PDA

View Full Version : interesting discussion



Bambi
29th November 2000, 14:11
Taken from the "MTripp sez there is no jujutsu thread" in the judo section of the underground forum at http://www.mixedmartialarts.com/forum/index.cfm?forum_id=28

Klif wrote:
"John, try not to get too involved in the gathering of idiots at e-budo.com. The so-called "traditional" martial arts found is this country are full of frauds, criminals, fakes, brainwashed dolts, and those that try to imerse themselves in the fantasy of dressing and acting Japanese"

Despite the above quote it's quite an interesting discussion however most of the participant's seem to adamantly believe that Japanese/koryu jujutsu was practiced only through kata against compliant partners...

"Lacking ANY form of randori or shiai those traditional (jujutsu) systems can not advance into the modern world"

"Of course there is "jujutsu"; just like you can so see the reenactment of those civil war battles. BUT, jujutsu as a living progressing martial art? Nope; sorry but that just isn't the case. "

I thought you folk might like the right to reply.. :)

Just don't go starting some kinda interboard forum arashi pleaase? :D

John Lindsey
29th November 2000, 18:44
Oh my…I do take offense to the idiot comment. I strongly feel that anyone who spends time here will clearly see the quality and scope of the discussions is by far the best such message board around. All such boards have a certain degree of negativity due the fact that we rely on members (idiots or not) to respond to the discussions. In the time e-budo has been online, we have seen a rise in “budo boards” and I like to say that we lead the way for others to follow.

Ruediger
29th November 2000, 19:05
I'm "proud" to be an idiot.. :D

Margaret Lo
29th November 2000, 19:17
Members - there is only one way to settle such an insult!

Trial by Combat

Each board must select a champion (composed of a team of 3), pick a topic to be posted on its own Arena and let's get rrrreaadddyy to rrrrumbllle!!!

No holds barred. Since this is a war of words, I propose Earl Hartman for the actual delivery, Joe Svinth to provide factual defenses, and I would be delighted to compose parodies, or provide sarcasm where wit fails. :laugh:

M

[Edited by Margaret Lo on 11-29-2000 at 01:22 PM]

Cady Goldfield
29th November 2000, 19:20
...And I'd be happy to provide blatant arrogance and rudeness! :)

CG

Margaret Lo
29th November 2000, 19:24
Cady - I think the honors for blatant arrogance and rudeness goes to the writer at the other board. Would you settle for cranky and incorrigible?

M

shinbushi
29th November 2000, 19:54
The MMA crowd has no respect for classical or traditional JMA or CMA. If it is has not been "proven" in the ring they think it is worthless. :redhot: The board on defend.net is also very anti-traditionalist. (better looking board than the underground though)

[Edited by shinbushi on 11-29-2000 at 01:57 PM]

Cady Goldfield
29th November 2000, 20:45
Originally posted by Margaret Lo
Cady - I think the honors for blatant arrogance and rudeness goes to the writer at the other board. Would you settle for cranky and incorrigible?

M

Sure. Actually, cranky and incorrigible is more like me.

CG

Bambi
29th November 2000, 23:15
eehhh.. let's just lay off on the whole forum showdown idea for now..(jeez yer all a thin skinned bunch) ;)

What's getting at me about that thread and forum is that a lot of what is touted as fact about koryu/japanese jujutsu there seems highly divergent with what I've read here and elsewhere.

fer example..

"after the ban on swords, LOTS of people attempted to change battlefield ryu-ha to something applicable to the modern times. THEY FAILED. Were this not so they would be living breathing alive systems today. In 99.9% of the cases, the people claiming to be the living masters of these long dead systems are bull shit artists of the juko-lie ilk that are feeding bull to the faithful with their fanciful tales of the samauri. Jujutsu as a living breathing modern system DIED in 1886 when it was defeated by Kodokan Judo. ANYONE who says otherwise if going to have a VERY hard time proving it"

Also the idea tha japanese JJ was utterly devoid of randori style training seemed incorrect to me. Not too mention about the kodokan completely cleaning house post 1886. Did'nt the fusen ryu pull one back for the old schools? :)

I thought some nice folk here might like the right to reply to statements about their art which seem erroneous..instead they reach for the flame thrower.. must be the classical attitude :D

Nathan Scott
29th November 2000, 23:41
Hi,

I've been called over to a couple of other boards to see stuff like this, and my first reaction is always "why waste time sifting through this stuff?"

The internet is full of instant-experts these days, and you need to be careful where you look for semi-reliable information. E-budo is definitely in the lead both in quality of contribution over all and the experience level of many of the contributors and/or moderators (myself excluded! :) ) Almost all of the most senior western Budoka I know of that are surf BBS' at least lurk here if not contribute occaisonally.

One board I went to was a Chinese martial arts board that had a section on Japanese Swordsmanship for some reason. The moderator was clueless, to the point of not even recognizing a basic, fundamental concept of Kendo - and furthermore far more concerned with sticking to his guns than admitting that his position may have been wrong. I feel sorry for those that follow these kinds of boards and buy into half-cocked knowledge, experience and research.

But why? It doesn't cost anything extra to come to a board like e-budo! :D

To quote one of my favorite post's on this BBS - "there's five minutes of my life that I'll never get back again".

Don't waste your time!

Regards,

PS. These are the same boards that constantly scan reputable boards like this to get answers and sometimes even provide linsk to the applicable threads.


[Edited by Nathan Scott on 11-29-2000 at 05:48 PM]

Joseph Svinth
30th November 2000, 07:11
Margaret and Cady -- what, you don't think that I'm capable of sufficient sarcasm and invective by myself?

