PDA

View Full Version : Traditional vs Modern



chris davis 200
20th November 2002, 12:45
Hi people,

This was recently posted in another forum.


a lot of trad martial arts give you some poor concepts that can definitely hinder you in a real life situation

The majority of non Traditional practitioners seem to think that traditional MA's are not effective in real life.

We had a 'modern' JJ instructor come to our club recently - he had practiced 'modern' JJ and self defence for 15 years and Wado Ryu Karate (modern school) for 10. After his first lesson training with the high grades he said to me personally ' Fair play, i dont know a thing - i thought the modern approach would be best but it just lacks vital content, I am supprised!' (thats about the jist of it). This guy is a very humble and nice guy and did not mind admitting this to me - He now trains regularly at our school.

Peoples common misconseption is that Traditional methods are not really applicable in a modern age. Why do people think this? people DID punch kick and grapple in ancient Japan and China too! If they didn't we would not have oriental arts Full stop. We still have two arms and legs, we still punch, kick and fight dirty, all this was around when these arts where created! These traditional methods where created to deal with LIFE or DEATH situations so they must be effective - if they weren't then they would not have been used again and would have been discarded! The only difference between now and then is the introduction of firearms.

This is my opinion on that comment - what do you guys think.

Thankyou
Chris

Amir
20th November 2002, 13:44
Ancient or modern doesn't matter

It's the teacher that makes the difference.


Amir

chris davis 200
20th November 2002, 14:06
Agreed.

:D

Cady Goldfield
20th November 2002, 14:41
Where "traditional" can get bogged down, is in the ritualizing of training methods. Instructors who focus too much on formula punches and attacks, wrist-grabbing and similar stuff are limiting their students' abilities to deal with realistic attacks and situations. Those who see the importance of stress-based training use the ritual stuff as "training wheels" to instill basic skills, but then ramp up the attacks and methods to allow students to hone their eye and their skills.

You're right -- it's the instructor. The classical arts, as Chris pointed out, are full of real-life application based on sound principles. They were used for life-or-death, not as hobbies and recreation. It's the way in which successions of practitioners have done to the training methods that have lost soundness of application along the way. It takes are some clear-sighted individuals to reinstill it in their training systems -- which is possible as long as the original principles of the art remain intact.

kusanku
20th November 2002, 21:47
And for this to happen, the original principles must be clearly and openly taught to at least all students of that art, and preserved in whatever other ways possible such that none of them are lost for whatever reasons.

Its already happened in some arts.

Recently in a dojo near me, I met a young person who was at brown or black belt level in Tae Kwon Do, who paroted some things I hear all the time on this ebudo, not here but other forums, about how BJJ and Muay Thai were the closest thing you could get to a real fight.

I started laughing, and said, do you read e-budo?He said, yeah.I said, hey, I'm kusanku.He said, no sh*t?

I said, yes, and let me show you some things you didn't know were in your forms. I did, and fifteen minutes later, he said, 'well, I thought that was corect,, but I guess I was wrong.'He had studied BJJ, muay Thai, and tkd, and thought he knew how to fight.

I told him, if you correctly understnad and master your own basics and forms, his forms are ATA and actually contain the maneuvers similar to Okinawan and chinese forms, ' you will learn how this stuff works.

I had him try all his stuff on me first, then neutralized it, then showed him what was lurking in his own forms.

One more person out there who knows how to get from there to here.

Shame so few do know.

DR, well, thats an even darker area.I do understand though, why.Arts from feudal eras do perpetuate feudal attitudes but I do see evidfence of changes, such as thiis forum, where many lruk who hope top glean the secrets, ie basic principles, of DR AJJ.Each for their own reason.Ya Hah Hah.:D

kusanku
21st November 2002, 21:25
Insights occur once every five minutes, somehwere on the planet.One got me between yesterday and today.

No answer here, just a question: How does a traditional martial or other art, makes no difference, get started?

Answer that question, answer a lot.

History and legend both do, but we see it and go our way firmly covinced that that could not be true, not in this day and age.

Naw.

But what if?

How does one get started?

Brently Keen
22nd November 2002, 03:07
"Where "traditional" can get bogged down, is in the ritualizing of training methods. Instructors who focus too much on formula punches and attacks, wrist-grabbing and similar stuff are limiting their students' abilities to deal with realistic attacks and situations..."

I'm in basic agreement with Cady - however there are some hidden or grey areas concerning the value of traditional methods that are still not completely understood by many people (imo). If I may expand on these thoughts a bit:

Let me start with one example from history. Terada sensei of Nakanishi/Ono-ha and Tenshin Itto-ryu. He practiced strictly kata and kumi uchi he did not train in shiai geiko and in fact advocated against such practice, yet he could always beat everyone, among his students were other masters like Shirai, Nakanishi, Chiba, etc...
Another example comes from my own experience. After training in Daito-ryu for only one year in the Roppokai method which consisted of over 80% grabbing and what most would consider "unrealistic" attacks, I returned home and even worried a little about my ability to handle more realistic attacks punches and kicks etc... that my friends and previous dojo mates liked to use - they were keen to test me after I'd been in Japan. But I found to my surprise that I could read their attacks better than before and that they even seemed slower to me.

I think my own ability to deal with such attacks actually increased without having practiced much at all against those kinds of attacks and I attributed my improvement directly to the increased sensitivity I gained from primarily training against "unrealistic" grabs. Later after another year in Japan and after returning to the States, Okamoto actually began teaching and even inventing other techniques against modern realistic attacks (that's not traditional or is it?), especially in his seminars in Santa Cruz and Hawaii as well. So these may be practiced a little more on a regular basis in branch dojos outside of the hombu in Japan, but even still I recall Japanese members saying that Sensei began doing more when he returned from these early trips. I personally still prefer to keep close to the method in which I learned in Japan, because I think it works and reflects the genius of both Okamoto sensei and each generation of DR masters before him, but still the way I learned also included the way he taught us in America too.

I should also say that the Roppokai training method is considered by many to be a completely "modern method" within Daito-ryu, and it is - in that it progresses beyond the "traditional approach" and skips over much of the basic and advanced jujutsu kata in favor of the more advanced aiki waza. Some basic essentials of jujutsu and important basics of aiki are stressed, but beyond that emphasis is largely on oyo waza. I'm not convinced however that the method of teaching and training such aiki waza is all that modern - I think it derives from and is still faithful to the way Sokaku taught aiki to Horikawa sensei, and Horikawa in turn taught Okamoto. In this sense the method is still very traditional (imo).

For example: Taiso Horikawa had a menkyo in Shibukawa-ryu Jujutsu, and Kodo had learned jujustu from his father, when Sokaku began to teach them he quickly focused on aiki. Incidentally, when Okamoto sensei came to Santa Cruz for the first time, it was to give a seminar to a roomful of mostly experienced martial artists, practitioners and instructors of numerous different arts. Among his first words were "Since I think most of you already know some jujutsu I'll start by teaching aiki..." Therefore the Daito-ryu instructor who is most known for being "progressive" and "modern" proceeded to "keep the tradition" in which both he and his teacher was taught - even though it differs greatly from the traditional start with jujutsu beginning with ikkajo and proceeding to nikajo, sankajo, etc...

Every participant in that seminar and indeed in all his classes receives hands on attention again preserving the koryu standard of direct transmission. In Santa Cruz he started with basic aiki techniques and came back and emphasized only a few important jujutsu basics, and then continued with numerous exercises and variations, throwing in self-defense applications as well as very advanced applications of aiki against multiple opponents.

The seminar format (and a whole roomful of novices) broke-up some of the usual continuous flow of nagare practice as it's normally done in the hombu, but still it was traditional. Sensei taught and explained principles through techniques, demonstrated some weapons work and even taught classic Daito-ryu strategy, he showed zatori and tachi ai as well as ne waza, he also engaged in some randori, and freestyle exchanges, and demonstrated famous techniques that Sokaku was known for. It may have looked a confusing mixture of traditional and untraditional, and it certainly differed from the usual practice in Japan, and yet later it was made clear to me the methodology and reasons for doing what he did, and they were systematic and consistent in principle as always.

I'm not sure if the nagare geiko sort of line practice we do in the Roppokai is really new or not - I was told that Okamoto sensei developed it (and he may have indepently because he had no prior or other martial arts experience or other influences to draw from), but it could be that it was the method or among many methods he was taught and that he simply favored it and because of his emphasis, he made it more popular. But I have seen similar practices in other branches of Daito-ryu, and even in aikido (I don't know if others adapted the practice after he began to publish videos or not though - incidentally I heard Okamoto sensei's first MUAV video was the top-selling budo video in Japan for several years straight). There are very compelling and systematic reasons anyway for his emphasis of it though.

"Those who see the importance of stress-based training use the ritual stuff as "training wheels" to instill basic skills, but then ramp up the attacks and methods to allow students to hone their eye and their skills."

Again I agree wholeheartedly - some however, might not see or understand how the traditional methods whether kata training or the nagare geiko as used in the Roppokai do infact create stress. Even though primarily done against various grabbing attacks, the nagare geiko method does teach and instill attributes for coping effectively with stress. Still the nagare geiko method differs in this regard from strict kata training and perhaps holds a middle ground between traditional kata and modern jiyu waza or freestyle training. In any case attacks are indeed ramped up as students progress and the seniors play an important role in that now as they did traditionally, athough the amount varies somewhat among individual practitioners.

If you train with a large group there's also the added benefit of training with all kinds of people with different levels of experience, different backgrounds, different purposes for training and different attitudes about training you get the whole kit and kaboodle or gamut. Likewise it's also my opinion that classical kata training is not very well understood anymore or practiced the way it originally was when the koryu were being developed, and so the benefits of truly classical kata training are largely unpracticed nowadays if not largely lost and misunderstood even among most koryu systems. And hence the relative ineffectiveness of a vast majority of the remaining traditional ritualized kata methods. They do seem to be forever stuck riding around with their "training wheels on".

"You're right -- it's the instructor. The classical arts, as Chris pointed out, are full of real-life application based on sound principles. They were used for life-or-death, not as hobbies and recreation. It's the way in which successions of practitioners have done to the training methods that have lost soundness of application along the way. It takes are some clear-sighted individuals to reinstill it in their training systems -- which is possible as long as the original principles of the art remain intact."

Agreed again. A key point is "they were used for life and death, not as hobbies, and recreation." Now however, that is a different story and that will greatly differ from school to school and from teacher to teacher as well among individual practitioners. I do think the training system or method is the teacher's responsibility though, and so individual students will get out of it proportionately according to what they bring and put into it - however if they bring a bunch of baggage from preconcieved ideas, they might not get as much, for such obscures their clear-sightedness. In addition to clarity of sight/vision they have to also be receptive and open, those go things go hand in hand. You have to trust and have confidence in the training method for it to work. It's not a blind faith however, but a reasoned faith, based on the skills and character/reputation of the instructor and the tradition he possesses.

