, those principles are rarely systematically taught and explained - rather BJJ is usually taught from a technical standpoint (put your hand here, step that way, grab like this, and pull in this direction towards..., etc...) At a more advanced level, strategy and strategic principles will tend govern the choice and use of the techniques, and these may or may not be taught depending on the instructor/system. In my own limited experience, this is more often left up to the individuals own investigation, research and practice to discover. At any rate, I think in most schools the techniques are usually taught in a technical manner first.

Brently Keen

Charlie Kondek
27th September 2002, 14:00
Looks like this thread wore everybody out! (No posts the last couple of days.)

Cady Goldfield
29th September 2002, 01:56
I guess we all said what we wanted to say and there's nothing more to say about it 'cause it's all been said. :)

Hope the discussion answered your main questions, though. There were some good points brought up and certainly food for thought. After you've gotten more training experience, you'll have some solid and informed opinions of your own, and some of the stuff brought up here may gain more significance for you. I know that's what happens with me over time. That's why these discussion boards are such a good resource.

Dan Harden
29th September 2002, 14:21
With all do respect to those so loquacious among us, discussions of theory, principle, technique and application are just so much verbage (as in gar-bage). I have heard, and read detailed analysis of fighting from many sources who upon examination were lacking in ability. For example; read the shear volumes written about Aikido by Aikidoka- then tour a dozen dojo’s of different styles. Then do the same with Judo or Jujutsu. It IS different. I consider the voracity of written theory VS application of those who practice violence against unwilling partners to be more substantive then others. Then you have those who do not talk about it or show anything. I know of a few >very< capable men who do not talk much about it at all.
In the end I will leave it up to ya’ll to decide if a public forum of yakers is a great resource for accurate information about fighting technique-since the martial arts have proven themselves time and time again to be woefully inconsistent in that regard. It’s always refreshing to see an inexperienced newbie give a martial "artist" a hard time. All in all people in the arts (and their theories) are nice if not taken too literally or seriously.

Dan

Judokax8
30th September 2002, 00:06
"But still no one can give me an example of a principle?"

I haven't read all the responses yet so if this repetitive, mea culpa!

In Judo there are two principles: Maximum Efficiecy and Mutual Welfare and Benefit. In Kodokan Judo by Kano he states that after studying various ju jitsu schools, he systemized the techniques and kept the ones he felt utilized these principles. Kuzushi is embedded in Maximum Efficiency (Seirokyo Zenyo). (SP?)Mutual Welfare and Benefit was for him a big picture idea. Practice of judo improved the student physically by exercise, was useful for self defense, improved ones spirit by the needed discipline to progress. This in turn would lead to a more harmonious society as more and more people improved through the study of judo. The Gentle Way was to be a lifetime endeavor, the judoka was to apply these principles in their life in and outside the dojo.

Peace
Dennis

Charlie Kondek
30th September 2002, 14:32
Dennis! Thanks for jumping in. Your example was indeed brought up, but it is an example of a gendai principle, and I was asking specifically what are "koryu principles" and what separates them from gendai. However, yes, you provide an excellent example of principle-driven martial arts, IMO. But if you go back and read this (very long) thread, the jury's out on what's "principle driven" and what's "technique driven."

Harden! Glad to see you here, haven't read anything from you lately. (I think you handled "Katana69" very well, BTW, and would like to hear more. I actually tried e-mailing his contact person to no effect...) Anyway, aren't you, Dan, a koryu guy? Are you saying "koryu, gendai, no difference, only people make the difference?" Sounds like you advocate a mixed approach while at the same time stressing a de-emphasis on "theory." Am I reading you correctly?

Cady Goldfield
30th September 2002, 17:28
Charlie,

In RE: what Dan said...
That's why I go back to my earlier post and quote myself again:

****************
It's better to observe for oneself, rather than to be told and expected to accept everything on faith. Don't take my word for anything. Read and get out there and observe.

Meanwhile, as I said before, there is very good judo. You want good judo? Here's good judo:

http://www.onlinesports.com/pages/I,CEN-18712.html

*****************

Mifune is a great example of it being the practitioner more than the art. It's just that the majority of what you see in the mass-produced judo, etc. circuit does not represent this standard or ideal. And those who possess those skills, as Dan said, often don't talk and are not seen. So what does the mainstream see? They see the mainstream!

Cady