As for the other board, remember:

1. There is considerable nationalism inherent in the study of martial arts. Thus sambo is better than judo, in the eyes of many Russians, and WWII combatives better than judo in the eyes of many Americans, and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu better than judo in the eyes of many Brazilians. And we all know what Japanese would say is the best. Which is really best? Well, probably depends on who's doing it, that's my guess.

2. Which "koryu" group is actually being discussed? For example, does "Juko-lie ilk" refer to whom I think it refers? Hmm. As I recall, certain people affiliated with E-budo have equally unkind things to say about said organization. Along the same lines, isn't a certain PhD (Pile it Higher and Deeper) whose book was recently published better termed a hysterian than historian? And how about those McDojos teaching that X-ryu has Y-thousand years of history? In short, cynicism in ones so young is sad, but it says much about the state of the business of MA, if not the art.

3. If dealing with professionals, then I must ask which sword ban? Governments of all kinds throughout time have banned this weapon or that, or restricted its use solely to use on infidel and heretics. The point is not to discuss sword bans, but to state a personal belief, one more legalistic than sociological: EACH CASE IS UNIQUE! Yes, we all generalize and quantification is good, but care must be exercised.

4. Since I'm one of E-budo's brainwashed idiots, I hereby encourage any non-brainwashed person to submit revolutionary articles to EJMAS, and I'll try hard to find somewhere to fit them in.

[Edited by Joseph Svinth on 11-30-2000 at 01:38 AM]

Richard Elias
30th November 2000, 07:30
"Never smarten-up a chump"
D.J.Angier

MarkF
30th November 2000, 11:04
Ain't no one that beat me IN the ring. He's a paper chump!"

Muhammad Ali

Margaret Lo
30th November 2000, 15:12
Originally posted by Joseph Svinth
Margaret and Cady -- what, you don't think that I'm capable of sufficient sarcasm and invective by myself?

[Edited by Joseph Svinth on 11-30-2000 at 01:38 AM]

Dear Joe:
I am sad to tell you the truth: that you are quite unable to summon up sarcasm and invective in place of arguments based on facts and documentation.

Truthfully Earl Hartman, Cady and myself are also weak in our abiities to summon up spurious arguments in favor of our favorite samurai fantasies. I don't think we have any samurai fantasies - not to get too personal!

We must all retreat to a Japanese house, there to close the sliding screen, sip our green tea and meditate on our senseis' words in preparation to do battle for our honorable teachers. ;)

M

Cady Goldfield
30th November 2000, 21:40
Margaret, in fact I do have certain samurai fantasies, but they involve Mel Gibson getting dressed in, and then undressed from, samurai armor. :up:

Cady

[Edited by Cady Goldfield on 11-30-2000 at 03:55 PM]

Ron Tisdale
30th November 2000, 22:02
Man, I'm not even gonna touch that one Cady.....

Ron :) Tisdale

Margaret Lo
30th November 2000, 22:05
Yikes...I'll just speak for myself ....

Must go off to listen to koto music while sitting on tatami. ;)

M

Cady Goldfield
30th November 2000, 22:52
Yes, Ron and M, it's best you not go there. Crowds ruin the effect! :laugh:

CG

Earl Hartman
1st December 2000, 02:12
Margaret:

When they are backed up by facts and enlisted in the service of truth, nothing is more gratifying than sarcasm and invective (although gratuitous ad hominem attacks rank right up there).

Joseph Svinth
1st December 2000, 09:25
Dang, that's the first time I've ever been told to add another habenero to the ol' poison pen. :up:

MarkF
1st December 2000, 10:19
Originally posted by Margaret Lo


Dear Joe:
I am sad to tell you the truth: that you are quite unable to summon up sarcasm and invective in place of arguments based on facts and documentation.



Yeah? You haven't read his email lately!:eek:

Mark

MarkF
1st December 2000, 10:29
Deleted.





[Edited by MarkF on 12-02-2000 at 05:33 AM]

Robert Carver
1st December 2000, 11:40
Deleted

[Edited by Robert Carver on 12-02-2000 at 07:23 AM]

Margaret Lo
1st December 2000, 15:34
Originally posted by MarkF
Originally posted by Margaret Lo


Dear Joe:
I am sad to tell you the truth: that you are quite unable to summon up sarcasm and invective in place of arguments based on facts and documentation.



Yeah? You haven't read his email lately!:eek:

Mark




Mark
I think my perspective on Joe is skewed by what I encountered in some other lists, and by my profession.

Oh all right all right: Joe S. you are one caustic son of a **** who do you think you are flinging references right and left!! Grrrrl

M

[Edited by Margaret Lo on 12-01-2000 at 09:51 AM]

Joseph Svinth
2nd December 2000, 08:09
I coulda been a contender, I coulda been a lawyer... :cry:

MarkF
2nd December 2000, 11:30
Robert,
Mark Tripp was a member the last time I posted there (granted, it has been a while), and I can't seem to post on budoseek. I get a strange response when I have ("more than one person is using that email address").

Since this thread produced a link in which I saw his name, I don't think I was intoning anything wrongly about Budoseek. As I said before, I have tried to post (a message perhaps?) I wanted to reply to the thread in Judo concerning "nationl collegiate tournaments" but couldn't. But I will delete the post, anyway.

(I will be in touch concerning my posting problems)

Thanks,

Mark

Robert Carver
2nd December 2000, 13:33
Thanks Mark for the heads up on the BudoSeek problem and your email. I will look into it ASAP and get back to you.