Very much like Cady said, if any teacher fails at some point to bring all that he's learned and received to the present practice method, then yes, students will have difficulty interpreting the tradition's teaching soundly and with clarity - the result will be a loss of some aspects of the tradition. So barring the clear-sighted reinstallation of those aspects, according to the principles of the tradition, then the traditon will get bogged down in the ritualization of it's remaining training methods and practices, and it's ability to deal with realistic attacks and situations will falter.

Sadly I think this is the case with many "classical" arts and systems today. In truth they've ceased to be traditional (imo) by leaving out and/or losing important aspects of their practice methods.

Please pardon this post for being way too wordy (that's my tradition!) - Amir put all much more succinctly:

"Ancient or modern doesn't matter - It's the teacher that makes the difference." Perhaps I should have left it at that. Oh well, the whole tradition vs modern thing is always an interesting and hotly contested subject anyway.

Brently Keen

Nathan Scott
28th June 2008, 05:47
[ THE FOLLOWING POSTS WERE MERGED FROM THE "Body Conditioning / Dan Harden (http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38747)" thread: ]

"Always" the student's fault? In my long response to you I stated:


Sure there are bad teachers, those that run businesses, or those who don't have interest in others learning. That is why prospective students are encouraged by most in the arts to carefully select an appropriate teacher. I checked out all my teachers prior to asking to become their student. If a teacher changes in negative ways over time, then maybe it is time to reconsider. Unfortunately, the human element is the one thing that is most difficult to manage when dealing with physical arts. It is usually a matter of "do what I say, not what I do", which is simply how many live.

In other words, while there are bad teachers - in fact, we could probably say A LOT of bad teachers, I personally believe there are more dojo members that do not conduct themselves as students in the TMA sense. They do not, or are for any number of reasons unable to, adapt their mindset and behavior to fall in line with the rest of the group. Doing so involves a certain amount of risk for the new student, who is forced to place trust in the teacher. Scary stuff. But many have no problem saying "you only live once - screw it, I'll try something new and see what happens". Many TMA are acquired tastes, kind of like coffee and beer. As such, you may have to commit yourself to study an art for a reasonable period of time before realizing the benefits. I've probably learned to enjoy training in TMA as much as I've learned to enjoy coffee and beer, personally.

So while I acknowledge that there is plenty to gripe about in regards to many teachers, commercial dojo, fraudulent misrepresentation, etc., I personally believe that it is incumbent on the prospective student to do a bit of research before joining a dojo/art, and that a bigger problem - at least for those legitimately teaching TMA - is finding students who are willing to show up to the dojo on a regular basis, sweat, and become a "student" in good standing. The funny thing is that it really isn't that hard. It just requires some trust, faith, a hunger to learn, and perseverance.

Many students come from a commercial dojo atmosphere, in which they paid a fee in exchange for learning techniques. Or, they have no prior training but simply cannot fathom getting something for nothing (or virtually nothing). For example, my partner at work told me he wanted to seriously study aikido from me, and asked how much it would cost to train and rank up eventually. I told him that since we could work it in mostly during our work time, it wouldn't cost anything. He really had a hard time accepting this idea, and kept looking for "the catch". I told him the catch is that he has to practice what he I teach him when we're not together, and at some point, find someone else (preferably from work) who is interested in being his training partner. It looks like these simple requirements may be too much for him, even though it is costing him nothing to receive formal training in an art that could have a significant impact on his life.

Regards,

Dan Harden
28th June 2008, 15:15
I totally agree with that, Nathan, without having to change my views at all.
Maybe we were both "stressing" one side or another or reading just one side, to further a point, I dunno. As I said before, for the most part we usually agree on most things, so I'm not surprised there was a middle ground here.

I would also like to say that there are several Koryu that are adjusting their teaching model a bit. And while making adjustments to bring Koryu to the west, they are none-the-less adhering to requirements that students learn the language, mindset, culture, and understanding of the arts in both their previous era and currently.
This stands next to another model that I have seen twice now. Where Koryu have dispatched teachers to the west and told them in no uncertain terms to make the arts their own. I imagine that in keeping with Shu-Ha-Ri those masters had no trouble whatsoever with seeing the art westernized, even with some westerners defending...can we sing with the fiddlers on the roof...Tradition....tradition!!
Some retain every element of tradition, while others adopt the dan-i system, or more modern dissemination methods-giving very high rank in 6 to 8 yrs, and even teach their koryu in a commercial dojo (which I personally dislike). I don't try to "out Japanese the Japanese," (no, not saying you are either, bud) but instead just try to look at it all and see what the hell is going on.
Have a great holiday
Dan

Nathan Scott
29th June 2008, 22:23
Yeah, I realize that many koryu these days modernize to some degree, or adapt in ways that make them less "standardized" when compared to the traditional koryu model. Most often when communicating in the written word, it is necessary to generalize. It is the only way to make text readable. When a disclaimer is really necessary, it should be given, otherwise readers should take into account that there is an exception to every rule without listing every exception to every example given.

Part of why I adhere so much to the traditional koryu teaching/training model is that it seems to have worked in the past, and, it is a method of transmission that may be lost if everyone discards it in favor of the more popular teaching methods. That means instead of having the choice of apples or oranges, we would only have apples to choose from. Would anything really be lost by this? People will still learn, so it's hard to say for a fact. But are there certain developmental skills that are learned better one way than another? Having been exposed to both methods personally, I happen to think so. We're all the next generation, so to a greater or lesser degree, what we think and do will have a significant affect on the future of these arts. As such things like this seem worthy of discussion and experimentation.

Regards,

Mark Jakabcsin
30th June 2008, 03:52
That means instead of having the choice of apples or oranges, we would only have apples to choose from. Would anything really be lost by this?

As long as oranges are still desired they will still be available. When oranges are no longer desired they will no longer be available. Simple as that. At the turn of the 19th century the occupation of cobbler was in the top 10 most popular of all occupations. This has not been so for many decades. Due to this loss/change do you feel a significant loss in your life? Is society somehow weaker or missing the big picture?

For the record I am not promoting apples over oranges or cobblers over programmers, it simply is the way of the world.

Take care,

Mark J.

DDATFUS
30th June 2008, 04:16
As long as oranges are still desired they will still be available. When oranges are no longer desired they will no longer be available. Simple as that.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that, Mark. Even if people, on the whole, stop desiring the "oranges" of koryu doesn't mean that we shouldn't keep them around. Sixty years from now someone might really wish that there were still some oranges left, and feel rather disappointed that no one was working "against the grain" to make sure that the oranges were preserved.

Of course, at the moment there are such people. I think that part of Nathan's point-- and I don't want to put words in his mouth, of course-- is that these arts are very important, and it is hard for us to know which parts of these arts are necessary to the art as a whole. For that reason, there is a definite need for some people to be ultra-traditionalists, to be the ones who insist on doing it exactly the way that it has always been done.

Perhaps the art can survive a lot of innovation. But if we have a mix of people who insist on tradition and people who innovate, we ensure that the original art survives as well as the modified strains. It's good to know that, whatever happens to the modified strains, there will always be a preserved form of the art so that we can go back to the source when it becomes necessary to evaluate the purity of the strains that have developed. Just my opinion, and my signature line makes it clear how much that is worth these days :)

Dan Harden
30th June 2008, 05:23
Well it’s a mistaken impression to conclude that the Koryu have ever really been stagnant. In their time they were innovative, over, time they have been innovative. They are an interesting collection of stories and histories, all evidence of change; recreating and borrowing strategies from other arts into their own, research into recreating lost waza, some gradual morphing; sometimes due to modern students cross training in judo and kendo -corrupting the original intent and movement, sometimes due to prolonged influences of simply training on wooden floors, sometimes losing vigor and context due to men with lower level understanding, being picked for political reasons over the more technically brilliant student-with them leaving, and sometimes just flat out changing for a better understanding from some brilliant head honcho, One example had an art adopt almost the entire syllabus from another and still call it by its old name. And then we have my aforementioned example of adepts going to the west and actually being TOLD to make the art their own.
Each one of the above has president and pertains to specific ryu's and their own representatives discussing their own history BTW. So, I try to remember we are not the koryu police. These arts are not dead, and never have been. They will continue to strive, compete, opt out and not compete, and sometimes gradually change over time. But even the oldest among them has recognized that their school has flowed and been influenced by the genius or lack of visions of any given master in his own time.

With DR one of the best discussions on DR I have ever had was with Ellis, he had recognized the apparent complexity and depth of the syllabus (and wrote about it previously and is about to do it again), and noted how, many men had studied for various periods of time and then left to form whole arts from parts of DR-this is well in keeping with Koryu history-see my last comments below. While I have never been a fan of the pretzel logic of DR, -being that IMO much of the jujutsu is either too complex for the realities of grappling, or else was not trained properly to deal with more live pressure, or other times inane for modern combatives lacking weapons, I none-the-less was a fan of its aiki. It’s aiki is the real power generation source of the art, and what makes it head and shoulders over much else there is out there. It’s aiki will stand in modern combatives; judo, wrestling, BJJers, PKers, weapons, pretty much anything. Only trouble is finding it and or being taught it.
So while preservationists will attempt to preserve Koryu intact, many will still take pieces as their own vision, (or lack thereof), leads. It’s always been that way with Koryu. TSKSR was studied and is credited with the formation of many later Koryu. And all without much wining and complaining, as there were always those who remained to study the whole art, while others innovated with one new vision or another. I can hardly look at Judo and not recognize that it is still a Japanese Koryu based art, even with its innovation, and try to appreciate it for what it is.
So, we have many old arts having adepts leave and form new ones. Mining them for information has been happening since the Koryu were all brand new ryu. In 600 yrs, it hasn’t caused them to die.
It's allowed them to flourish.
Cheers
Dan

cxt
30th June 2008, 18:44
DDATUS
Dan

Excellent points!

Diversity in the martial arts is a good thing overall.

I'd say more, but you already said it. :)

Nathan Scott
3rd July 2008, 22:05
Mr. Sims,


For that reason, there is a definite need for some people to be ultra-traditionalists, to be the ones who insist on doing it exactly the way that it has always been done.

Actually, while I may come off as an "ultra-traditionalist", I don't believe that the classical arts should necessarily be passed down "exactly" as they have always been. The koryu arts do tend to vary to some degree in how they were passed down, and in most cases have adapted their transmission methods to fit within the times to a greater or lesser degree.

