PDA

View Full Version : Goju-Ryu question



Alkayus
14th April 2007, 10:29
Hello, My name is Eric Kolmos. I am new to this forum. I have a question that has been bugging me and I have not been able to find out the answer. Does Goju-Ryu Karate have in it, traping, throws, joint locks, and any type of ground like locks (like after you throw them, put them into a type of lock while on the ground with them)? Sorry if my question comes of as childish. Thank you for your help.

Kenshin Butsu
14th April 2007, 16:07
Hello, My name is Eric Kolmos. I am new to this forum. I have a question that has been bugging me and I have not been able to find out the answer. Does Goju-Ryu Karate have in it, trapping, throws, joint locks, and any type of ground like locks (like after you throw them, put them into a type of lock while on the ground with them)? Sorry if my question comes of as childish. Thank you for your help.

How's it going Eric. Your question is not childish, in fact it is very valid. Goju Ryu does have trapping, throws, joint locks, ground like locks, etc...although, I would say that you really begin to see the possibilities of such at higher levels of development in this Goju Ryu system. Of course depending on the teacher's method of instruction, a goju ryu beginner/intermediate student might find him/herself frustrated, if they really want to focus on trapping, throws, joint locks, ground locks, etc.

As opposed, to other jujutsu arts that begin to train the beginner immediately in fundamental techniques like grappling and joint locking techniques.

If you are looking for a sport that focuses on "trapping, throws, joint locks, and any type of ground fighting and locks", I would say Brazilian jujutsu would be a good option, maybe even judo. Brazilian jujutsu seems to be popular these days; there could be a school where you live.

If you are looking for a classical art (koryu) that incorporates strikes, throws, joint locks, and some ground techniques, that can not be categorized as a sport due to the lethality/intention of the techniques, look for traditional jujutsu or aikijujutsu systems, such as Daito-Ryu. Although, due to the rarity of these arts, it is quite possible that there might not be a qualified instructor in your area.

As a practitioner of Goju Ryu, I highly recommend it, and even though it does incorporate elements of grappling, throws, and joint locking, if you are looking to specialize in the latter, than another art like the previously specified could be best.

john_lord_b3
14th April 2007, 16:52
I think Dojos under Mr. Higaonna Morio still teaches the joint locks and throws of traditional Goju-ryu. Why don't you look for such Dojos. I hope this info is useful for you.

2groggy
14th April 2007, 21:24
Eric,

I'd say that the split between techniques is about 70% striking, 25% breaks, 5% throws with the remainder being ground work. If you check my math, I believe that would be approximately zero.

The style has a close range mindset - finish 'em off quick and get away unhurt. So why use joint locks when you can just break it and then run like the dickens? And why roll in the mud with the pigs when you can kick 'em while their down?

As far as curriculum goes, If you start taking GoJu Ryu, expect to spend a few years on striking before you really drill down to the grappling. The locks and throws are in the katas but hidden fairly well.

Alkayus
14th April 2007, 21:36
Thanks alot guys. Also Im not really interested in specializing in throws or anything, but I would like to learn an art that had them, just in case. You know? Thats great to know that Goju has some type of element of it in the art. Also on a side question, whats the difference with regular Goju Ryu schools, and the Kenshikai schools? I found a couple what seem to be regular schools, and about one Kenshikai school.

Prince Loeffler
14th April 2007, 22:01
Thanks alot guys. Also Im not really interested in specializing in throws or anything, but I would like to learn an art that had them, just in case. You know? Thats great to know that Goju has some type of element of it in the art. Also on a side question, whats the difference with regular Goju Ryu schools, and the Kenshikai schools? I found a couple what seem to be regular schools, and about one Kenshikai school.


I am aware that your first post contain your real name, but it is also required that ALL post must contain your reAL NAME under your signature line. For more info click on this link:

http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36053

Good luck and let us if you inquire more assistance. Thank you for your full unquestioning and unwaivering participation regarding this matter.

Alkayus
14th April 2007, 22:52
My apologies.

Eric Kolmos

Prince Loeffler
14th April 2007, 23:00
My apologies.

Eric Kolmos

Its all good ! Thanks for complying ! :)

DAYoung
15th April 2007, 12:50
We did some grappling in Goju, as well as throws. And perhaps against an untrained opponent, they'd be useful.

But when I did Judo, I (as a Goju black-belt) was helpless on the mat. I was thrown, pinned, locked and choked, and my grappling (and breakfall) skills were pretty meagre by comparison.

If you want solid throws and grappling, I'd consider cross-training in Jutsu or Jujutsu, or something like Goju-jutsu (a hybrid).

Simon Keegan
16th April 2007, 16:21
You may be interested to know that on one of our recent courses we had a Judo grading and to cut a long story short, there weren't enough Judoka to go around and so one of the Goju Ryu instructors, a 4th Dan offered to compete in the Judo matches against a Judo 2nd Dan.

The Goju Ryu instructor defeated the Judo Nidan with an Ippon (I think it was an Ippon Seionage) to win the match. They were fairly even in size and weight although the Karateka was older and more experienced.

I knew already that Goju includes grappling techniques, but it was nice to see the proof of the pudding one more time.

PictonMA
16th April 2007, 19:54
It's really going to depend on the dojo & instructor, your best bet is to check it out - see if you can watch / try out a couple classes and talk to some of the senior ranks as well as the head instructor.

I've trained in lots of Goju Dojo where there is very little or nothing in the way of throws / locks / ground work but I've also trained in many Dojo where the instructor is also ranked in Judo / Ju Jutsu and incorporates that into their training.

While Goju (or any Karate Style) does in fact have applications in the kata etc that can lead to throws / locks / grappling, it really depends on the instructor and their teacher and experience as to whether this is currently the practice.

2groggy
17th April 2007, 03:43
You get better at what you practice.