Nope didn't think you were doing anything negative, just informing that Mark Tripp is not a member of BudoSeek (I really did look at each name as I know him from my distant past and surely would have remembered a post from him).

Thanks,

MTripp
7th September 2006, 17:37
...and this is the very first time I saw this.

First, lets get the context of the entire posting I made.

I was speaking to the odd idea of the term "BJJ". In as much as there is no evidence of ANY japanese jujutsu master going to Brazil and setting up shop. We do have a clear paper trail of Kodokan judo black belts going there, and the NGB for Judo in Brazil lists them all, including the Gracies.

Now, lets agree on a few ideas here.

#1 The Juko-lie folks, and others like them don't count. Don't see any need to go over all that again.

#2 If you made it up yourself, it doesn't count. Like it or not, taking a few moves from Judo, Karate, Aikido, and whatever, and calling it jujutsu is NOT going to make it so.

#3 If you are a "real" legitimate japanese jujutsu bujutsu, you will have the linage and papers to prove same. See #1 above.

Now, with that context clear, lets look at EXACTLY what I said. I did NOT say there is no jujutsu. NEVER. I said, jujutsu as a living, breating, martial system is dead. To that there is no doubt.

You can dress up in Civil War costumes, and re-enact battles all you wish, but you are not refighting the civil war, and you are not learning how to fight in todays wars.

Now, there is great fun, and a lot of benifit to "playing" at those things, be it civil war, or Samauri. However, if you wish to learn modern methods, they are not to be found there.

For those who "projected" motive into me, sorry, it isn't there. I make no comment on whatever people do for fun.

But don't pee on my leg and tell me its raining.....

cxt
7th September 2006, 18:30
Mr. Trip

Unless I read it wrong the last post on this thread was 6 years ago.

What gives???

No I do not "agree" that "jujutsu as a living breathing martial system is dead."

Further I would suggest that there is pleanty of "doubt" as to your conclusions and exactly how you go about frameing that statement.

I presume that you have at least some rational to consider--right???

Plus I also have to point out the error in your phraseing, you state:

"However if you wish to learn modern methods, they are not found there."

Is not that kinda the point?

If folks want to learn "modern methods" there are plenty of places to learn them.
If they wish to learn the classical methods--then there are also places to learn them as well.
I mean that kinda self-evident that you would not be learning modern methods in a classical school.
Thats like telling folks that if they wish to learn swimming they are going to end up getting wet.
I honestly don't get your point here.

Also I belive the Gracies kinda picked their name themselves--why not e-mail one of them and ask them why they chose it?

Don't think many people EXCEPT the Gracies are going to able to comment on why they picked that name back in the day.

Ron Tisdale
7th September 2006, 18:40
...and this is the very first time I saw this.

First, lets get the context of the entire posting I made.

I was speaking to the odd idea of the term "BJJ". In as much as there is no evidence of ANY japanese jujutsu master going to Brazil and setting up shop. We do have a clear paper trail of Kodokan judo black belts going there, and the NGB for Judo in Brazil lists them all, including the Gracies.

Maeda (the person who trained the Gracies) was trained in judo and possibly jujutsu...but judo and jujutsu were often used interchangably in those days. Technically speaking, judo is a style of jujutsu, which is a generic name for grappling systems in japanese. Same could be said of yawara...


Now, lets agree on a few ideas here.

#3 If you are a "real" legitimate japanese jujutsu bujutsu, you will have the linage and papers to prove same. See #1 above.

There are groups like these who are still training. And many of them do include *some* amount of randori in their system.


Now, with that context clear, lets look at EXACTLY what I said. I did NOT say there is no jujutsu. NEVER. I said, jujutsu as a living, breating, martial system is dead. To that there is no doubt.

You can dress up in Civil War costumes, and re-enact battles all you wish, but you are not refighting the civil war, and you are not learning how to fight in todays wars.

Judo doesn't learn how to fight in today's wars. BJJ doesn't learn how to fight in today's wars. So what? Are they living, breathing systems? Jujutsu is alive and well...Aikido is a system of jujutsu, and is alive and well. Koryu jujutsu styles that do practice some amount of randori are also alive...the wellness may be debatable.


Now, there is great fun, and a lot of benifit to "playing" at those things, be it civil war, or Samauri. However, if you wish to learn modern methods, they are not to be found there.

Sounds to me like you have a problem...not sure what it is...but I wouldn't suggest walking into many of the classical dojo I am familiar with and saying that. ;)

By the way...it's *not* raining and your leg *is* wet... ;)
Best,
Ron

DDATFUS
7th September 2006, 20:25
Mr. Trip,

I am curious about your basis for deciding that there are no living, breathing jujutsu systems left today. I was under the impression that many vital, active, and evolving jujutsu groups around today have strong legitimate connections with classical jujutsu. Are you familiar with, say, this group (http://www.shinyokai.com/home.htm)? They appear to have a verifiable lineage going back to pre-Meiji times, but they also seem to train in a very "live" way, keeping a strong focus on modern application and usage (I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "living" systems, but read Mr. Threadgill's essay on psycho-chemical stress conditioning (http://www.shinyokai.com/Essays_PCSConditioning.htm) and his essay on assumptions (http://www.shinyokai.com/Essays_Assumptions.htm) made by different systems to get an idea of why I think that this particular school of jujutsu is still "living and breathing").

So, based on your ideas, would you consider this school to be one that is re-creating, just like War Between the States Reenactors, or would you consider this to be a dead system?