On the other hand, there is a point where the vast majority of koryu arts ceased to develop in a practical sense to keep with the times (in most cases around the Haitorei of 1876). In other words, there aren't many koryu extant that have incorporated handgun retention and disarming techniques, fighting with folding knives or improvised shanks/shivs, counter-terrorism methods, or self-defense against street gangs or parolees. Many koryu HAVE, on the other hand, continued to develop within the context of their arts using their historical methods and largely obsolete attacks. Apparently some researchers in Japan are of the opinion that Japanese martial arts and culture began to westernize on a national level from about 1854, and this was at the direction of the Japanese government. Prior to that, many koryu had already been influenced through periodic contacts with western combative methods. So to a large degree, when I speak of the "traditional" method of koryu transmission, it may be more accurate to say the method generally popularized prior to 1854.

So if a student of koryu must first learn the traditional kata and historical methods before translating the operating principles and tactics to modern day situations to be considered practical, then why study them? In my opinion, because the depth of knowledge and teachings can be superior to modern methods, and in many cases the arts are time tested over many generations. These two things are significant benefits that come from an art that has been developed for so long. Some might say that the lack of modern weaponry and situations limits the art from a practical standpoint, but for me personally, I've found that my training in swordsmanship has helped me the most so far when dealing with real-life conflicts. Sword techniques such as reading the opponent, applying pressure (seme), "kiai" vocalization, quick taisabaki and ashisabaki, and various other physical methods that can be adapted from swordsmanship have proven to be invaluable. And I can't think of a modern weapon system or method that would develop these particular skills better, even though I won't be using a sword any time soon on the streets.

Basically, I'm in favor of maintaining the essence of the traditional teaching model within traditional arts. But that doesn't mean that nothing can be changed to fit the times. For example, I teach very traditionally in one art, but I offset it by explaining why we are training in the way we are, and what the students can expect to gain from such training. Nobody ever explained these things to me, and as a result there were many times I thought about quiting several arts, prior to discovering the genius of these unspoken teachings. So I've found that I can teach using this traditional model without losing students as long as they understand what is going on. That is one of my "modernizations" of the traditional teaching method.

Dan,


So, I try to remember we are not the koryu police.These arts are not dead, and never have been. They will continue to strive, compete, opt out and not compete, and sometimes gradually change over time. Mining them for information has been happening since the Koryu were all brand new ryu. In 600 yrs, it hasn’t caused them to die. It's allowed them to flourish.

While I agree with the rest of your post about koryu, I don't agree with this section. First of all, I believe that anyone seriously studying a koryu has a vested interest in seeing the arts survive, if not at least the one(s) they are studying specifically. In that regard, I believe if more koryu people spoke up to defend their methods against the many voices of modern arts, the public might be better informed as to why they might want to consider taking the time and effort to study a classical art instead of the art next door. Call it "koryu police" if you want, but I see no problem with the type of debating I've been doing with regards to koryu arts.

I also disagree that the koryu arts will continue to strive over time if left alone. They have already changed gradually over time, for better and for worse (mostly worse), so that is a given. Splintering away from a main line of an art has proven to weaken the main line, while creating "puddles" that generally dry up after no more than one or two generations. The result is a weaker main line art with break offs that do not have the strength to survive on their own. Strip mining the arts has also proven to weaken a main line art, especially now when information can be spread so widely so easily. As the teachings of the art become public, and opportunists offer a "quicker, easier" way to learn the same thing, the main line loses prospective members to those who typically end up training short term in a watered down version under the belief that it is basically the same thing.

In any event, you can count on one hand how many koryu can document a survival of 600 years. The vast majority were founded in the mid to late Edo period, or in the Meiji period that followed. Many hundreds of these arts have already died, leaving only a small percentage of these arts surviving into the present day. The majority of koryu extant only have maybe 1 to 4 people training in them, and most of these exponents are not serious about participating in the survival of the art. With all due respect, I think it would be foolish to think that the koryu arts are not dying just because a handful of those that have survived have modernized or obtained popularity in the 20th century. Simply flipping through the Bugei Ryu-ha Dai-jiten will overwhelm the reader with the amount of arts (not all of which are documented in this book) that once existed in Japan. The koryu arts as a whole are in fact dying, and the traditional methodology is dying even faster than these arts, as those koryu intent on survival attempt to modernize to remain competitive. Thus in my opinion, quietly training in koryu has proven to not be in the best interest of the classical arts.

Regards,

Richard Elias
4th July 2008, 02:32
http://www.shinyokai.com/Essays_CreativityandChange.htm

Nathan Scott
4th July 2008, 04:19
Thanks Richard, a good article, and one that I agree with.

As I stated previously, koryu must continue to develop. It is not change and adaptation that is scary, but rather what type of change and adaptation, and to what degree. I believe it is important in every generation for there to be exponents of a given art who have tested their methods in real life situations, whether it be accidentally in self-defense, in shiai, military actions, police actions, or even bouncing at a club. Even though I haven't cut anyone down using a sword, I have found that the teachings in swordsmanship have been effective (for me) in real life situations. Though not a perfect test, technically, this feedback has still affirmed to me that my method of training is practical.

Each generation will lose certain vitality, and will need to fill this gap again to some degree in the next generation. Ideally, the next generation should also surpass the level of development of the last generation in order to maintain vitality in the art. Some arts have internally published documents, and even film/videos, to assist with preserving their art. To some degree, how much of a given art is documented in some way is a huge factor in how much transmission may be lost between the generations. More for some, less for others.

I know Takamura Sensei made significant modifications to his art. However, he was the head of his branch, as Toby is now, and was entitled to make whatever changes he thought was best for the preservation of his art. In other words, I'm not sure this is a "different perspective" - from at least what I've been saying.

Thanks for posting,

Richard Elias
4th July 2008, 16:59
I offered the article as “Another perspective”, not a different one. :p

Actually, Takamura sensei preserved the original Shindo Yoshin ryu curriculum as was passed on to him. He rearranged it to include the addition of a series of modified forms to address contemporary concerns that are now taught first, but the original content that was taught to him is still there. This has been confirmed by a mokuroku obtained by Toby that was issued by Takamura sensei’s grandfather Shigeta that corresponds exactly to what was passed on by Takamura, with only the format changed.

It seems to me that the modifications made by Takamura sensei were for the preservation of the student, especially one who has not yet obtained a more advanced level in the art, rather than for preservation of the art itself. I personally think that it oftentimes is not the art that needs to adapt and be flexible as much as it is the practitioner. The art, the kata, waza, and henka, are lessons, principles, and examples. If the practitioner is not of flexible enough mind to adapt what he has learned to any given situation (ie, the adaptation of sword-based theory/application to say, contemporary firearms strategies) that is not the failing of the art per se.

Then again, the proper teaching methodology needs to be in place and adhered to to encourage and allow the practitioner to think outside the box of kata, and most, not all but most, do not continue in a given art long enough for this to come to fruition.

Shu-Ha-Ri

http://www.shinyokai.com/Essays_TeachingShuHaRi.htm

TrueRonin
5th July 2008, 10:08
I believe that everyone's opinion has some validity to it. however a debate about whether or not an art (doesn't matter which one) survives or not is pointless. Instead of talking about it we should do our part to make it survive. those who do not can go some place else.... it is the hands of the people who study it and preserve the traditions to decide whether or not others get to know what they know, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW EVERYTHING THEY KNOW.. just like everyone else they never stop learning. if people want to change the form and stray from the original let them. Their ideas are no less influential then the originators.. (though I will say that most likely they have not seen the battlefield) The world is changing.. especially ours.

However Traditional martial arts like DR and TSKSR are just as effective as they were 600 years ago.. seemingly competition arts, as I like to call them, have seemed to remove all the real death dealing blows and made it cool to watch. Good for them. if that's what they want let them have it. By association we all made this possible. We all payed our dues to an art from which they derived from.

But all this means nothing unless you use it.. training and dojo time does not compare to real life fighting where your own mind makes those decisions with out consent of the conscious mind. Even ring time has rules(its better than nothing i suppose).. Life and death situations do not. Surviving a life and death fight, though more likely when trained, is still entirely up to chance. Anything can happen.. Anyone can "win"

I guess what I'm getting at is no matter what we study traditional or otherwise.. we are all just looking to survive.. and to be honest DR and others like it are better off being small.. those who do train in it will be that much more likely to carry on the legacy and traditions more aptly. were as competition arts should be vast and expansive so we can all watch them on TV. We don't have to like it but at leased its entertaining. :)

Dan Harden
8th July 2008, 13:35
Takamuras comments, and Toby's article.

Wow. Pretty ballsy comment. Even more ballsy to repeat it. My hats off to the guy who could write such a thing. Where are his peers?
Instead we are given men who cannot even handle verbal challenges to the core principles of their arts in any meaningul way.
I think the ideas in the artcle are excellent. I think believing it exists is an overly romantic view of Koryu and where they stand today in the hands of almost all of those practicing. Most notably the higher ups it specifically seems to address and take to task. The arts are simply not tested this way anymore. And those that could be tested in a safer way, have no support for doing so.
It seems this really isn’t a Japanese problem. Most are satisfied with what they are doing and don’t take up these issues in any real way. In America we seem to get allot of people who like to discuss koryu and how they relate to modern budo but fail to get out and test their ideas in any real way. Further, one month, they slam the UFC and Pride. The next month they demean MMA training as having no depth. Only to see them the next month laud this type of "safe" commentary which has almost nothing to support its very ideas.

Without the dynamics experienced in actual conflict there is simply no impetus to adapt or improve. The status quo seems fine because the status quo is never challenged. Some budo conservatives may disagree with this view, but Takamura Sensei believed that any budo system that never encouraged a direct challenge to its core principles was ultimately no more than calisthentics…..
He felt that the core principles of a ryu must be tested if it is to remain true to its origins. A challenge to the effectiveness of the ryu if made within the proper context of its goals can be an opportunity for self-examination, learning and potential growth. Properly managed, a challenge is the spark that keeps a martial art "martial."
So,
Who… are these men testing the core principles of their art?
How… are they testing in any meaningful way, the core principles of their art?
Where… is this happening?
When…did this happen? Is this an idea or observation of the past, or a challenge to those today?