Use it or lose it.

And the comment several posts back about "untrained opponents" strikes home too.

Alkayus
17th April 2007, 05:17
Thanks alot for all the input and help guys. I found a Kenshi-kai dojo not far from where I live. I was reading up on the site and they also practice the Tuidi of Goju more so than other schools I believe. The site described Tuidi as the grappling aspect of Karate. That and Kyusho jutsu. It sounds real great. Here is the website. I still would like to know if anyone would be able to tell me if there is really any difference between say regular Goju and these Kenshi-kai schools. Supposedly according to the site, all I have learned is that the founder of Kenshi-Kai, Tetsuhiro Hokama, and the Kenshi-Kai, focus more on the "old-school" type of Goju. Here is their site: http://www.uskenshikai.com/uskenshikai/US_Kenshikai.html
and the page for the subarts: http://www.uskenshikai.com/uskenshikai/subarts.html

Simon Keegan
17th April 2007, 08:58
I'm not a Goju Ryu stylist but this may help.

I was talking to Tony Christian (7th Dan Goju Ryu and the highest ranking exponent of the art in the UK I think, who was taught by Teruo Chinen) and he stated that he considers Higaonna Sensei to be the most skilled of Goju Ryu exponents.

My friend Reiner Parsons (6th Dan Goju Ryu and a Regional Director of Kokusai Budoin) has trained with Higaonna, Kai and several other Goju masters - but considers Tadanori Nobetsu (9th Dan) to be Goju's finest teacher.

I have trained with Nobetsu Sensei myself and although it's hard for me as a Shotokan stylist to follow the kata[s] I could appreciate Nobetsu's knowledge of grappling as well as striking. But the emphasis was as much on the "Ju" as the "Go" with it more about HOW you did it, not WHAT you did. For example, relaxation, breathing etc

Simon

Kenshin Butsu
18th April 2007, 00:45
There isn't an art greater than the other...the question is, who is the more refined warrior.

Very simply, it is my understanding that Kenshi-kai is just Hanshi Tetsuhiro Hokama's interpretation of Seiko Higa's and maybe Shinpo Matayoshi's Goju Ryu.

MASTER SEIKO HIGA (Create the method Kenshin to teach Goju Ryu style).

Master Seichi Akamine was also an older contemporary of probably Hokama Sensei, and student of Seiko Higa, from which Master Akamine continued the teachings of Kenshin Ryu.

Please see this link for more information.
http://webs.montevideo.com.uy/tokuinkan/Welcome.htm

Please look on the left bar under biographies of Master Seiko Higa "I" & "II", this might bring some insight into Hanshi Tetsuhiro's interpretation of his Goju Ryu.

J.A.P.
Kenshin Ryu (Nidan)

Alkayus
18th April 2007, 01:29
Thanks alot for that info. I completely agree as well; there isnt a greater art, just more refined warriors. Ive believed this for a long time. I get tired of people always arguing over which art is better than another, dont you? Ill check out the site. Thanks again!

DAYoung
18th April 2007, 11:18
There isn't an art greater than the other...the question is, who is the more refined warrior.

Why is this?

Simon Keegan
18th April 2007, 13:10
Maybe it's because all arts that last more than five minutes have common principles?

They teach you what attacks to expect

They teach you a way of defending that has common underlying principles

They drill responses in you in such a way they become instinctive.

So no matter what the art, if you don't know what attacks to expect, don't have good defence technique (ie relaxed) and haven't drilled these responses, you won't be any use.

But while there is no art better than another, there might be one better suited to the reason you want to learn it. For example if you want practical self defence it's probably best not to start with Kyudo.

Goatlemon
18th April 2007, 14:21
But while there is no art better than another, there might be one better suited to the reason you want to learn it. For example if you want practical self defence it's probably best not to start with Kyudo.
*Googles Kyudo*

Hmmm, I wouldn't mug some dude with a huge bow. :p

But yes, good point. I agree that it's best to choose the right tool for the job, so to speak.

DAYoung
18th April 2007, 21:59
Maybe it's because all arts that last more than five minutes have common principles?

They teach you what attacks to expect

They teach you a way of defending that has common underlying principles

They drill responses in you in such a way they become instinctive.

So no matter what the art, if you don't know what attacks to expect, don't have good defence technique (ie relaxed) and haven't drilled these responses, you won't be any use.

But while there is no art better than another, there might be one better suited to the reason you want to learn it. For example if you want practical self defence it's probably best not to start with Kyudo.

Right. So there's no absolute standard of 'better', though some martial arts are better at teaching students how to defend themselves (e.g. in a one-on-one unarmed attack)?

By the way, would you include the methodologies and methods for testing as part of the arts?

trevorg
18th April 2007, 22:55
Forgive me for saying so but a martial art cannot teach a student,it is the teacher who shows the way. Ergo, if the teacher is crap then so is the martial art he is tutoring. If the teacher is good and has learnt well from his teacher then it doesnt matter what the art is , it will be a good art - and it helps if the student receives it in the same spirit.

Osu
Trevor

DAYoung
19th April 2007, 00:15
Forgive me for saying so but a martial art cannot teach a student,it is the teacher who shows the way. Ergo, if the teacher is crap then so is the martial art he is tutoring. If the teacher is good and has learnt well from his teacher then it doesnt matter what the art is , it will be a good art - and it helps if the student receives it in the same spirit.

Osu
Trevor

Sure (that's what my sensei always said).

I was using 'teaching' as shorthand. Obviously the teacher is actively involved in pedagogy (styles don't 'teach' anything).

The question is whether or not the skills being taught (and virtues being demonstrated) are better or worse than others at their selected field of endeavour.

For example, are the skills taught in Tai Chi, and the methods of testing and application, better or worse than Goju at surviving a committed and aggressive physical attack?