Best,

Kendoguy9
7th September 2006, 20:29
Dear Mr. Tripp et al,

I'm pretty sure that the Gracie style of jujutsu is a product of early Kodokan judo/jujutsu training. Has anyone tried to make a clear argument against this? There are almost no unique elements or innovations from judo to BJJ beyond training methodology and technical focus, and maybe a few minor technical developments.

I will agree that arts like Jukokai and made up American jujutsu styles don't count for much. They may turn out good fighters or people able to defend themselves, but it is very hit or miss. Because the quality of such schools varies greatly I think we should exclude them from any serious conversation of jujutsu, unless we are talking about a specific modern school or teacher.

I have doubts about your statement that there is no living breathing jujutsu. Maybe you can clarify what you mean by living breathing tradition? If you mean old schools are not willing to train with grenades and rocket launchers, well then I guess you're right. However, if you mean to say that the skills learned are not applicable today then you are wrong. Please do not confuse kata training with inability to fight.

I do not consider my training to be "civil war reenacting." Each has very different aims. The aim of budo is to hurt another person, in some cases really badly, while not getting hurt your self. The training is designed how it is (kata method) to allow practice without serious injury. Re-enactors do not have this intent, but rather dress up with the intention of reliving, in a controlled safe environment, battles of the past, but with no interest in hurting another person for real.

I have no interest in being a samurai nor fighting in a mock or real samurai war. My interest in budo is for the tangible results I get every day from my training. As for old budo methods not preparing for modern wars, I would suggest you check out Hoplos online (http://www.hoplology.com/). Many training methods from koryu are used by marines, often with little modification other then the weapon involved. Many concepts of Shinkage-ryu are used in marine pistol combat training, the only thing that changes is the weapon and the maai. While this isn't jujutsu it is an even more ancient training method that is still alive, well and breathing today.

To bring it back on topic a friend and training partner is a police officer and has said his training in koryu jujutsu (Daito-ryu) is very useful to him everyday! I'll take his word for it.

So before I started this rant (sorry), I asked can you clarify what you mean by living breathing tradition?

Thanks and I look forward to more discussions!

Kendoguy9
7th September 2006, 20:43
Hey everyone,

Just as a heads up when I said, "There are almost no unique elements or innovations from judo to BJJ beyond training methodology and technical focus, and maybe a few minor technical developments." I did not mean this as a slight against BJJ or to imply their method of training is in anyway inferior, or that they cannot produce solid fighters because we have all seen that is not the case. I don't want to make any BJJ players mad at me, since a BJJ friend lets us use his dojo for training! :)

Thanks,

allan
7th September 2006, 21:09
One could argue that some koryu have become museum pieces, or pale shadows of their former selves. To paint all koryu jujutsu this way would be a significant oversight and error. I recommend reading some of Ellis Amdur's writings about his line of his art, Araki-ryu, a school of jujutsu (and much more) which insists that each generation of practitioners go through great efforts to test, re-evaluate and make relevant its rationale while always being true to the founder's original insights. Thus the ryu has a charged relationship between inheritance and innovation.

There are other ryu which, though strongly rejecting change or innovation, are far from bloodless.

Mr.Tripp, I cannot accept your assertion that "jujutsu as a living, breat[h]ing, martial system is dead" because my own experience, observations, and research have shown me otherwise.

cxt
7th September 2006, 22:36
I'm still wanting to know exactly why Mr. Trip would want to jump-start a 6 year old discussion?

For that matter why would someone that is so clearly against "traditional" training be reading thu 6 year old material on a web-site that mainly caters to budo arts, a forum for an art (jujutsu) that he claims no longer exsists, and specifc threads that are about 180 degrees from his own expressed outlook?

(For that matter, looking deep enough into the archives to find a 6 year old topic.)

Is the guy just trolling for an e-fight?

Don't mind the fight--as long as folks sack up and defend their postion and logic.
'Drive by" posting though, really irk me.
I mean really, why bother.

Hope he sticks around--if nothing else perhaps he can learn something about the arts he so casually dismisses.

MTripp
8th September 2006, 00:41
I'm still wanting to know exactly why Mr. Trip would want to jump-start a 6 year old discussion?>>>

As I said, I was only made aware of it, and the interesting projections into my "motives" and character". Old or New, if you don't want my apples then don't shake me tree.

For that matter why would someone that is so clearly against "traditional" training be reading thu 6 year old material on a web-site that mainly caters to budo arts, a forum for an art (jujutsu) that he claims no longer exsists, and specifc threads that are about 180 degrees from his own expressed outlook?>>>

Again, more projection and even straw man on your part. Lets take them by the numbers.

1. I am not against "traditional" training for fun or personal pleasure. Any more than I am against other pastimes. However, if we are speaking about training people for that "real fight" or other such buzz words, then I have to point out that the very term "traditional" says it does not apply. One cuold say that "traditional" teaching is that the earth is flat and thunder curdles milk. That is a "traditional" view point, it is also wrong.

2. I have been a member here for some time, and will continue to post as I see fit. Most of my time was dealing with Juko-lie. However, I might ask why take a quote from me, out of context, post it here, assault me and my opinions, and expect me to say nothing?

(For that matter, looking deep enough into the archives to find a 6 year old topic.)>>>

Try R E A D I N G. I was doing a gogle search for an old artical of mine, and this came up. I had no idea it was here, but CLEARLY I can see it struck a nerve then and now.

Is the guy just trolling for an e-fight?>>>

Only if I were to be as insulting as some here have been to me.

Don't mind the fight--as long as folks sack up and defend their postion and logic.>>>

Would you know it if you read it?

Drive by" posting though, really irk me. I mean really, why bother>>>

You calling it that, doesn't make it so. People who project their feelings into others "irk" me, so here we are.