I know of a small group of men, who were going to invite someone to a dojo to test him. This particular guy was and is out there doing the VERY THING discussed in the article. Someone who is testing the “core principles” of Daito ryu, and Yagyu Shingan and combining it with later research into the ICMA. I was invited to attend that potential meeting. I wish it had occurred, for the simple reason that I believe only two men would have done their art justice in any meaningful way that day. FWIW only one of those men, has gone out and done their own testing based on that failed meeting since then, and that repeatedly so- and no one else.
Quite frankly I think most /many men-particularly those of higher ranks in the arts- hide. Worst still, hide from –what was Nathans term, from those who “have not been fully initiated” who are willing to put their “understanding” on the line in many different venues and have come out on top. I think many /most who study an art have not and are not capable of doing the very things outlined in the article. It is rare, very rare to see those who indeed have done so, given any sort of public support for doing so. I say public for a VERY significant reason. Why? Because publicly it would beg a follow up no one wants to deal with…Why haven’t you?
Interesting read. Again my hats off to those who are getting out there to make it real.
Cheers
Dan

Eric Joyce
8th July 2008, 16:25
I know of a small group of men, who were going to invite someone to a dojo to test him. This particular guy was and is out there doing the VERY THING discussed in the article. Someone who is testing the “core principles” of Daito ryu, and Yagyu Shingan and combining it with later research into the ICMA. I was invited to attend that potential meeting. I wish it had occurred, for the simple reason that I believe only two men would have done their art justice in any meaningful way that day. FWIW only one of those men, has gone out and done their own testing based on that failed meeting since then, and that repeatedly so- and no one else.
Quite frankly I think most /many men-particularly those of higher ranks in the arts- hide. Worst still, hide from –what was Nathans term, from those who “have not been fully initiated” who are willing to put their “understanding” on the line in many different venues and have come out on top. I think many /most who study an art have not and are not capable of doing the very things outlined in the article. It is rare, very rare to see those who indeed have done so, given any sort of public support for doing so. I say public for a VERY significant reason. Why? Because publicly it would beg a follow up no one wants to deal with…Why haven’t you?
Interesting read. Again my hats off to those who are getting out there to make it real.
Cheers
Dan

Hi Dan,

I understand where you are coming from. I just read Gozo Shioda's Aikido Shugyo and it was a very good read. I was fascinated by Shioda's accounts were he actually tested his aikido in real situations (some by choice..other times not). But the point of what I read was that your aikido (or any other art) has to work in real life. Based on Toby's article and what you are saying, would you recommend the higher level teachers of koryu, aikido, whatever, go on their own personal shugyo and test these skills? Maybe competing in the UFC or do what other martial artists did back in the day like dojo busting? Just curious. I have been reading your your threads here and at aikweb and I do believe you are on to something. I await your thoughts.

Dan Harden
8th July 2008, 22:22
Hi Eric
I'm not entirely with you there. My overall point was that most koryu cannot be tested. Hence my comment that the article was really rather tame and safe to say. “Koryu should be tested and willing to be tested.” Er…Ok. How do you challenge them, it or him? How do they challenge themselves?
I mean…ok Toby! Next?
Many Koryu have tactics/principles/waza built on practicalities of combat with weapons in armor. All done on a battlefield. Where do you replicate that today? See my point.
Others are for fighting while grappling IN armor with knives. Where do you replicate that today?
Others are just jujutsu. Which can be replicated and tested today.
So some are testable others really aren't. I have no problem with them. I am in one that I do not believe can really be tested. I have to trust and go by what those before me deemed practicable on a medieval battlefield.
We can test ourselves with armor, but you are not going to see a Yagyu exponent testing his art against Kashim Shin ryu- in armor- any time soon.

Now, where some things can be tested-as in jujutsu- and in the "core principles" of their arts? Some guys are actually doing that very thing.
Some men are braver, and feel they have no vested ego in testing so they put it out there. Others enjoy their arts and quite simply have no interest in testng. OK too. Others are intellectual purists who are simply inept at anything pressing and just love to pontificate theory-shame on them.
I think there is a subset of men who are nasty bastards who are fully capable of delivering you your freaking head, who just happen to have trained in Koryu and in most of the other more live arts, who have no loyalty to an art. Their loyalty is to truth. To them it's not "who is right?", but "what is right?" Those that I have met have a very work-a-day mindset. If you can't deliver other than defending your art with rhetoric, they will just look past you to someone else or move on.
So for me, the ideals and goals are probably less romantic than for others. If you don't have your hands on people and your weapons ideas being tested, you can only go just so far. This bit about the core principles of the art to me are the most intriguing and the most challenging. I can stand there in any manner of venues and display them. Weapons, body or combinations thereof. For many of us-how much do you really know V how much you think you know?
Again I am not dogging the article but applauding the balls he had in stating it. I just think many guys in Koryu are lacking the interest or the balls to live his message, or even to support in any meaningful way.
Why? The ever present follow up...what about you?

Eric Joyce
8th July 2008, 22:34
I see your point Dan. Thanks for the reply.

Dan Harden
10th July 2008, 00:01
Hi again Eric, Thought I'd add just few points
Just because they are old doesn't mean they are practiced or need to be practiced in a dead fashion. On the contrary! There are many guys who will tell you that their arts-particularly weapon based arts-can be decisive, intense and even scary at times. Other times they force you to be extremely accurate at speed. Of course that still isn't a practice with live blade weapons-with your life in danger or in armor. Hence once again my stating these arts really can't be tested in any meaningful way anymore. On any other day I might say they don't need to be, or they can still produce people fully capable with weapons. Mores the point though, of those who practice Koryu I don't think you will see this "need" or "drive" for live testing of principles by any majority of adepts any day soon. In fact I'd guess the opinions on training are all over the map.

A friend of mine in two Koryu once remarked "I am a traditionalist in every sense with weapons, and I am a whore, or sellout for jujutsu." Meaning he is fine with the weapons based practice as is. In jujutsu he trains tradition and modern in a 'live" setting and will settle for nothing less.
Weird Dichotomy that echoes my views as well. Which leads me back to the diversity of opinion that one may encounter in Koryu. There is no Koryu police or one voice speaking for all. Just men sharing their training experiences and personal interests.

Cheers
Dan

TrueRonin
10th July 2008, 18:17
I believe that the cultural acceptance of any battlefield training might have had something to do with this lack of testing.. never mind trying to find a cost effective way to use live weapons and armor.

It is not really "OK" to duel some one over pride or anything else anymore.. this has been replaced by lawyers, judicial courts and reality TV...

Honor is another thing.. What ever happened to honor? What ever happened to fighting for what you believe in? Another cultural disaster? The martial arts were created for ideals of fighting.. whether it be for a country or yourself. For those who are unwilling to test themselves or lack the drive. shame on you... Even your traditional waza were formed by interaction with someone else.. they didn't stand at a tree for an hour and come back a master. They fought other people. developing an art takes a long time. and more importantly experience.
think of waza like a theory class. It gives you the starting point and all the tools. Then you have to apply that theory and the tools to something. if you don't test or "apply" it to SOMETHING.. all you have is theory..


Josh

wagnerphysed
19th July 2008, 03:15
1. It is acceptable to change teaching methodologies, pedagogy, but not the curriculum. However, that said, there are strong merits to the methodologies as they currently/originally exist(ed). Adding to the curriculum in a manner that keeps it separate and explains why it was added and when it was added by a qualified teacher, (Menkyo Holder), well who am I to question that? Going off on your own and changing curriculum, and for that matter, mining an art before the principles are understood, leads to a lack of understanding and diminishes an art in the same manner as someone who states that a spinning back kick is a secret technique of Daito-ryu. It is just not possible to know the details being espoused without the deeper understanding that comes from focussed learning.

2. Applying the underlying principles of an art to situations not specifically considered in the kata is exactly what is supposed to happen and why koryu arts are taught the way they are, or were originally (IMO). Whether this involves two men with a sword or other combinations of classical weapons, or two men equipped with modern weapons or even improvised weapons, the principles taught in koryu are applicable. This is the true innovation of an art, applying the underlying principles to new situations...the synthesis in learning. Going back to my first point, if the time is not taken to learn these principles, then the kata are empty and innovation or synthesis cannot exist.

3.Shiai has been around for several hundreds of years involving wooden bokutto, shinai, and bogu. Here is how an art can be tested in the traditional manner and both parties can shake hands with thumbs included when the test is complete. On the other hand, much of what makes up koryu was designed or intuited/inspired in a completely different set of circumstances than exist today. To change the curriculum of these arts with the traditional weapons involved in their development would be narrow minded, short sighted and uneducated. However, applying the underlying principles, completely learned through the conference of the entire curriculum, or at least to a level of proficiency (this can be all or part of the principles making up the curriculum, for those of us in education...the behavioral objectives/outcomes) as recognized by those who have reached this level (menkyo or equivalent, i.e. qualified teacher/master teacher) to new situations involving modern weapons, is not the same. In the end, this is a form of shiai/ severe training.

These are the three points that I am making and these points are my opinions based on my experiences and my education and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of my teachers, my schools, or for that matter anyone but me. Please note that no were in my post will anyone find the word "you" besides here. This is because these points are not directed at any individual despite the fact that I have clearly responded to multiple posted ideas that did come from individuals. Again, this is all my opinion.

Dan Harden
23rd July 2008, 14:51
I think it is a mistake to talk about koryu as an “it.” or “they.” They are not all alike and do not all teach, transmit, or indoctrinate the same. Even within an individual art they do not teach all the same to all the students. The Koryu are extremely varied and the syllabus can be fixed, or fluid, sometimes with an incredible amount of material added later in the life of the art, sometimes small. Also with interpretation happening soke to soke or in defiance of a soke from teacher to teacher, with a begrudging nod by being ignored by the soke (because he doesn’t want to confront and make a fuss). Which has led -in a few instances I am aware of- where previous students looked at what a qualified teacher was doing that was so different from the established norm that it was almost unrecognizable. When they went to the soke of the art and said “What the F&$#?” …were greeted with a shrug and change of subject. It is always going to be problematic to talk about them as a whole.
Within the context of talking about koryu as an “it”-you have the aiki arts- which are discussed as an “it” as well.
a) They are not widely accepted as a koryu
b) They are arguably thee most inconsistently taught arts out there.
Discussing “a” syllabus within the contest of Daito ryu is almost comical. There are many; mainline, Sagawa dojo, Kodokai, and Takumakai, and all of them while varying widely in approach, were all started by menkyo or the equivalent at the time under one common teacher! The Roppokai was started by a very highly ranked teacher and then you have the Haku-ho. And all of them, while as varied as can be, are all still called Daito ryu! We can of course add Ueshiba who “took a left” and created Aikido-which in and of –its-self is as inconsistent and all over the map as Daito ryu.
So you have a supposed-and I do mean "supposed"- common syllabus under a single teacher creating this incredibly varied and inconsistent art. Is it any wonder the aiki arts are “looked upon” as being ...different-(and that’s being kind) by many in koryu?
One can argue that the power of aiki -once absorbed- leads to lack of necessity of waza. Having aiki in increasing degrees creates control, power and sensitivity, that creates waza on it own. While others (many others) will simply look at the jujutsu on its own and argue that the “aiki” arts, on the whole, are just kidding themselves. I have heard both arguments. Looking at the aiki arts from a practical jujutsu mindset-(and not knowing what I know) I would agree with the later, and most often do. The only viable discussion to counter their otherwise excellent observations needs to be had on a mat.