I now study Tai Chi, by the way...

trevorg
19th April 2007, 09:26
Sure (that's what my sensei always said).

I was using 'teaching' as shorthand. Obviously the teacher is actively involved in pedagogy (styles don't 'teach' anything).

The question is whether or not the skills being taught (and virtues being demonstrated) are better or worse than others at their selected field of endeavour.

For example, are the skills taught in Tai Chi, and the methods of testing and application, better or worse than Goju at surviving a committed and aggressive physical attack?

I now study Tai Chi, by the way...

I believe it doesnt matter what the quality of the style or the skills therein because if the teacher has achieved supreme mastery then he (and the style he represents) will be better than another style (assuming the teacher or representative of another style is not as masterful, or more so !

IMO
Osu
Trevor

DAYoung
19th April 2007, 10:16
I believe it doesnt matter what the quality of the style or the skills therein because if the teacher has achieved supreme mastery then he (and the style he represents) will be better than another style (assuming the teacher or representative of another style is not as masterful, or more so !

IMO
Osu
Trevor

But again, it's a question of fitness for very specific purposes.

Many don't achieve mastery, but they do achieve competence (and there's nothing wrong with competence). To use an example I'm familiar with, competence in Judo (as it's commonly taught) is more helpful to me in a fight than competence in Tai Chi (as it's commonly taught).

But I suspect even mastery is relative. Mastery of Iaido is more helpful in a swordfight than mastery of Judo.

As for mastery of Tai Chi, I'm not entirely sure what it's more helpful for... (but I do enjoy it)...

Simon Keegan
19th April 2007, 10:35
I teach Karate and my Dad teaches Tai Chi so I can offer you my opinion.

Karate and Tai Chi start at opposite ends of the spectrum but arrive at the same mid point.

Karate teaches you to fight so you can survive long enough to learn to get fit.

Tai Chi teaches you to get fit so you can live long enough to learn how to fight.

Or to put it another way:

Karate begins with more practical applications and through practice of this the student eventually learns to become softer, more relaxed, more 'internal' (consider the hard kata that Shotokan starts with then look at the softer kata later in the syllabus).

Tai Chi begins by teaching the softness so that when the time comes for the student to defend, they will already be relaxed enough.

I'm speaking broadly here, using Shotokan as an example of a fairly hard, linear Karate and, say Yang style as an example of soft Tai Chi but if you compare say Goju Ryu Karate to Chen Style Tai Chi the difference is minimised.

Ultimately Karate, Tai Chi, Wing Chun, Kenpo, Hung Gar etc are all fairly similar. On the outside they seem to be percussive arts (punching/kicking/blocking etc) but reveal somewhat hidden grappling applications within their forms. Compare, say a "Repulse the Monkey" in Yang Style Tai Chi to a Judo Osoto Gari for instance...

These arts also have something in common: they are essentially civilian arts designed for self defence - not the battlefield. These arts were developed to allow the none-military practitioner access to a whole "database" of techniques within forms which they could practice on their own. Or with a partner.

Whereas arts like Jujutsu, although in some forms such as Hakuda are more similar in tone to Karate, where first and foremost for the battlefield. "I'm wearing armour, I've fallen off my horse and my sword has broken, how do I defend myself".

Well, you're wearing armour so swift Tai Sabaki and kicking combos are out of the question. Your opponent is wearing armour too so forget about knocking him out. Why not throw him to the ground and break his arm. Aha! Jujutsu.

I was explaining to my students the difference between Karate and Jujutsu, and one asked: "Well if they both include strikes, throws, locks, forms and also study certain weapons - what is the difference between Karate and Jujutsu?"

I think the easy answer would have been "Karate is more about punching and kicking and Jujutsu is more about grappling" - but that is an over simplification - many Karate teachers show just as much grappling as Jujutsu teachers.

Here's my answer:

Jujutsu was developed on mainland Japan
Karate Jutsu was developed in Okinawa

Jujutsu had very few different fist positions in punches
Karate Jutsu has many punches and fist formations

Jujutsu was developed for the battlefield
Karate Jutsu was developed for civil self defence

Jujutsu took into consideration the practitioner's armour
Karate Jutsu assumed the practitioner was in civil dress

Jujutsu utilised two man kata
Karate Jutsu utilised solo kata

Jujutsu was practised alongside sword, bow and spear
Karate Jutsu was practised alongside Tonfa, Sai, Kama

Jujutsu used few kicks
Karate Jutsu used many kicks

Jujutsu used pins and restraints
Karate Jutsu used fast explosive techniques

Jujutsu was a last resort in absense of weapons
Karate Jutsu was a primary art and weapons a bonus

Jujutsu was taught in formal Ryu with written scrolls
Karate Jutsu was taught informally

Jujutsu emphasised guards in terms of hand position
Karate Jutsu emphasised stances in terms of leg position

As somebody who has studied Karate, Jujutsu and Tai Chi I wouldn't dare to say one is better than the other, but if I truly honestly only wanted to learn self defence and could only choose one I would choose Karate, but its original purpose was immediate self defence whereas Tai Chi starts with health and Jujutsu often assumes an anachronistic scenario.

Goatlemon
19th April 2007, 11:19
Whereas arts like Jujutsu, although in some forms such as Hakuda are more similar in tone to Karate, where first and foremost for the battlefield. "I'm wearing armour, I've fallen off my horse and my sword has broken, how do I defend myself".
Sorry for going off topic, but if the Koryu Jujutsu arts were primarily battlefield arts, are there any surviving examples of Japanese civilian self-defence arts?

Were there any civilian/peasant arts of Japan designed specifically for self-defence?

Finally, if Karate is a civilian self-defence art, could Ryukyu Kobudo be considered Okinawa's "military" art?