Hope he sticks around--if nothing else perhaps he can learn something about the arts he so casually dismisses.>>>

What, pray tell, do you assume to teach me? I have been at this for almost 50 years, which I suspect is longer than most of you have been born. If my comments offend you so much, you might want to take a look at "Unlocking the secrets of Aiki-jujutsu" which makes the same ones, as do any of the legitimate jujutsu masters I have met in my life. NONE of them believe their training is how a modern warrior should be training.

Unless you talk to those other folks..... the juko-lie types.

Again, for the record, if things do not adapt and change, they die. We do not use flintlocks for a very good reason. So it needs be with true combative systems.

Thanks for your input.

DDATFUS
8th September 2006, 01:23
Mr. Trip,

I would appreciate it very much if you could give us your thoughts on some of the points that Christopher Covington raised in his post. Also, could you tell me what you think of the jujutsu art that I mentioned in my post? Would you describe it as dead? Why or why not? It would certainly be hard to describe it as fraudulent.

Also, what about Araki Ryu (see Al Heinemann's post)? Based on what I've read, this art is both a koryu bujutsu and still evolving and adapting. What do you think regarding this art?

Best,

Prince Loeffler
8th September 2006, 01:29
As I said, I was only made aware of it, and the interesting projections into my "motives" and character". Old or New, if you don't want my apples then don't shake me tree.



I don't want any apples nor have any desires to shake your tree, but would it be hard to ask you to follow the rules of OUR house. The rule of E-budo indicates that any post must be followed with FULL name in each every post they make.

Please comply !

fifthchamber
8th September 2006, 02:44
I would also like to ask where you trained that formed your opinion of Koryu here in Japan? I assume that you did train here, and are not simply making sweeping statements about things you haven't trained in.
If you had trained in these arts I would think your opinion would not be a set as it is now, it would trouble me if it was.
Is it possible to ask what experience you have had in Koryu arts that formed this opinion of the training methods being static? I would be interested to hear about why you have those opinions if you did train in some of the Koryu..
Yours.

Finny
8th September 2006, 03:23
What Ben said.

To state that "jujutsu as a living, breating, martial system is dead. To that there is no doubt." is simply idiotic - 50 years of training simply tells us that you have spent 50 years training with blinders on.

"to that there is no doubt"? - you have obviously never been to Japan, or seriously investigated Japanese jujutsu. Your opinion re. this topic is wrong - of that there is no doubt.


you might want to take a look at "Unlocking the secrets of Aiki-jujutsu" which makes the same ones, as do any of the legitimate jujutsu masters I have met in my life. NONE of them believe their training is how a modern warrior should be training.

A modern "warrior" trains with small arms, mortar and air support - not hand to hand combat.

By that reasoning BJJ, Muay Thai, Boxing, MMA, Karate, heck just about ANY martial art is not a "living breathing martial system" - because they are not "how a modern warrior should be training".

As others have already pointed out, there are numerous traditional jujutsu ryuha still around which are very much "alive" - many include randori, the use of handheld weapons and defense against same, in a noncooperative manner.

Dressing up and acting like samurai is pretty damn far from it.

Can you tell us what level of experience you have with - Tenjin Shinyo Ryu, Araki Ryu, Shosho Ryu, Daito Ryu, Hontai Yoshin Ryu, Shindo Yoshin Ryu etc. etc. to form your opnion?

Regardless - you are pretty much as wrong as someone can be. Your reasoning is decidedly spurious also:


I am not against "traditional" training for fun or personal pleasure. Any more than I am against other pastimes. However, if we are speaking about training people for that "real fight" or other such buzz words, then I have to point out that the very term "traditional" says it does not apply. One cuold say that "traditional" teaching is that the earth is flat and thunder curdles milk. That is a "traditional" view point, it is also wrong.

Are you saying that "traditional" = wrong?

To my mind traditional means older - as in, 'with a tradition (history) behind it'.

Fighting with the human body and hand held weapons is as old as we are.

Why would you think that "traditional" fighting arts would no longer apply - has the human body changed shape in the last century?

Training for a "real fight" is training for a fight - whether you train muay thai or a 200 year old style of jujutsu - you are simply using the human body to fight. You think they didn't know how to fight 200-300 years ago in Japan?

Would you consider Kodokan Judo to be a "living, breathing martial system"?

Where do you think it (and consequently BJJ) CAME FROM?

fifthchamber
8th September 2006, 03:49
NONE of them believe their training is how a modern warrior should be training.
Sorry...I missed this quote too..I agree, to the degree that modern warriors primary weapons are no longer short range ones. They should be trained in firearms primarily, use of air support and other such training..Close range fighting should be trained as an alternative, it still occurs and should be covered...To what detail, well..
I don't suppose you have read the opinions of a Colonel George Bristol USMC? He seems to believe that these "dead" traditions have a lot to teach the modern soldier..Interesting that as someone well versed with modern warfare he claims a stance not a million miles from those taken by us here against your claims..
I just thought it was interesting that you had missed his voice in your discoveries..
Regards.
Col. Bristol (http://www.koryu.com/library/gbristol1.html)

MikeWilliams
8th September 2006, 12:34
I don't want any apples nor have any desires to shake your tree, but would it be hard to ask you to follow the rules of OUR house. The rule of E-budo indicates that any post must be followed with FULL name in each every post they make.

Please comply !

His real name is his user name. He's been around for a long time, and is pretty well known in judo/sambo/combative circles. I don't see him breaking any rules here.

cxt
8th September 2006, 15:51
Mr. Trip

Actually the entire fundamental bases for your ahm....."reasoning" is unsound.