Cheers
Dan

Nathan Scott
24th July 2008, 22:58
As long as oranges are still desired they will still be available.

To address an old post, the problem I see is not that everyone has tasted both apples and oranges and happens to prefer one over the other, but rather that most have either not even tasted an orange before, or have only peeled off the outer skin to find the skin was bitter without even biting into the meat. In other words, most who prefer apples are choosing them over oranges based on the fact that oranges are harder to find and require being skinned first before the fruit is accessible - or, they've just "heard" from others who have only eaten the skin of oranges that apples are better, just as tasty, and easier to eat.


TSKSR was studied and is credited with the formation of many later Koryu. And all without much wining and complaining ...

Learning an art to any level, then breaking away to form your own art - under a different name - is rarely embraced, but often tolerated. What usually is not tolerated is someone breaking away from an art and using the same name to represent themselves. It's kind of like me busting on you in this thread for using DR terminology to refer to you're own R&D. Simply call it something else and there are no issues.


My overall point was that most koryu cannot be tested.

While I disagree with this point, it is probably only because we are defining what a "koryu" is differently. From my point of view, studying an obsolete weapon system has minimal value in modern times unless the training benefits the exponent in some way (outside of historical curiosity). I think many enjoy koryu because they find the conditioning, tactics, training methods, body methods, and in many cases techniques, are applicable equally as well in modern times. Maybe not the kata, which are only teaching tools anyway, but the methods and principles themselves. In most cases, yes, the obsolete weapon systems in koryu arts cannot literally be tested. But the methods and operating system can. It comes down to whether you consider an art to be only kata and specific weapons or something deeper than that. Comprehensive arts used a common operating system for their various methods and weapons, and this operating system is the most useful aspect of a koryu that can be adapted to modern weapons and situations.

Even with obsolete weapons there remains many that can be reasonably employed/tested. Knives of all types and lengths from machetes to folding knives are still common. Large maglite type flashlights are similar in length to a jutte, escrima, or other short stick. Police "ASP" collapsible / extending batons have a comparable weight, length and balance to that of a kodachi / wakizashi, and can be drawn and used in similar ways as a percussive weapon. Walking sticks and canes of lengths from 3 feet (tanjo / hanbo) to 6 feet (rokushakubo) are still in use. Shuriken (in the broader definition of nearly any small object thrown) skills are still applicable. Personally, I usually carry with me a kusari fundo (manikigusari; weighted chain) as a less-lethal alternative against multiple unarmed opponents. I'm sure there are more examples, but the aforementioned are just a handful of examples.


1. It is acceptable to change teaching methodologies, pedagogy, but not the curriculum.

Actually, I'd say it is acceptable for anyone holding full transmission authority to change any aspect of their art, including their curriculum. Hopefully it is not necessary, but having full knowledge and licensing in the art gives them the right to exercise their judgment as they see fit for the betterment of the art. There may be outsiders, or even members, who don't understand or appreciate such changes, but their opinions are technically irrelevant. That being said, additions or major changes to an art are typically added on to the existing curriculum as opposed to heavily adapting the original forms.


a) [Aiki arts] are not widely accepted as a koryu

Only in the west. Most those I know in Daito-ryu who have experienced the depth of knowledge and curriculum are convinced that the teachings pre-date Takeda Sokaku. The majority of Japanese clearly view Daito-ryu as a koryu.

Some people in the west still like to make a stink about DR being gendai because of lack of documentation, the revival of the methods after 1876, generation gaps / long claimed lineage, and aspects of the art that appeared to be "unique" (many of which are now explainable and better understood in the west). I think if you look at the issues with other arts that enjoy being uncontested "koryu", you'll find many with the same issues. These arts, for some reason, are never contested as enthusiastically as Daito-ryu though for some reason. If you want to pick away at koryu, you could disqualify most of them as "koryu" using the same logic.

"Reviving" an art also does not constitute the art as being new. This is evidenced by a large number of arts recognized as koryu that have had "revivors". Nor does changing the name.

On a technical/curriculum level, I also find it interesting that Daito-ryu is clearly the "go-to" art for mining koryu principles and methods that have since been lost in other koryu. Why mine a "gendai" art for koryu teachings?

In any event, anyone wishing to go back to the koryu/gendai argument is encouraged to read through the following thread and post there if desired:

Daito-ryu - Gendai or Koryu? (http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2369)


So you have a supposed-and I do mean "supposed"- common syllabus under a single teacher creating this incredibly varied and inconsistent art. Is it any wonder the aiki arts are “looked upon” as being ...different-(and that’s being kind) by many in koryu?

Though it is said that Sokaku taught the art based on the type of person he was teaching (ie: different sections of the curriculum), I've found over the years an increasing amount of transmission, methods, and techniques in common between the branches. On the surface, they do appear almost completely different. Tokimune's teachings also appear to differ from Sokaku's teachings more than any of the other branches. But the other branches appear to share certain sections of the curriculum, even though there may be differences in how the techniques feel or look to some degree. I would include pre-war aikido as a reference of DR branches as well for the purpose of discussing this subject.

That being said, it would appear that no one branch really learned all that Sokaku taught, and there is a significant difference in length/depth of formal instruction between the branches. Since Sokaku was innovating the honbu/branch system, he did not generally teach in one place for very long. Sokaku was a bit of a political man as well. As such, it might be more accurate to say that perhaps the majority of Sokaku's teachings are preserved between the handful of extant branches rather than the teachings being incredibly varied and inconsistent. The only thing that would have helped would have been for Sokaku to more clearly license his senior students in the areas in which they held specific knowledge, rather than issue the same licenses to everyone. Sure, Sokaku's post-Meiji method of teaching was relatively new and innovative, but many koryu innovated during the Meiji/Taisho periods, and some appear to have looked at Sokaku for ideas.

The biggest problem with aikido I see is that it was spread too quickly too widely, causing generational gaps of important transmission. This is the exact same problem iaido had after Nakayama Hakudo from the Meiji period on. But I think it is clear that Ueshiba had a pretty solid understanding of what he had learned from Sokaku.

If you look at arts that do not have an Iemoto/Natori system, but rather transmit through multiple lines of menkyo kaiden (or equiv.), you will see a great deal of differences with them as well. Japanese arts are principle based, and as such can be applied in varying ways. Many teachers like to focus on certain principles over others, or simply have not been able to internalize all the principles of their art yet. But it does not necessarily make their teachings different from the others in the art.


The only viable discussion to counter their otherwise excellent observations needs to be had on a mat.

That is a fact. Unfortunately for outsiders, there are branches of DR that do not feel it necessary to prove themselves to outsiders. Those that wish to study find out, and those that are only curious do not need to know. It seems that DR is a popular enough subject to begin with, and it would not be healthy for the art to be spread too widely. Some in these branches also have the attitude that, since they have already attained the knowledge/ability, it is not necessary to prove it to anyone else - especially outsiders. In the end, they will still have what others are looking for, and most of the others still will not. That is satisfaction in itself, and is also in keeping of the humility needed to remain in an art that offers so many temptations to the exponent.

Regards,

Richard Elias
25th July 2008, 16:17
Not DR, but in this recent interview with Toby he talks about testing/challenging the techniques and principles within koryu, and a few other things relative to this discussion.

http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=702

Dan Harden
26th July 2008, 15:02
I think Toby expresses some interesting ideas.
There is allot of talk about testing as of late isn't there? Unfortunately for many that's all it is.
For others, they are doing it. Regardless of affiliation-they are getting out there and putting their stuff on the line. DR, Aikido, Koryu, Judo, BJJ and ICMA. Further that their understanding of a martial body and "aiki" is revealed instantly. I always enjoy when guys like to do that very thing- "test" their ideas in a hands-on. The exchanges have been allot of fun.

We missed an opportunity when a few of those in this very discussion were going to get together to do some testing of our own. I think it would have proved to be very enlightening, and would have answered a bevy of questions about just who knows what in their initiation, and who can actually use it. I also think it would changed the landscape of this discussion dramatically. Fortunately, some did get together, and others went out to a broader public venue to meet men with decades of training and teaching experience behind them to do the very things Toby is talking about doing in his article-stepping up and being tested and sharing. It is breaking down barriers and demonstrating yet again that some of the so called "secrets" in one art are work-a-day skills in the other. And just what happens when cooperation ends and real skills begin.

Of further interest has been the revelation of the lack of ability of some of those with Nathans model of "deep initiation" against lesser lights with real abilities. Of further interest has been the concrete and inescapable truth of the martial validity of DR aiki in the hands of those who know what it is and how to use it. I have been intrigued with comments from men with 30 + years-in, stating that they had "missed it" in all their years of training. The hands on environment- beyond "talking about a hands on environment" has proved to be very beneficial. It was a joy for some to be seeing DR aiki out of the constraints of kata and cooperation being yet again validated among those who had no interest or belief it could deliver. For others it was no suprise at all. It reminds me of the turn of the century testing a hundred years ago.
So, it is worth noting, some guys are actually out there testing with very experienced fellow researchers unafraid and unconcerned of the outcome.

wagnerphysed
26th July 2008, 23:57
Dan Harden wrote:

I think it is a mistake to talk about koryu as an “it.” or “they.”

Dan Harden also wrote:

They are not all alike and do not all teach, transmit, or indoctrinate the same.
and...
a) They are not widely accepted as a koryu
b) They are arguably thee most inconsistently taught arts out there.

Hmmm. I'm not sure I follow?

Dan Harden wrote:

Discussing “a” syllabus within the contest of Daito ryu is almost comical.
Dan, the word I used was curriculum...the meaning is very different than syllabus. The curriculum is the vehicle for transmitting the principles and concepts contained within a set knowledge and is assessed through measurable goals and objectives. In the case of DR I can talk about, the Hidden Mokuroku would constitute a curriculum.
On the other hand, a syllabus is a list of content items to be covered and is not measured through the achievement of goals and objectives. Rather, it is measured in numbers. Maybe this is one point of confusion, the difference between learning a sequential list of techniques and actually learning the principles and concepts the techniques were designed to confer. In the later, the techniques themselves are simply a vehicle for the transmission of a much deeper knowledge. In the former, they are just a quantitative set to be amassed into a portfolio that shows a "been there, done that" mentality.