Sorry for going off topic, and thanks for any replies. :)

DAYoung
19th April 2007, 11:58
I teach Karate and my Dad teaches Tai Chi so I can offer you my opinion.

Karate and Tai Chi start at opposite ends of the spectrum but arrive at the same mid point.

Karate teaches you to fight so you can survive long enough to learn to get fit.

Tai Chi teaches you to get fit so you can live long enough to learn how to fight.

Or to put it another way:

Karate begins with more practical applications and through practice of this the student eventually learns to become softer, more relaxed, more 'internal' (consider the hard kata that Shotokan starts with then look at the softer kata later in the syllabus).

Tai Chi begins by teaching the softness so that when the time comes for the student to defend, they will already be relaxed enough.

I'm speaking broadly here, using Shotokan as an example of a fairly hard, linear Karate and, say Yang style as an example of soft Tai Chi but if you compare say Goju Ryu Karate to Chen Style Tai Chi the difference is minimised.

Ultimately Karate, Tai Chi, Wing Chun, Kenpo, Hung Gar etc are all fairly similar. On the outside they seem to be percussive arts (punching/kicking/blocking etc) but reveal somewhat hidden grappling applications within their forms. Compare, say a "Repulse the Monkey" in Yang Style Tai Chi to a Judo Osoto Gari for instance...

These arts also have something in common: they are essentially civilian arts designed for self defence - not the battlefield. These arts were developed to allow the none-military practitioner access to a whole "database" of techniques within forms which they could practice on their own. Or with a partner.

Whereas arts like Jujutsu, although in some forms such as Hakuda are more similar in tone to Karate, where first and foremost for the battlefield. "I'm wearing armour, I've fallen off my horse and my sword has broken, how do I defend myself".

Well, you're wearing armour so swift Tai Sabaki and kicking combos are out of the question. Your opponent is wearing armour too so forget about knocking him out. Why not throw him to the ground and break his arm. Aha! Jujutsu.

I was explaining to my students the difference between Karate and Jujutsu, and one asked: "Well if they both include strikes, throws, locks, forms and also study certain weapons - what is the difference between Karate and Jujutsu?"

I think the easy answer would have been "Karate is more about punching and kicking and Jujutsu is more about grappling" - but that is an over simplification - many Karate teachers show just as much grappling as Jujutsu teachers.

Here's my answer:

Jujutsu was developed on mainland Japan
Karate Jutsu was developed in Okinawa

Jujutsu had very few different fist positions in punches
Karate Jutsu has many punches and fist formations

Jujutsu was developed for the battlefield
Karate Jutsu was developed for civil self defence

Jujutsu took into consideration the practitioner's armour
Karate Jutsu assumed the practitioner was in civil dress

Jujutsu utilised two man kata
Karate Jutsu utilised solo kata

Jujutsu was practised alongside sword, bow and spear
Karate Jutsu was practised alongside Tonfa, Sai, Kama

Jujutsu used few kicks
Karate Jutsu used many kicks

Jujutsu used pins and restraints
Karate Jutsu used fast explosive techniques

Jujutsu was a last resort in absense of weapons
Karate Jutsu was a primary art and weapons a bonus

Jujutsu was taught in formal Ryu with written scrolls
Karate Jutsu was taught informally

Jujutsu emphasised guards in terms of hand position
Karate Jutsu emphasised stances in terms of leg position

As somebody who has studied Karate, Jujutsu and Tai Chi I wouldn't dare to say one is better than the other, but if I truly honestly only wanted to learn self defence and could only choose one I would choose Karate, but its original purpose was immediate self defence whereas Tai Chi starts with health and Jujutsu often assumes an anachronistic scenario.

Good answer, though I'd add a bit more to your characterisation of Tai Chi.

Tai Chi (as commonly taught) seems to have the same effects on health as light physical activity of any sort - it's not necessarily a robust path to health, but it is good remedial practice for the elderly and/or injured (like me).

As for teaching you to be calm in a fight, I'm not so sure. In my experience, participating in fights (controlled or otherwise) and developing skills represent a more helpful path to a cool head. Anyone who's only done Tai Chi (as commonly taught) is likely to be very surprised (and possibly paralysed) by the aggression, pain and confusion of a genuine fight.

But I'm happy to hear otherwise - it's not like I have any stake in this portrait.

Simon Keegan
19th April 2007, 15:02
Sorry for going off topic, but if the Koryu Jujutsu arts were primarily battlefield arts, are there any surviving examples of Japanese civilian self-defence arts?

Were there any civilian/peasant arts of Japan designed specifically for self-defence?

Finally, if Karate is a civilian self-defence art, could Ryukyu Kobudo be considered Okinawa's "military" art?

Sorry for going off topic, and thanks for any replies. :)

I don't think anything could be considered Okinawa's military art since from [can't be bothered looking up the exact dates] about 1500 to 1890 Okinawa was banned from having a military by the ruling Japanese. Poor little Okinawa had to pay dues to both of its big brothers, China and Japan and the king of Okinawan was a puppet ruler to both.

The Satsuma Clan of Kyushu, Japan exercised control over Okinawa and were associated with the Japanese Koryu of Jigen Ryu.

What is interesting is that the Motobu family practised an art that was passed down the Okinawan royal family line called Motobu Ryu but was not a military art but rather resembled Aikido. Some say this art was initially inroduced to Okinawa by Minamoto Tametomo whose family were also the forefathers of Daito Ryu Aikijujutsu.

Another interesting point is that the founding fathers of what we now call Karate, at least from the Shuri branch including Takahara Peichin, Tode Sakugawa and Soken Matsumura all worked in official capacities, including bodyguard work at Shuri Castle.

We might speculate then that the nobility had its Motobu Ryu, the bodyguards had their Shuri Te and the working classes had their Karate ie Naha Te.