Things DON'T die if they don't "evolve"---god how I hate it when people that don't "really" understand science try and use science to make their points

Sharks have not "evolved" in MILLIONS of years---yet they are deadly predators all the same.

So your basic, foundational idea is deeply, critically flawed from the get go.

As a further example--is a upper-cut no longer an effective punch just because its "traditional?"
Is a choke no longer an effecitve technique?--Its been around as long as wrestling has---to use your own deeply flawed example--its NOT effective anymore because its "really old."

Wow--and to think I saw some UFC guys using uppercut AND chokes just last night to great effect. ;)

Have you told THEM that thhose techniques "really" don't work? ;)

I suppose I should be impressed that you actually use the phrase "straw man"---then again you bulid enough of your own that you SHOULD know about it.

All you have presented so far ARE "straw men" and deeply flawed logic.

Ya got anything a bit more substantive for us to work with??? ;)

Oh, I did "read" it--just don't "buy" it.

People don't just kinda "stumble" on 6 year old topics--ESP when the site and thread in question are 180 degrees from your own expressed outlook.

Just sack up and admit it---you came here to get all preachy and start an e-fight.

So if you have a case to make PLEASE present it----all you have done so far is build "straw men" and make unsupported ststements.

You want to talk "real" "effective" combatives?

I carry a legal firearm and train with it regularly----thats as "real" and "effective" and "modern" as it gets. ;)

hectokan
8th September 2006, 18:13
Mr. Trip

Actually the entire fundamental bases for your ahm....."reasoning" is unsound.

Things DON'T die if they don't "evolve"---god how I hate it when people that don't "really" understand science try and use science to make their points

Sharks have not "evolved" in MILLIONS of years---yet they are deadly predators all the same.

So your basic, foundational idea is deeply, critically flawed from the get go.

As a further example--is a upper-cut no longer an effective punch just because its "traditional?"
Is a choke no longer an effecitve technique?--Its been around as long as wrestling has---to use your own deeply flawed example--its NOT effective anymore because its "really old."

Wow--and to think I saw some UFC guys using uppercut AND chokes just last night to great effect. ;)

Have you told THEM that thhose techniques "really" don't work? ;)



I doubt very seriously that he believes those techniques don't work.He is probably suggesting that some of the traditional training methods for achieving proficiency and skill in utilizing those techniques have greatly improved.

Then again I might be just guessing here

cxt
8th September 2006, 18:49
Hectokan

Maybe, maybe not.

Mr. Tripp is probably tough as tungstan alloy armor plate.---but that don't make him "right."

All I can go on is what he says---and his basic idea here is that you evolve or die.
And that is simply not correct.

'New" doesn't mean "better" at all, esp when he is using "evloution" as a bases for his line of thought.
In strict terms--the "old" systems are far MORE successful than the "new" ones by the simple fact that they have SURVIVED the passing of years.
An art a couple of 100 years old is MORE succesful in "evolutianary" terms than an art only 30 years old.

He wants to talk "evloution?"

Fine, but the struggle of "evolution" is all about survival---survival is the only yardstick that counts---and the "old" arts are the hands down "winners" here.

In the martial arts context--a context which is essential individual in nature, if your stuff "works" ie it worked when you needed it to do so--then it by defination "works" period.
Does not matter if you training in a 2000 year old method of Chinese Kung Fu or your training with Matt Hughes.
does not matter if your using a "classical" reverse punch or the "newest" version of the gullitine choke.

The age of the art one studies or the age of the technique or even how its trained is pretty much beisde the point.

Presuming that your studing MA for self-defense reasons- the ONLY thing that matters is the outcome.
Its an "outcome based" approach--and only the "outcome" matters.

Another thing he ignores is the "human" factor--ALL martial systems have to be applied by people--and people have a VAST range of skills.

(I can't throw TKD in a ring and have it fight Judo--maybe I throw a couple of books and video's in the ring ;)
Arts HAVE to be applied by people)

What "works" well for "me" may not work at all for "you."

I always look at it like school.

Everyone is pretty much the same age, go to class at the same time, have the same teacher, use the same textbook, have the same homework etc.
Some people get stright "A's" some people get "C's" some folks are lucky to pass, and some people fail utterly.

Nobody thinks this is at all strange, everyone has experienced it, it makes sense.

But few people are willing to apply the same experience to their MA training.

Far to many folks get too wrapped up with various arguements over/with "methods" and pay far to little attention to things like.
Quality of instruction---matters little what method you use if the teacher can't or won't--or lacks the abiltity to teach skills to others.

Seriously--how many times have you read an article or a blog about the advantages of this or that "method."
Compared to how many articles or blogs that delt specifically with improving ones TEACHING ability?

(Or consider this---whom would you rather take boxing lessons from.
Iron Mike Tyson or Gus D'Matto???
Mikes had the skills but D'Matto was the main guy that taught those skills to him.)

They also ignore the human factor, CHOOSEING to belive that the "method" they advocate is some sort of "magic bullet" that will overcome pretty much any individual shortcomings.
And they do so in defience of their own personal experiences in school.

I see these as serious errors in logic.

cxt
8th September 2006, 22:10
Folks

Heading home soon.

I don't usuually log on much on the weekends---too much going on.

NOT ignoring anyone.

Feel free to rip my post/s apart in my absence :)

(not that anyone requires my permission to do so)

Get back to them no later than Monday--maybe sooner, maybe not.

Enjoy the weekend everyone! :)

Neil Hawkins
9th September 2006, 09:59
Gentlemen,

I think this is another one of those circular discussions that can go round and round, but not get anywhere.