Nathan Scott wrote:

Actually, I'd say it is acceptable for anyone holding full transmission authority to change any aspect of their art, including their curriculum. Hopefully it is not necessary, but having full knowledge and licensing in the art gives them the right to exercise their judgment as they see fit for the betterment of the art.
I very much agree with this point. However, my thought is that there are two type of changes that these people can produce, drift and shift (gotta give credit to Chris Covington for using these words to describe this). In drift, this would be the natural uncovering of principles and concepts contained within kata that is discovered through long term exploration and is in accordance with the original principles contained within an art.
Shift, on the other hand, would be adding completely unrelated principles and concepts (or in some cases, removing important principles and concepts) to an art that diminishes the soundness of its curriculum. I guess this can also occur when someone doesn't really attain the level they hold license in or when someone writes their own licenses.
If either one departs from the curriculum, developed in a time when the prevailing culture led to the development of those concepts and principles that are encapsulated in an art, then "I" would say that this is inadvisable. However, I wouldn't have an authoritative leg to stand on.
As far as testing goes, I believe one example of how this is being done can be seen by the men and women LEOs who are surviving through the principles they have learned in these arts. In my group, Ted Howell comes to mind. Arresting a combative suspect using DR principles he learned through kata. I'm sure there are many more examples.:look:

Finny
27th July 2008, 00:54
That's not exactly fair Brian.

Taken out of context, sure those statements seem contradictory and confusing, but put back into context, the statements you quoted would more accurately be written:




I think it is a mistake to talk about koryu as an “it.” or “they.” - BECAUSE - They are not all alike and do not all teach, transmit, or indoctrinate the same.






a) Aiki arts are not widely accepted as a koryu
b) Aiki arts are arguably thee most inconsistently taught arts out there.

wagnerphysed
27th July 2008, 21:25
Its not a question of fair or unfair. I'm not cheating anyone here or representing something as other than what it is. I never lumped all koryu into a single group, I never said everything is the same. I used "it" and "they" because I needed to be able to talk about and refer to a group of arts that are categorized by a classification of "koryu". These arts have been put into this classification long before I ever used it and they. To focus on this small insignificant point is to loose sight of the forest for the tree. This has nothing to do with anything I was saying. If it does, I fail to see its significance.

Koryu arts are diverse. They focus on an incredible array of arts, techniques, methods, etc., etc. However, there are similarities in the transmission methods that place these arts in the classification of "koryu" (as well as the time frame in which they were developed). This is what I believe the reprimand of reffering to koryu as "it" and "they" was all about. The irony is, it is this same classification method that lends, what some view as credence, to the later assertion referenced in the post (as was called unfair) that Daito-ryu is not koryu. However, imho, this is a mistake. It is a mistake because the majority of those who are "they", have a limited understanding of the deeper levels that are available in DR. Through these deeper levels, a practitioner begins to see the larger picture of the art they are studying. A picture that isn't available to outsiders and short timers.

I'm sure that this assertion will also become a point of argument within this or other threads. My response, ahead of time, is... in order for someone to argue the validity of my statement, there must be an opportunity to question that person's level of training, the amount of training, and the conviction of training that has been endured by the person making the argument. IOW, if a person does not or has not seriously practiced DR for an appreciable length of time, then how would they have access to the bigger picture. Also, "my friend said so" is not verifiable either. Who is the person making the argument? How do we know the assertion is truthful or taken in context?

It seems as though many people are able to say with certainty, and almost a professed deep knowledge (based on their observations alone or what other experts have told them, not on their own vast experience), what is and is not conferred through an art like or specifically DR.:look:

That is not fair!

wagnerphysed
27th July 2008, 22:26
Sorry Finny, I should have addressed this as well.

How do you suppose Dan meant that these arts are the most inconsistently taught? How is it that Dan can come to this conclusion? Is it his own experience, something he read, or something he was told? If so, who told him? Is this assertion actually a fact? Or, is it his personal opinion? Would anyone else involved in the different branches of Daito-ryu care to comment on this?

My own take on this is that Dan means across the different schools (e.g. Main-Line,Takumakai, Kodokai, Roppokai, etc.) . If this is the meaning, well here is another example. Look at shinkage ryu. Yagyu-Shinkage ryu and Jikishinkage ryu are both shinkage ryu schools. However, if you tried to draw some type of conclusion as to their consistent instruction in the principles and concepts that underlie shinkage ryu, it would be extremely difficult. On the other hand, the consistency that exists is not in the teaching methodologies or curriculum map. Rather, it exists in the very principles and concepts that makes these two schools schools of shinkage ryu. Inconsistent yet consistent. To anyone outside of shinkage ryu, and even to those inside shinkage ryu, this is not apparent. On the surface these tow styles look completely different. At the end point however, they both lead to the same place. My teacher, Dr. David Hall, speaks of this often. I don't completely understand this, but he certainly has the authority to make this assertion.

Does Dan have the authority to make the assertion,
b) They are arguably thee most inconsistently taught arts out there. Is the out the use of the word arguably? If so, who can actually argue this? The casual observer? The person who attends seminars in an attempt to mine the art for its deeper secrets?

Where is the fairness in all of this? Better yet, were is the accuracy and the veracity to be found in these assertions?:eek:

Finny
28th July 2008, 01:48
Sorry Finny, I should have addressed this as well.

My own take on this is that Dan means across the different schools (e.g. Main-Line,Takumakai, Kodokai, Roppokai, etc.) . If this is the meaning, well here is another example. Look at shinkage ryu. Yagyu-Shinkage ryu and Jikishinkage ryu are both shinkage ryu schools. However, if you tried to draw some type of conclusion as to their consistent instruction in the principles and concepts that underlie shinkage ryu, it would be extremely difficult. On the other hand, the consistency that exists is not in the teaching methodologies or curriculum map. Rather, it exists in the very principles and concepts that makes these two schools schools of shinkage ryu. Inconsistent yet consistent. To anyone outside of shinkage ryu, and even to those inside shinkage ryu, this is not apparent. On the surface these tow styles look completely different. At the end point however, they both lead to the same place. My teacher, Dr. David Hall, speaks of this often. I don't completely understand this, but he certainly has the authority to make this assertion.

Does Dan have the authority to make the assertion, Is the out the use of the word arguably? If so, who can actually argue this? The casual observer? The person who attends seminars in an attempt to mine the art for its deeper secrets?

Where is the fairness in all of this? Better yet, were is the accuracy and the veracity to be found in these assertions?:eek:

Hey, I don't have a dog in this (or any) fight - I was just pointing out that the quotes you took from Dan's post could seem confusing when taken out of their original context, but when placed in context, became much clearer with regard to their intent.

My take was the same as yours - Dan mentioned the differents schools and their differing curricula in his post, as the heart of the point he was making.

Whether he is in a position to make such a claim is up to you (or me - the reader)

I thought it was widely acknowleged that the training methods varied greatly between schools of DR - as well as the varied curricula, so it doesn't seem like such an outlandish claim to make.

But your point re. schools of Shinkage Ryu is well made, and food for thought.

BTW I really enjoyed Dr. Hall's article in the koryu books - I envy your position to be able to find such a knowlegeable teacher.

TimothyKleinert
28th July 2008, 14:57
I think the Shinkage-ryu example might be a bit misleading---I was under the impression that the original "Shinkage-ryu" has been extinct for a LONG time, and likewise, that the various "-shinkage" offshoots have been (evolving) on their own for even longer.

We are only 2-3 generations from Sokaku Takeda. And on top of that, the "differences" Dan was pointing to were evident in Takeda's own students (Ueshiba, Kodo, Sagawa, Takuma, and Tokimune Takeda).

But that said, in my opinion, Dan does like to exaggerate certain facts to fit his talking-points.

The various schools might have "different" syllabus' with slightly different focuses and style points, but from what I've seen (from my admittedly superficial observation) of the various branches outside my own, they all seem to share a common "character"---both in execution and training methods. We can argue whether all the branches/teachers share the same body skills (or "aiki"-skills as Dan would say), but I believe they are all attempting, at least, to "do" the same thing in the end.

Some food for thought---some have argued that Sokaku Takeda was attempting to teach a "principle-based", rather than a strict "kata-based", system. I think that's plausible, though I don't have the experience or authority to confirm or deny it. But if it's true, then most of the discussion of "differences" between the branches is utterly besides the point.

Nathan Scott
28th July 2008, 18:50
Of further interest has been the revelation of the lack of ability of some of those with Nathans model of "deep initiation" against lesser lights with real abilities. Of further interest has been the concrete and inescapable truth of the martial validity of DR aiki in the hands of those who know what it is and how to use it. I have been intrigued with comments from men with 30 + years-in, stating that they had "missed it" in all their years of training.

I don't know why I have to constantly re-clarify statements I've made that were clarified earlier in this thread and others, but I guess I'll keep clarifying (?).

I never wrote or implied that deep initiation in an art equals real ability. Real ability is completely up to the efforts and talent of the individual regardless of art studied. Everyone knows that many koryu are not being practiced or taught by those possessing real fighting ability at this time. Sad but true. But that doesn't mean the art is worthless, or can't still be taught and understood toi those who would use such an art professionally or who are practical minded (testers).

Initiation equals a corresponding level of understanding of a given art, and usually a concurrent level of authority within the art. That's it. Which means, if you are not initiated or ranked to a reasonable level (or permitted to speak on behalf of the art), then your opinions will be challenged if they are not presented as opinions.

Also, I think the "Some men are testing these arts" point has been run into the ground enough, and by now most have been able to read between the lines. But it's your thread - keep at it if you like. You might also keep in mind that there may be quite a bit of friendly testing that has occurred you are not aware of.


Look at shinkage ryu. Yagyu-Shinkage ryu and Jikishinkage ryu are both shinkage ryu schools. However, if you tried to draw some type of conclusion as to their consistent instruction in the principles and concepts that underlie shinkage ryu, it would be extremely difficult.

To demonstrate further levels of diversity within an art like Shinkage-ryu, look also at the line of Shinkage-ryu taught within Owari kan-ryu and the "original" Shinkage-ryu (according to Kuroda Tetsuzan) of Komagawa kaishin-ryu. BTW, it is my understanding that "Kage-ryu" was succeeded by the Yagyu family, who re-named it "Shinkage-ryu" (and later "Yagyu shinkage-ryu") have been passing it down within through family transmission since. While Shinkage-ryu may have changed over the generations, it's my understanding that Yagyu shinkage-ryu is respected as the mainline tradition.