Regarding Jujutsu. I'm no authority on this but I believe Jujutsu should be addressed in three areas:
1) True Battlefield Jujutsu in times of war (Kogusoku, Kumiuchi etc) developed by Japanese schools, based on Japanese weapons and armour and centred around grappling.
2) Courtly Jujutsu in Tokugawa Period (Yawara). With courtly etiquette in mind, kneeling defences, unarmed defences against knife attacks etc
3) Arts imported from China centred around striking (Hakuda) and practised by civilians. Personally I think Hakuda and Naha Te Karate (Haku-Tsuru Te) have a common origin in Fukien province.

Just my three-penneth
Simon

trevorg
19th April 2007, 17:36
But again, it's a question of fitness for very specific purposes.

Many don't achieve mastery, but they do achieve competence (and there's nothing wrong with competence). To use an example I'm familiar with, competence in Judo (as it's commonly taught) is more helpful to me in a fight than competence in Tai Chi (as it's commonly taught).

But I suspect even mastery is relative. Mastery of Iaido is more helpful in a swordfight than mastery of Judo.

As for mastery of Tai Chi, I'm not entirely sure what it's more helpful for... (but I do enjoy it)...


I still disagree. The issue as I understand is whether one art is better than another and what is it fit for, and practitioners are better or worse than others at their selected field of endeavour.

Competence and ability are only side issues. A master in one art will surely defeat a competent person in another art. This famous samurai story http://www.planetjitsu.com/viewarticle.php?t=9223
says it all really.

Thus, you dont have to be fit for purpose , just be master of yourself.

Given an equal footing and using your comparison; a master of Iaido holding a sword would, I imagine, have the edge (no pun intended) against a master of judo.

Talking of Tai Chi, it would be helpful if one recognised the essence of what is being pratised. It is a martial art. There are two main styles; one soft the other powerful, it is not just about health although that is an important component.

Check out Master Wong's Combat Tai Chi series of videos to see what I mean.
http://masterwongshop.com/video.html
Once you have entered the site it will probably take you straight on to Wing Chun Sil Lim Tao so click on the middle top panel on the right hand side under 'Tai chi'.

Osu
trevor

Simon Keegan
19th April 2007, 18:29
I think its only fair to compare martial arts with similar goals, whatever the abilities of the practitioners.

Karate, Tai Chi, Jujutsu, Wing Chun, Hapkido instructors can be judged against each other and it is fair to say that a master of one should defeat an average practitioner of the other, but comparing practitioners of these arts to practitioners of sporting arts like Taekwondo or Judo wouldn't be fair because those practitioners are conditioned to respond by holding back certain techniques - for example the Taekwondo fighter practises NOT using grabs, elbow strikes, throws etc because these would get him disqualified on the mat. So is it fair to judge harshly the instructor rather than the art?

Similarly Iaido, Kyudo and Tai Chi for Health (TM) - Just like the sporting arts they don't claim to be practical for self defence.

Personally if I was going to climb into the Thai Boxing ring I would want to know Muay Thai, if I was entering UFC I may choose Brazilian Jujutsu, if I wanted to have swordfights I would choose Iaido and Kendo but if I want self defence I choose Karate. Because I beleive that is its purpose. It doesn't mean Karate is better than Judo, it just has a different purpose.

Alkayus
19th April 2007, 20:04
I would also like to elaborate a little on what Simon had said earlier. It really depends on the period the ryu in Jujutsu was created. I dont think Jujutsu should be over simplified saying that it was purely for a warrior who was clad in armor. I would believe the Jujutsu ryuha that were founded from the Tokugawa period on would be less inclined to worry about incorporating too many concerns about armor being as there was no more war for the next 200 years, hence no real use of armor. So I would think that Jujutsu, like Karate, was used similarly in a self-defence matter for normaly dressed people. I do admit I do not practice a Jujutsu ryu from this time period, I am simply going by what research I have done. Sorry if I am incorrect at all :rolleyes: :p

Simon Keegan
19th April 2007, 21:06
I think that's a fair point, but I also think that while Tokugawa period Jujutsu may not take into account things like armour they do take into account certain scenarios that are just as antique.
Firstly, let's clear up I'm not "hating on" Jujutsu (as I believe the trendy expression goes), in fact I rather enjoy the art but I do believe it has a lot of anachronistic scenarios in its applications.
Bushi were required to leave their longswords at the door when entering a house but could carry a dagger or shortsword and so many defences come from a shortsword being drawn from the Obi in a Nukitsuke fashion.
Some techniques are practised in the standard Japanese kneeling fashion with the aggressor also kneeling. Maybe being attacked during a tea ceremony or suchlike.
Others respond to being grabbed by the topknot (ouch) and make use of other "Bushido furniture".
I think the preservation of Koryu arts is wonderful, and I also admire those who compete at senior level in sporting arts, but I don't think we should confuse these things with practical self defence that stands the test of time.
There are many practical styles of Jujutsu around today but I think the older forms teach a lot besides.

DAYoung
19th April 2007, 22:21
I still disagree. The issue as I understand is whether one art is better than another and what is it fit for, and practitioners are better or worse than others at their selected field of endeavour.

Competence and ability are only side issues. A master in one art will surely defeat a competent person in another art. This famous samurai story http://www.planetjitsu.com/viewarticle.php?t=9223
says it all really.

Thus, you dont have to be fit for purpose , just be master of yourself.

I think we'll have to respectfully disagree here. I'd argue that some masters have excellent moral virtues, but not always martial virtues. I suspect deference to authority and older pedagogies have blunted their effectiveness.


Talking of Tai Chi, it would be helpful if one recognised the essence of what is being pratised. It is a martial art. There are two main styles; one soft the other powerful, it is not just about health although that is an important component.