I use the terminology traditional to mean a school that has links to Japan and still trains in a "traditional" manner, this differs from Koryu in that they have a distinct lineage, the way it is practiced may or may not change over time.

Both traditional and koryu jujutsu can be extremely practical, are they the most efficient way of learning practical self defense? No, but that doesn't mean that the techniques won't work.

I currently practice Tai Chi, I find that extremely practical and complimentary to my jujutsu. However, can the majority of people who practice Tai Chi in the west use it in a practical encounter, probably not.

Any discussion about styles and practicality are doomed to fail because it is the teacher and the student that count, a good teacher can teach effective technique, a good student can determine practical applications, the style is irrelevent.

Yes some styles are more practical than others, but a poor student in the most practical style may not be as safe on the street as a good student of a less practical style. There are extremely good street fighters that have never studied any formal type of fighting.

Practcial self-defense, let alone combatives or CQB, is NOT the main emphasis of many traditional or koryu styles, that doesn't mean that it wasn't at some stage in the past, and may become the focus again if we continue to deteriorate into a world of conflict.

Buy really it's not worth arguing over. Please take care how this discussion develops.

Regards

hectokan
9th September 2006, 14:57
Gentlemen,

I think this is another one of those circular discussions that can go round and round, but not get anywhere.

I use the terminology traditional to mean a school that has links to Japan and still trains in a "traditional" manner, this differs from Koryu in that they have a distinct lineage, the way it is practiced may or may not change over time.

Both traditional and koryu jujutsu can be extremely practical, are they the most efficient way of learning practical self defense? No, but that doesn't mean that the techniques won't work.

I currently practice Tai Chi, I find that extremely practical and complimentary to my jujutsu. However, can the majority of people who practice Tai Chi in the west use it in a practical encounter, probably not.

Any discussion about styles and practicality are doomed to fail because it is the teacher and the student that count, a good teacher can teach effective technique, a good student can determine practical applications, the style is irrelevent.

Yes some styles are more practical than others, but a poor student in the most practical style may not be as safe on the street as a good student of a less practical style. There are extremely good street fighters that have never studied any formal type of fighting.

Practcial self-defense, let alone combatives or CQB, is NOT the main emphasis of many traditional or koryu styles, that doesn't mean that it wasn't at some stage in the past, and may become the focus again if we continue to deteriorate into a world of conflict.

Buy really it's not worth arguing over. Please take care how this discussion develops.

Regards


How can anybody want get into a heated verbal disscussion after a post like that?great post Neil,even thou I rolled my eyes just a bit after the tai-chi/self defense connection.I understand it and totally grasped your message,besides who really wants to keep going around in circles?

niten ninja
9th September 2006, 17:17
You'd be suprised, on some message boards you can find some very angry taichi people...

K Lee
9th September 2006, 19:52
Not to defend that thread, or a lot of the people over at mma.tv, but there is some interesting discussion over there.

Specifically, the judo/sambo and the wrestling subforums contain lots of active competitiors who share their knowledge, organize meets, communicate, etc. So not everyone over there is against TMAs. Also the state forums are used by lots of pro-am fighters and organizers, as well as just people who train. It helps coordinate things on a local level.

Sure, the general "Underground" forum is full of immature and trite postings, but the place is not completely without merit.

cxt
11th September 2006, 14:54
Neil

One of the worst beatings (in sparring) I ever took was at the hands of a Sun style Taji guy.

Like you suggest, its not what you study---its what you can do with it. :)

hectokan
11th September 2006, 19:57
Like you suggest, its not what you study---its what you can do with it. :)


I beg to differ in that some forms of study have proven to be much more effective than others under a structured fight setting,especially those that follow a specific sparring guideline.Class sparring" is similar to combat sports in that it has rules that fall under a specific fighting structure.Tell me the exact rules in which you sparr under? and I will show you a combat sport which has surpassed any particular self defense-specific karate-Martial art style or it's training methods,both in strategy and preffered techniques that are employed..




Yes the sun-taji-guy might very well be good and yes he might very well clean house with a lot of individuals but when it comes to sparring under a specific set of guidelines like "sparring"then there are specific ways to fight under those set rules that are superior to any of the specific traditional styles of self defense,sun-taji included.

Ofcourse it is always going to come down to the individual to make it all happen or not but the way to be most susscesful under any set of rules of fight sparring is to look at profesional combat sports that mimick the rules you sparr under.I am sure when you do that,you will find individuals who compete at the highest levels that have already surpassed or don't use any of the older traditional style's of fighting for sport sparring,both in theory and technique.

I wonder why?

cxt
11th September 2006, 20:47
Hectokan

Good point, and I agree.

I still have to go back to people, and teaching being at least as important as methodology though.

Best methodology in the world does you little good without people having the disciple to train, the drive to train hard, the intellegence (or train-ability if you prefer) to apply the lessons learned and or the "heart" when things get tough.

Like I said, method is important----but the "other" 2 sides of the triangle keep getting short shift in discusion.

EVERYONE wants to talk about "their" methods and "their" touted "superority."

By comparision almost NOBODY wants to have the same level of discussion about their own teaching skills--how they improve them, what classes they have taken to become better teachers.
And few wish to even mention what is required of STUDENTS to be successful.

I don't train to exercise my skills in a "sparring" envioment or under sparring rules---I do sparr, but that is training method--not the ultimate goal of my training, thus the abilty of anyone to be "really good" at that narrow spectrum of application is less important to me.
They may in fact be VERY IMPRESSIVE--but that is not why "I" train.

You ask "why?"