Regards,

TimothyKleinert
28th July 2008, 18:56
BTW, it is my understanding that "Kage-ryu" was succeeded by the Yagyu family, who re-named it "Shinkage-ryu" (and later "Yagyu shinkage-ryu") have been passing it down within through family transmission since. While Shinkage-ryu may have changed over the generations, it's my understanding that Yagyu shinkage-ryu is respected as the mainline tradition.

Thanks for the clarification!

Kendoguy9
28th July 2008, 19:14
Dear Nathan, et al,

There are and were many lines of Shinkage-ryu and they all seem to claim they are the "mainline." Shinkage-ryu is really the product of Kamiizumi. Kamiizumi studied Aisu Kage-ryu and later changed it to Shinkage-ryu. Two of his sons had lines of Shinkage-ryu, one just called Shinkage-ryu (I think?) and the other Kamiizumi-ryu. Both are dead ryu so who knows what they're like. They have a claim to the mainline because of family connection. Many people believe the Yagyu line to be the most complete, or the closest to the finished product of what Kamiizumi wanted to do with his art. Kamiizumi's nephew Hikida is said to be his strongest follower. The Okuyama line (Jikishinkage-ryu) is the oldest, as Okuyama studied with Kamiizumi before any of the other major line's founders. Anyway, just about all the lines when you ask them what art they study they'll say "Shinkage-ryu." I have a feeling in a few more generations, assuming many of the lines survive, Daito-ryu will be a lot like this.

Sorry, I didn't mean to hijack the thread. Back to Dan and his aiki-fight club... ;)

Nathan Scott
28th July 2008, 21:08
Hey Chris,

Thanks for the info. I wasn't trying to place a value on which line contains the most authentic teachings, but rather show that one line has continued through the Yagyu family. If you agree that Yagyu Muneyoshi was the rightful inheritor of the art from Kamiizumi, then you could argue that the current Yagyu line is considered the "mainline". I'm sure there are many different view points on this though.

Regards,

Dan Harden
30th July 2008, 13:58
Interesting level of commentary going in many different directions, including personal ones that have nothing to do with the thread. To be expected I guess. The argument over the discussion being opinion V authority is unwarranted as it is so obvious it goes without saying. There is no one presently alive who is Menkyo or shihan in multiple branches of DR as well as in multiple branches of Koryu who can speak with authority on the comparative issues. Thus, everything is just opinion. Then again many of the points made are obvious as well. Add to that the flat comments made behind closed doors that can be quoted (as many here know) and it makes anyone trying to make a case for the commonality of DR from one school to the next rather dubious.
Back to the most recent thread drift.


The various schools might have "different" syllabus' with slightly different focuses and style points, but from what I've seen (from my admittedly superficial observation) of the various branches outside my own, they all seem to share a common "character"---both in execution and training methods.
I counter that the differences are not slight and the methods of teaching -as to what comes first and when, and what gets emphasized- and most of all the final results are not all the same. If you are stating that in your view the Sagawa dojo, and the Takumakai, say share the same character and goals as Kondo, or that Kondo and the Roppokai have the same characteristics and ultimate goals?
Well, all I can say is that’s an interesting view.

Koryu, while not all the same, still share a more common method of teaching which remains more consistent than that seen in aiki derivatives, as Koryu's far more common and chief method of transmission is shared Kata in an ordered format. On the whole the mokuroku are consistent from Omote to Gokui and the numbered and named kata identifiable. Ask anyone from the Sugino branch of Katori to do the second kata of the Omote and someone from the Main branch to do the same and you will get the same kata- done with a different twist but the same kata none-the-less. There are many other Koryu with “branches, which while being taught by different teachers in a given ryu, are instantly recognizable as the same kata, numbered, ordered, and done the same with a different flavor.

This is simply not the case in the aiki arts. The aiki arts all over the map. The lack of consistency in syllabus and teaching method and this notion of Tim’s that they are “attempting to do the same thing in the end” doesn’t pan out. Ask Kodokai teachers about the Hiden mokuroku of the mainline? Ask them to stand there and start doing them one after the other on the spot. Then ask them to perform the Takumakai Soden. Then ask those in the Takumakai to do Sagawa Dojo Gens or the Roppokai’s aiki.
Ask Kondo to demonstrate the Aiki waza of the Kodokai, then the Roppokai. Then you have the Takumakai being mostly what Ueshiba taught, partially what Takeda taught, and Hisa gets a newly invented Menkyo after 6 years of study.

Anyway, you’re not going to see the Kodokai doing the Hiden mokuroku like the mainline- through Kondo anyway-or even choosing to move like he moves by choice. Or Kondo opting to move and teach the Aiki-no-jutsu of the Kodokai or Roppokai like Okomoto, and mores the point teaching it first. Then there is Aikido. Again, different from DR and in and of itself being all over the map.
Seminar style
And all this teaching -with every branch - was mostly done by teaching in “seminar” style with most of the practice done on their own between Takeda’s visits.
We see this "Seminar style" being the chief method today of disseminating the art. The teacher goes out or the students go to Japan, and the groups all practice a couple of times week till they see the teacher-a couple of times a year.


While there are no absolutes (as there are exceptions to everything) I think that the aiki arts (DR and Aiki-do) are “arguably thee most inconsistently taught arts out there.” When I say inconsistent I do NOT mean negative. I mean the method and the syllabus is different, very different. Why? The way Takeda and Ueshiba taught. Why is that?…Aiki. Aiki is the causal factor in different execution of mokuroku, soden and gens and even the necessity of a common syllabus in jujutsu.
DR Aiki is also what makes the "potential" for DR to be head and shoulders above other koryu jujutsu, and one of the finest arts in the world. Or just another hollow excuse for lack of skill and Kata kings unable to do much by way of practical skills.

Daito ryu Aiki, expressed within it's own branches, becomes demonstrable as a defining difference outside of kata. Demonstrating, and making my case that it is a stand alone skill able to be used in any format sans waza or as the defining difference that created such diversity within Daito ryu in the first place. Thus explaining why it is so diverse from school to school. Waza being just one vehicle.

Thus Aiki can be tested without waza present as well. Outside of Chris's understanding of a need for an "aiki fight club" that apparently Nathan is stating he is involved in or knows of others who are involved in as well. Or...maybe Chris meant something more gentlemenly and intelligent in response that I missed? ;)

Cheers
Dan

Kendoguy9
30th July 2008, 14:22
Hey Dan,

Nope, nope, nothing "more gentlemenly and intelligent" meant with that comment. I was just sorry for hijacking the thread a little bit from the topic of the thread. Although I thought up the term "aiki-fight club" and had a chuckle over it and had to work it in there some how.

Well glad to see the thread is back on track. :D

Best regards,

Dan Harden
30th July 2008, 14:29
Hmmm....Well I couldn't resist and used the term last night in the Dojo. It is catchy. :)
I also get a chuckle out of telling younger MMA'ers, that the principles of "tradtional arts" they openly make fun of -just beat them.

Cheers
Dan

TimothyKleinert
30th July 2008, 18:29
[I wasn't going to do this, but I've written a bit about this topic over on my site (here (http://www.internal-aiki.com/comments.php?DiscussionID=43) and here (http://www.internal-aiki.com/comments.php?DiscussionID=44)). For the most part it's just a bunch of wild musing, without any claim of evidence or authority, but check it out if you want more detail than what I'm giving here.]

Dan,

Let me say that I agree with most of what you say in principle, but I think you have a tendency to exaggerate certain issues and facts.


I counter that the differences are not slight and the methods of teaching ... and most of all the final results are not all the same. If you are stating that in your view the Sagawa dojo, and the Takumakai, say share the same character and goals as Kondo, or that Kondo and the Roppokai have the same characteristics and ultimate goals?
Well, all I can say is that’s an interesting view...

... The lack of consistency in syllabus and teaching method and this notion of Tim’s that they are "attempting to do the same thing in the end" doesn’t pan out. Ask Kodokai teachers about the Hiden mokuroku of the mainline?...

Daito ryu Aiki, expressed within it's own branches, becomes demonstrable as a defining difference outside of kata. Demonstrating, and making my case that it is a stand alone skill able to be used in any format sans waza or as the defining difference that created such diversity within Daito ryu in the first place. Thus explaining why it is so diverse from school to school. Waza being just one vehicle.

There are a number of issues. First---I know you meant it rhetorically, but---"asking" the branches about one another won't get you too far. Too much politics. If you want to try and compare the branches you have to try and look beyond what any of the branches say individually... But I'm sure you knew that, you were obviously just trying to make a point.

Second, it is widely accepted that Takeda continued to "develop" or at least "refine" the curriculum of DR as time went on. So it shouldn't be a surprise, or necessarily even viewed as a deviation, if different branches practice or teach the art (slightly) differently.

But here's *my personal opinion* on the matter: I think it is unlikely that Takeda Sokaku ever taught a concrete or "set" syllabus in the first place. Rather, I think it is more likely that Takeda was attempting to teach a "principle-based" or "improvisational" system. The quantity of (supposedly distinct) kata/waza that Takeda demonstated, as well as the technical and tactical overlap between said kata, is simply too great (again, in my personal opinion).

If you accept that view, then all the cries of "they're not practicing the same kata/waza!" is largely irrelevant, 'cause creativity in waza would have been what Takeda was attempting to teach in the first place!

I know that isn't the way that the DR branches represent themselves, but I think you need to put Takeda and his students in their proper historical context. It always looks silly in hindsight, but people have a hard time breaking out of old paradigms. Takeda may not have been able to conceive of any other way of presenting his art, other than through kata. And his students may not have fully appreciated, if they even comprehended, what he was trying to show them.

(I'll also note it's interesting that the only overtly "principle-based" traditional JMA I'm aware of---but take that with a grain of salt, I'm no an expert---is [Yoshida-ha] Shidare Yanagi-ryu, which has a historical link to Takeda.)

Enough theorizing, though, here we have to bring in the topic of internal skill, or "Aiki" as you would say. I totally agree that Aiki (as you define it) is the thing that gives DR it's extra "umphf". (It also lends itself to a more "dynamic" or "improvisational" practice, as you know.) And I don't believe every DR teacher "has it". So at the nuts-and-bolts level, yes, different branches/teachers are "doing different things".