Check out Master Wong's Combat Tai Chi series of videos to see what I mean.
http://masterwongshop.com/video.html
Once you have entered the site it will probably take you straight on to Wing Chun Sil Lim Tao so click on the middle top panel on the right hand side under 'Tai chi'.


This is why I repeatedly stressed 'as commonly taught'. I'm certain Tai Chi has martial aspects, but it commonly doesn't - and the 'essence' you speak of is mostly unactualised potential, which has no concrete existence.

DAYoung
19th April 2007, 22:24
I think its only fair to compare martial arts with similar goals, whatever the abilities of the practitioners.

Karate, Tai Chi, Jujutsu, Wing Chun, Hapkido instructors can be judged against each other and it is fair to say that a master of one should defeat an average practitioner of the other, but comparing practitioners of these arts to practitioners of sporting arts like Taekwondo or Judo wouldn't be fair because those practitioners are conditioned to respond by holding back certain techniques - for example the Taekwondo fighter practises NOT using grabs, elbow strikes, throws etc because these would get him disqualified on the mat. So is it fair to judge harshly the instructor rather than the art?

Similarly Iaido, Kyudo and Tai Chi for Health (TM) - Just like the sporting arts they don't claim to be practical for self defence.

Personally if I was going to climb into the Thai Boxing ring I would want to know Muay Thai, if I was entering UFC I may choose Brazilian Jujutsu, if I wanted to have swordfights I would choose Iaido and Kendo but if I want self defence I choose Karate. Because I beleive that is its purpose. It doesn't mean Karate is better than Judo, it just has a different purpose.

Yes, I agree with this. But we can judge styles and practitioners as better or worse at meeting their own claims. A bad (read: worse than others) martial art will fail to provide the tools and methods of acquiring the outcomes it promises.

trevorg
20th April 2007, 17:15
I think we'll have to respectfully disagree here. I'd argue that some masters have excellent moral virtues, but not always martial virtues. I suspect deference to authority and older pedagogies have blunted their effectiveness.



This is why I repeatedly stressed 'as commonly taught'. I'm certain Tai Chi has martial aspects, but it commonly doesn't - and the 'essence' you speak of is mostly unactualised potential, which has no concrete existence.

Sorry to keep disagreeing Damon (in the spirit of debate), but to take your last point first when you say you "feel certain Tai Chi has martial aspects, but it commonly doesnt".

Tai Chi is a martial art. Full stop. The fact that many millions of people take it up for its healthy properties does not mean that it has ceased being an art. Hopefully this link will explain where it comes from more fully:
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Philosophy/Taichi/history.html

Turning to your point about masters and moral and martial virtues. I cant see what you are getting at. All I was saying IMO is that a master of a particular art should be able to overcome a competent person trained in another art, which is why I gave the examle of the tea master.

osu
Trevor

trevorg
20th April 2007, 17:24
I think its only fair to compare martial arts with similar goals, whatever the abilities of the practitioners.

Karate, Tai Chi, Jujutsu, Wing Chun, Hapkido instructors can be judged against each other and it is fair to say that a master of one should defeat an average practitioner of the other, but comparing practitioners of these arts to practitioners of sporting arts like Taekwondo or Judo wouldn't be fair because those practitioners are conditioned to respond by holding back certain techniques - for example the Taekwondo fighter practises NOT using grabs, elbow strikes, throws etc because these would get him disqualified on the mat. So is it fair to judge harshly the instructor rather than the art?

Similarly Iaido, Kyudo and Tai Chi for Health (TM) - Just like the sporting arts they don't claim to be practical for self defence.

Personally if I was going to climb into the Thai Boxing ring I would want to know Muay Thai, if I was entering UFC I may choose Brazilian Jujutsu, if I wanted to have swordfights I would choose Iaido and Kendo but if I want self defence I choose Karate. Because I beleive that is its purpose. It doesn't mean Karate is better than Judo, it just has a different purpose.


....and while I am in the mood for disagreeing with people (had a really bad week at the office) here goes Simon.

1) I didnt know martial arts had goals. I thought it was the individual in search of The Way. Please clarify ?

2) A martial art is a martial art. The core essence of a person's being when following the path will (should) allow him/her to succeed when otherwise he/she might not.

3) I really cant agree with you when you say you would prefer to be trained in the same style in which you may fight. Personally, if I had a sword and I was faced with an open hand adversary (assuming a fight to the death) I would much prefer the sword. If I was the open handed practitioner I would prefer to have a gun in such an instance. However, if it was merely open hand against open hand (and the rest of the body) in a stand up fight then there is sufficient video evidence to show one practitioner of one style beating another practitioner of another style. Its not the style that is important, but the fighter.

Osu
Trevor

Simon Keegan
20th April 2007, 22:42
Put it this way.

Would you expect an expert boxer to beat an average tennis player at tennis?

Just because one is the superior athlete doesn't mean he will adjust to the activity of the other.

In a fight to the death (as you say) then yes, I would prefer to have a sword, a gun, a sherman tank or an atom bomb against the empty handed adversary but that wasn't the example I used. I would suggest that in a Thai Boxing match (under Thai Boxing rules) I would expect an average Thai Boxer to have the advantage over an advanced Judoka.

Because in a game of punching and kicking the puncher and kicker has the advantage, in a game of football the footballer has the advantage.

So what I state is that the Taekwondo practitioner trains for the Taekwondo mat in which kicks and punches are the law. The French Epee fencer trains simply to thrust with sword - both may have their advantages in a street fight (like your tea expert) but they would likely be defeated by the streetfighter and on the Judo mat by the Judoka.

What I suggested is that if Jujutsu was for the battlefield, Karate was and is for self defence, therefore I feel Karate gives a mild advantage in self defence.