Your question has a simple answer--but people don't wish to talk about.

And that answer is training specificty.

The problem is that people don't wish to deal with the actual implications of the concept.
Training specficity, more or less, states that you get really good if you train as closely to to the specifcations of the sport your compete in.
A general way to put it is:

"You can't do well what you don't train for."

Which is smart--as far as it goes.

The problem is that idea has serious negative implications as well as positive ones.
Competitive events are ultimatly a "rule driven" where the rules--not overt effectiveness, drives what techniques are used and how the training is constructed.

A good example is the arc of "boxing" history.

At one time to a "boxer" meant that you had to be skilled at punching, kicking, grappling, trapping, holding, etc.
You had to to be able to fight bareknuckle, with no time limitations and with "rules" that even let folks head butt.
You even had to be good with a range of weapons--since every now and then your had to fight people with them.

Old style English boxing was the UFC of the time.

Then rules were set up for weight classes, then hand covering, then rounds, then rules, then more rules, then more rules still.

"Fast foreward" a couple of 100 years and NOBODY was training for anyone to step into a "boxing" ring and get kicked down--then kicked whileyou were down.
Nobody was training to stop a trapping/grappleing attack---not because such attacks were not effective--pretty clear that most certainly ARE, but because the "rules" forbade them and under the concept of training specificty--it would be foolish to "waste" training time for things that were "forbidden" in the ring.

When you think about it its really kind of ironic.

The UFC guys were basically forced to "re-invent" the wheel when they came up with the cocneot of the UFC.

The Brits already HAD one---back in the day.

Also ironic that Old English "boxers" would probably have been better equiped for the rigors of the current incarnation than the current crop of "boxers" would be.

Maybe.

Its not that "old style" techniques are somehow "ineffective" (although some of them probably are. "Some" techniques are never going to be useful to everyone or in all circumstances.)
Its just that they are "less" effective under the rules thay drive the competions.

hectokan
12th September 2006, 17:53
I don't think anyone has stated that their method is superior,what I do hear is people (mostly TMArtist)thinking that sparring or the techniques derived from them are mostly from a narrow spectrum of applications.

The biggest misconception I think most TMA have about sparring both in the striking arts as well as with the grappling arts is,that it's all about competition.Nothing could be further from the truth.It's almost like you have to be a cage fighter or prizefighter to reap the benifits of the most common physical dynamics that occur when two human engage in combat.


Narrow application of techniques.........let's look at this a second.Punches,kicks,knees,Elbows,Throws,Takedowns,Locks,Chokes,and Grappling are all part of sparring and competition.Would you consider this a narrow spectrum of applications?These are all major components that make up the physical dynamics of any fight both in the streets as well as in sparring.By in large it would be very "narrow minded" not to make these common basic techniques the core of your training,unless you think that the previously mentioned techniques do not really belong in a real fight.

Sure there are vital targets and illegal techniques that are forbidden in training or competiton such as biting,poking,pulliing hair or gouging but by in large it would be very "narrow minded" to not make the higher percentage of applicable techniques part of your core principle training.

Here's the kicker,you don't have to actually compete at the higher levels(or spar with the intentions of knocking each other out) to reap the benifits of certain techniques that have been proven suscseful both in sparring and prizefighting.The reasons this is important is becasue one can mimmick these innovations thru various forms of drilling,a semi resistant partner,etc,that allow you to train the core fundamentals which are being improved upon with great detail.This is very important because as most TMArtist like to claim "The wheel has already been invented"yet they fail to realize that the wheel is not constructed of wood anymore.

It's these great details in those most common techniques that make all the difference in the world.As a matter of fact most of the techniques that I described above that can be used in both sparring and competition have changed especially in the detailed department and continue to do so all the time.It's mostly the vital area techniques (illegal strikes)which change very little but then again my grandmother will probably instinctively know how to react with them real good and she does not even know them.

cxt
12th September 2006, 19:56
Hectokan

I pretty much agree with you.

I only differ in some minor areas----I think I'm, more or less, on the same page.

And your right, "wheels are no longer made of wood."

Steel, ceramic, cermet or plastic--its still a "wheel." ;)

Its the concept that is important.

Duncan B
13th September 2006, 15:37
Hector,
Could I just ask you to clarify your last post?
1) I understand you to have said that punches kicks etc have to be tested in "sparring" (I put it in inverted commas because I know a definition can be a contentious thing)
2) I also believe that you said that sparring can be mutually beneficial and an act between training partners to improve each other NOT competively beat each other.
Hopefully so far so good.
What I'm not sure about is your views on how traditional martial artists view "sparing". Do you believe that all TMA are against sparring?

Thanks
Duncan Bowdler

hectokan
13th September 2006, 17:34
Hector,
Could I just ask you to clarify your last post?
What I'm not sure about is your views on how traditional martial artists view "sparing". Do you believe that all TMA are against sparring.
Duncan Bowdler


Duncan,

I guess I am guilty of sometimes labeling all TMA and putting them into a little box,when I know for a fact that this is not true.Just like most TMA assume that all MMA enthusiast just started training in the late 90s and like to act or constantly pull pranks like some of the fighters on the UFC reality show.

I am here to tell you both perceptions are dead wrong.Unfortunately We sometimes tend percieve people in a certain way and catergorize them, simply because of how or what they train in,which is really silly.

I am here to say that's wrong,Actualy I probably have a lot more in common with CXT than any of the little things that might divide us,the internet can be a weird place.I am working hard on trying to express myself in a better way without letting my past personal experiences influence my opinions on certain topics.

I must continue to empty my cup,I hope everyone else is doing the same.