BUT(!) I really do believe that everyone is attempting to "do" the same thing---that is, I think they are all attempting to produce the same results. Take a familiar example, Aiki-age. If you have the proper internal conditioning and follow the standard advice (like, "relax, it should be effortless!"), you get led to certain conclusions (manipulate internal forces, etc). But if you don't have the conditioning, the desire to make the technique "work" leads to other conclusions (use angles and other external "tricks"). In the end, the external method becomes just an emulation of the internal method. So while, yes, they're "different", the emulation is still trying to achieve the same result.

So with the caveat that some practicioners have internal skill and some don't, when I look at videos or pictures from the various branches, IMO they really do share the same "character", that is, they use (outwardly) similar techniques and tactics.

I also disagree that their training methods are (significantly) different. All branches use 2-person kata as a fundamental training method, though specific kata vary. Even if various branches advocate supplementary exercises (like shiko)---and I think most probably do, to varying degrees---it is my impression (from casual research) that kata still comprises the vast bulk of official, in-class training. The order of things, as well as what gets emphasized... well, I won't call that insignificant, but I think the bigger issue is whether the teacher has internal skill in the first place.

That's my argument. I understand you're looking at the presence of, or lack of, internal skill/aiki as a fundamental, deal-breaking sort of distinction. I get that view. But personally... I don't know, it still seems like an exaggeration to say they're "doing totally different things"... I prefer to think of it as a "high-level skill" vs "low-level skill" sort of thing.


And all this teaching -with every branch - was mostly done by teaching in "seminar" style with most of the practice done on their own between Takeda’s visits.
We see this "Seminar style" being the chief method today of disseminating the art.

Umm... I don't know, Dan, I think you're really mis-characterizing the present state of DR training here.

In the Takumakai and Hakuho-ryu, at least, who have quite a number of schools in Japan, there are numerous high-ranking instructors who conduct regular classes in their own dojos (in Japan). Any seminars or get-togethers are done more for organizational and "check-in with the boss" sort of reasons, rather than for fundamental instruction.

I can't speak about other branches, but I get the impression that in Japan, DR is largely taught through regular classes at permanent dojo, not sporadic seminars. But I admit I don't know for sure.

In the US, yes, that's the way it's taught. But I bet that's just a temporary situation, until more high-level American instructors emerge.

Nathan Scott
30th July 2008, 19:49
Koryu, while not all the same, still share a more common method of teaching which remains more consistent than that seen in aiki derivatives, as Koryu's far more common and chief method of transmission is shared Kata in an ordered format.

Interesting that you went from a couple of posts ago criticizing others for trying to generalize about koryu arts, to saying koryu arts generally teach differently than aiki arts.

As far as your point goes, I agree to some degree. While there are kata and a sampling of the curriculum outlined in the makimono, the aiki arts do not teach kata sets consistently between the different lineages. There are basic, intermediate, and advanced levels of techniques and teachings, but the art was clearly intended to be more principle based than typical koryu. There are in fact a number of aspects of Daito-ryu that are different from typical koryu, but there are a number of critical ones that are also consistent with koryu. In my opinion, and apparently that of most koryu groups in Japan, Daito-ryu as a whole is more koryu than not.


There are many other Koryu with “branches, which while being taught by different teachers in a given ryu, are instantly recognizable as the same kata, numbered, ordered, and done the same with a different flavor. This is simply not the case in the aiki arts.

While the aiki arts may be less strict about the formality and consistency of kata, I have noticed over the years more in common than I once believed. As one example, many of the basic jujutsu and weapon work from the Sagawa dojo is very similar in appearance and method of practice to the pre-war aikido of Ueshiba. In fact, more than one branch of DR has recognized Ueshiba's pre-war aikido basics as being very similar to their own. Enough so that they are immediately recognizable as DR techniques to them, even though they may not feel identical in every branch. The Tokimune lines are structured differently than the other Sokaku branches, but there are techniques in his lines that are also immediately recognizable as Sokaku derived techniques found in other branches.


And all this teaching -with every branch - was mostly done by teaching in "seminar" style with most of the practice done on their own between Takeda’s visits. We see this "Seminar style" being the chief method today of disseminating the art.

That's just not true. Although Sokaku taught primarily through the seminar format, most of the senior instructors who founded their own branches (and some that didn't) learned directly from Sokaku from daily training, mostly one-on-one, and usually in their home. One-on-one instruction, feeling the methodology first hand, over and over. Sagawa in fact is an exception to this rule, as he stated he learned mostly from seminars.

As far as current trends, most students of DR from what I can see learn from regular class instruction. Some distance students learn primarily through seminars, while others learn through a combination of seminars, attending regular classes, and studying under a qualified instructor over an extended period. Modern Daito-ryu is adapting the branch/honbu system, but is for the most part not conducting instruction primarily through the seminar format. Don't know where you are drawing this conclusion from...

Regards,

TimothyKleinert
30th July 2008, 19:59
[re: "Seminar style"] Sagawa in fact is an exception to this rule, as he stated he learned mostly from seminars.

Didn't Sagawa accompany Takeda as he traveled & taught? So even if he "learned from seminars", it was still relatively regular training?

Or am I remembering wrong?

Dan Harden
30th July 2008, 23:53
Dan,
Let me say that I agree with most of what you say in principle, but I think you have a tendency to exaggerate certain issues and facts.

Tim
I think you should just begin every post with that line. I'm sure it will sink in eventually- thanks. I feel much the same with your counters.
Overall, you make some strong statements that I didn't make, then turn around and agree with most of the ones I did state, all while correcting me for making them in the first place.
You then go on to either exaggerate yourself or artificially narrow the scope to make a point of your own. An example being your response to my stating that the training methods, the list of kata, the substance of the mokuroku and the stressing of certain aspects over others are very different.
Your response is - "They all teach by 2 man kata."
Uhm...OK. Thanks so much. Glad that's settled.

I don't think we're having a productive dialogue. I think your comments will be received well here for several reasons though.



But here's *my personal opinion* on the matter: I think it is unlikely that Takeda Sokaku ever taught a concrete or "set" syllabus in the first place. Rather, I think it is more likely that Takeda was attempting to teach a "principle-based" or "improvisational" system. The quantity of (supposedly distinct) kata/waza that Takeda demonstated, as well as the technical and tactical overlap between said kata, is simply too great (again, in my personal opinion).

If you accept that view, then all the cries of "they're not practicing the same kata/waza!" is largely irrelevant, 'cause creativity in waza would have been what Takeda was attempting to teach in the first place!

Again you seem to repeat my same points re-phrased back at me. I have stated the same thing both right here and other places for years; that Takeda was probably freewheeling it while practicing aiki, and developing his art and it is why all five major students developed branches and syllabus that look so different.

Now you have added to that by stating your own opinion (as did I) as to WHY Takeda did what he did and what his possible goals were. Something which is wildly speculative-though we may agree as to why-it is none the less completely unknown factually. Which is why I had initially stated that I think it is "supposed" that he taught a single syllabus and you now seem to agree he didn't.
This is yet another time you simply restate my points while telling me I am exaggerating them.

As to whether the current practices as they are are irrelevant in their differences? Well, I doubt that you would get many in any single branch to quit and join another (since in your view the differences are irrelevant and they have the same goals it shouldn't matter right?). I am sure fellas in the Kodokai or Roppokai may have some opinions about showing up and starting the Hiden mokuroku of the mainline for the next 5 years.


Enough theorizing, though, here we have to bring in the topic of internal skill, or "Aiki" as you would say. I totally agree that Aiki (as you define it) is the thing that gives DR it's extra "umphf". (It also lends itself to a more "dynamic" or "improvisational" practice, as you know.) And I don't believe every DR teacher "has it". So at the nuts-and-bolts level, yes, different branches/teachers are "doing different things".

Well I'll leave that up to you. I didn't go there. What evidence do you have to support that statement? Can you define what "it" is, and who knows it? How can you tell? Care to state who doesn't? There are some interesting opinions stated privately, also others from feeling teachers. But as you noted and admonished nothing is to be gained there.

[QUOTE=TimothyKleinert;466307]BUT(!) I really do believe that everyone is attempting to "do" the same thing---that is, I think they are all attempting to produce the same results. Take a familiar example, Aiki-age. If you have the proper internal conditioning and follow the standard advice (like, "relax, it should be effortless!"), you get led to certain conclusions (manipulate internal forces, etc). But if you don't have the conditioning, the desire to make the technique "work" leads to other conclusions (use angles and other external "tricks"). In the end, the external method becomes just an emulation of the internal method. So while, yes, they're "different", the emulation is still trying to achieve the same result.

So with the caveat that some practitioners have internal skill and some don't, when I look at videos or pictures from the various branches, IMO they really do share the same "character", that is, they use (outwardly) similar techniques and tactics.
Well again I'll leave that up to you Tim. Thats quite a statement to make. One which has been challenged here by other people, but go for it.


I also disagree that their training methods are (significantly) different. All branches use 2-person kata as a fundamental training method, though specific kata vary. Even if various branches advocate supplementary exercises (like shiko)---and I think most probably do, to varying degrees---it is my impression (from casual research) that kata still comprises the vast bulk of official, in-class training. The order of things, as well as what gets emphasized... well, I won't call that insignificant, but I think the bigger issue is whether the teacher has internal skill in the first place.

That's my argument. I understand you're looking at the presence of, or lack of, internal skill/aiki as a fundamental, deal-breaking sort of distinction. I get that view. But personally... I don't know, it still seems like an exaggeration to say they're "doing totally different things"... I prefer to think of it as a "high-level skill" vs "low-level skill" sort of thing.
Well, that's presuming allot I didn't say or lead to. But since you said it It would be interesting to see who you think is high level and who is low level? I pointed out a difference in approach, both in what is obvious and what teachers say-sometimes about each other.




Umm... I don't know, Dan, I think you're really mis-characterizing the present state of DR training here.

In the Takumakai and Hakuho-ryu, at least, who have quite a number of schools in Japan, there are numerous high-ranking instructors who conduct regular classes in their own dojos (in Japan). Any seminars or get-togethers are done more for organizational and "check-in with the boss" sort of reasons, rather than for fundamental instruction.

I can't speak about other branches, but I get the impression that in Japan, DR is largely taught through regular classes at permanent dojo, not sporadic seminars. But I admit I don't know for sure.

In the US, yes, that's the way it's taught. But I bet that's just a temporary situation, until more high-level American instructors emerge.
Well you have pointed out training in Japan. then, what do you do yet again? Agree that it is the way the art is largely taught outside of Japan, with branch dojo and the main teacher being in Japan or in a remote location.

I think you should revisit some of your points. On the whole you are going a long way to restate mine.

Good luck in your training.
Dan

Nathan Scott
9th August 2008, 23:30
Just a re-direct to this thread from "Body Conditioning / Dan Harden (http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=38747)".