In a self defence situation (weapons precluded) I would want access to every tool in my arsenal - strikes, throws, locks, chokes, gauges, muscles tears, flicks, bumps - you name it. If however, I had only trained in percussive arts like most Taekwondo practitioners, I would feel at a disadvantage.

There are arts designed for the battlefield that may have practical use, there are arts designed for sport that may have practical use, but Karate's purpose was and is, self defence.

Just because an art is useful for self defence ie Judo doesn't mean that's it's main forte. For instance I'd hate to take a whack across the head from Tiger Woods swinging a nine iron but that hardly means he's a martial arts master does it?

What say you, Trevor?

Simon

Kenshin Butsu
20th April 2007, 23:32
There isn't an art greater than the other...the question is, who is the more refined warrior.

As in any dual, the warrior who achieves in luring his/her opponent into his game, is the one who will triumph.

Not to fall victim into the strategy of the other, is one's objective.

To remain stead fast amidst the attempts to be lead and lured into being defeated.

Stay firm and immovable in one's stance, and seek to finish as soon as possible, because violence is not your objective but peace.

What makes you and your opponent equals, despite one's martial orientation is the need for survival. Although, if this truly was so, then there would be no need for fighting.

Never underestimate any/your opponent, because any man/woman that stands before you is taking an active decision in their fate...mercy and compassion is then your obligation.

Only one thing is needed to be perceived as a threat, the intention to shorten abruptly my life and/or health.

May love and peace prevail.

DAYoung
21st April 2007, 01:31
Sorry to keep disagreeing Damon (in the spirit of debate), but to take your last point first when you say you "feel certain Tai Chi has martial aspects, but it commonly doesnt".

Tai Chi is a martial art. Full stop. The fact that many millions of people take it up for its healthy properties does not mean that it has ceased being an art. Hopefully this link will explain where it comes from more fully:
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Philosophy/Taichi/history.html

Turning to your point about masters and moral and martial virtues. I cant see what you are getting at. All I was saying IMO is that a master of a particular art should be able to overcome a competent person trained in another art, which is why I gave the examle of the tea master.

osu
Trevor

G'day Trevor,

I don't mind the disagreement at all - in fact, I think it's healthy.

Tai Chi (as commonly practiced) has ceased to be a martial art. It's origins might be martial, and there might well be martial techniques and strategies 'hidden' in slow-moving forms. But as an art - i.e. a craft, the ars martialis - it has to offer a systematic and replicable path to fighting prowess. As commonly taught, it does not offer this. It doesn't offer fast, high-energy techniques, nor the forums within which to test these - in the popular parlance, it's not 'alive' training.

Now, I'm aware that some schools do offer high-energy, full-contact, full-resistance drills and sparring, and the Chinese equivalent of bunkai (e.g. Oxford Wudang), but as commonly taught, it is a martially-inspired art, not a martial art.

Following on from the above, my point regarding competence and mastery was simply that a competent Judoka and Karateka is likely to have more honed martial virtues than a Tai Chi master (in the West, at least, without the San Shou complement). I esteem mastery, but the important thing is to recognise what is being mastered - it isn't always fighting prowess.

john_lord_b3
21st April 2007, 13:12
Sorry for going off topic, but if the Koryu Jujutsu arts were primarily battlefield arts, are there any surviving examples of Japanese civilian self-defence arts?

Were there any civilian/peasant arts of Japan designed specifically for self-defence?


Civilian art of Japan. If you mean "non-Military", then the Keisatsu Taihojutsu art is non-military, and it's for self-defense. But it's a police self-defense art.

I am going by memory, my reference is at home so take what I say with a huge grain of salt.

If I am not mistaken, Uchida-ryu of Uchida Ryohei is a civilian stick fighting and knife fighting art from Edo/early Meiji era. Also the Nanban Ippo-ryu is said to have been a civilian art started by a ronin.

I also remember reading somewhere that the Kenpo art which Fujita Seiko (of Koga-ryu) learned, the Nanban Satto-ryu, was a civilian art created in the Edo era.

Again, there is a chance that I'm completely mistaken here. My apologies for any misquotes.

trevorg
21st April 2007, 18:26
Put it this way.

Would you expect an expert boxer to beat an average tennis player at tennis?

Just because one is the superior athlete doesn't mean he will adjust to the activity of the other.

In a fight to the death (as you say) then yes, I would prefer to have a sword, a gun, a sherman tank or an atom bomb against the empty handed adversary but that wasn't the example I used. I would suggest that in a Thai Boxing match (under Thai Boxing rules) I would expect an average Thai Boxer to have the advantage over an advanced Judoka.

Because in a game of punching and kicking the puncher and kicker has the advantage, in a game of football the footballer has the advantage.

So what I state is that the Taekwondo practitioner trains for the Taekwondo mat in which kicks and punches are the law. The French Epee fencer trains simply to thrust with sword - both may have their advantages in a street fight (like your tea expert) but they would likely be defeated by the streetfighter and on the Judo mat by the Judoka.

What I suggested is that if Jujutsu was for the battlefield, Karate was and is for self defence, therefore I feel Karate gives a mild advantage in self defence.

In a self defence situation (weapons precluded) I would want access to every tool in my arsenal - strikes, throws, locks, chokes, gauges, muscles tears, flicks, bumps - you name it. If however, I had only trained in percussive arts like most Taekwondo practitioners, I would feel at a disadvantage.

There are arts designed for the battlefield that may have practical use, there are arts designed for sport that may have practical use, but Karate's purpose was and is, self defence.

Just because an art is useful for self defence ie Judo doesn't mean that's it's main forte. For instance I'd hate to take a whack across the head from Tiger Woods swinging a nine iron but that hardly means he's a martial arts master does it?

What say you, Trevor?

Simon

Hi Simon

I thought we were discussing martial arts, not sport in general. What I am saying is that a master in one art will surely defeat a good practitioner in another. I have no hesitation in saying, despite what Damon says, that a Tai Chi master,even by Damon's view that it is only used for health these days, will surely defeat a good practitioner of, say, karate. Every move in Tai Chi is based on attack or defence. Ergo, a master of Tai Chi who has studied his lifetime must endure over another who hasnt. I still go back to the tea master story to support my contention.

As to a proficient Thai boxer winning against a so so judoka, well come on. Dont you recall the infamous fight between Muhammed Ali and the Japanese wrestler, who kept kicking him on the legs. Fanciful draw or not, Ali couldnt knock him out.

And I was talking about empty hand to empty hand, so it would follow (if my argument sustains which it surely will) that it would be more appropriate to compare a master of the epee against a proficient kendoka. The epee master must surely win.

You mention jujutsu and I have to say, bringing to mind a jujutsu master that I know, that I fully believe I (just being merely competent in karate)wouldnt last but a few minutes.

Fighting is fighting and will ultimately depend on the mastery of the practitioner to discover who will endure, not the fighting system IMVHO.

osu
Trevor

juncarino
21st April 2007, 20:03
:) hi guyz,

i sorta agree with Trevor:

"Fighting is fighting and will ultimately depend on the mastery of the practitioner to discover who will endure, not the fighting system IMVHO."

however, somehow i feel the fighting system must be seriously considered.

as an example, some time back when MMA was catching on here, one of our club judoka, Rexie (a constant judo shiai winner) tried out judo vs Nato a mixed martial arts dude. The matchup was as fair as possible. both weighed around 140-150lbs. almost same height.almost same duration of training.

Sad to say, Rexie got clobbered.

Now we added MMA(brazilian jujutsu muay thai) to our Judo keiko.

happy keiko

Simon Keegan
21st April 2007, 22:06
Hi Simon

I thought we were discussing martial arts, not sport in general. What I am saying is that a master in one art will surely defeat a good practitioner in another. I have no hesitation in saying, despite what Damon says, that a Tai Chi master,even by Damon's view that it is only used for health these days, will surely defeat a good practitioner of, say, karate. Every move in Tai Chi is based on attack or defence. Ergo, a master of Tai Chi who has studied his lifetime must endure over another who hasnt. I still go back to the tea master story to support my contention.

As to a proficient Thai boxer winning against a so so judoka, well come on. Dont you recall the infamous fight between Muhammed Ali and the Japanese wrestler, who kept kicking him on the legs. Fanciful draw or not, Ali couldnt knock him out.

And I was talking about empty hand to empty hand, so it would follow (if my argument sustains which it surely will) that it would be more appropriate to compare a master of the epee against a proficient kendoka. The epee master must surely win.

You mention jujutsu and I have to say, bringing to mind a jujutsu master that I know, that I fully believe I (just being merely competent in karate)wouldnt last but a few minutes.

Fighting is fighting and will ultimately depend on the mastery of the practitioner to discover who will endure, not the fighting system IMVHO.

osu
Trevor

I do agree with you Trevor.

All I'm saying is there's martial arts, and there's martial arts that spend half the time training for sport not self defence/street fighting. The result of that is that they drill sportmanship into the practitioners, and as we know, real fights are pretty ungentlemanly affirs.

I remember well Muhammad Ali's boredom-fest against Antonio Inoki. A more tedious 15 rounds I've seldom seen. And proof if ever there was one that the best boxer in the world was nigh on useless outside his comfort zone.

And the Jujutsu master you're talking about.... Would that be Mr Carslake? If so, Having been on the mat with him a few times I agree he is awesome. The only strategy I'd use is the 1500 metres sprint in the opposite direction (even if I had a sword!)

Take care
Simon

DAYoung
21st April 2007, 22:31
I thought we were discussing martial arts, not sport in general. What I am saying is that a master in one art will surely defeat a good practitioner in another. I have no hesitation in saying, despite what Damon says, that a Tai Chi master,even by Damon's view that it is only used for health these days, will surely defeat a good practitioner of, say, karate. Every move in Tai Chi is based on attack or defence. Ergo, a master of Tai Chi who has studied his lifetime must endure over another who hasnt. I still go back to the tea master story to support my contention.

OK. Let's refine this a little. What about a competent practitioner of one style versus an expert (but not a master) in another? Does the same 'law of greater expertise' hold, e.g. will the expert Tai Chi adept prevail over the competent Daidojuku practitioner?

trevorg
22nd April 2007, 00:11
OK. Let's refine this a little. What about a competent practitioner of one style versus an expert (but not a master) in another? Does the same 'law of greater expertise' hold, e.g. will the expert Tai Chi adept prevail over the competent Daidojuku practitioner?

Just touching on Jun's point for a moment, because it is relevant to yours as the judoka was apparently very competent although of course Jun doesnt comment on the capability/competency of the MMA guy, who might have been even more competent than Rexie, in which case assuming they are both equal then I would agree it is the system that will determine who is the winner. If they are not equal as men (because we cant say one system is better than another) then it has to be the better man who is the winner.

Now, Damon, moving the debate on by refining is realling interesting. You are introducing the concept of lower, middle and upper ability,not dissimilar to gradings and if that is the case then a higher grade or person with more expertise (not the highest level of expertise) must dominate the lower. However, it would still depend on the quality/character etc of the person ie "a good big'un will be a good little'un any time",and it follows that if the good big'un possesses more knowledge than expertise then it will be a wipeout.

Take two systems;Muay Thai and Jujutsu. Two fighters; one MT with not so much competence as the JJ person. I believe that the JJ person would win.
( I am assuming for the sake of argument that MT is the better system). However, in truth I do not believe there is one system better than another.


Simon - your point about running in the other direction very very fast -couldnt agree more. And that really sums up my whole point.

Off to bed so goodnight all, speak soon.

Osu
Trevor