PDA

View Full Version : NABA & Mr. McCartney



Russell McCartney
11th February 2001, 05:51
Thankyou all for your spirited inquiries and replys. As this is my first post on this or any forum, I appreciate the oppertunity to clear the air and maintain some perspective and direction to the statements posed. Since some of my students have already replied to some initial misconceptions, forgive me if some of my comments may be redundant. Also I am a terrible typist (hoping for the voice activated software). Still I will take this first oppertunity to state facts as they pertain to the NABA, and secondly, in that process, you will also learn some facts about IYR-Schools of Battojutsu.

Ken Shire - Apology accepted concerning the NABA and IYR. Still it is important to remember that it is irrelevent if anyone much less everyone recognizes me, you or anyone else for anything at all. Yet fact is that what we study is Japanese sword styles approached in and with strong reverence to Japanese style, tradition, and history.

G.Power - "I don't think Mr.McCartney considers himself..."
In my thirty years in the M/A, the past twenty dedicated to swordsmanship, and ten of that as first an instructor of my own classes and later my own shool, I had refrained from any title other than chief instructor. I always had strong feelings about IYR and its process, which for the most part I kept relatively silent about. I felt that I nor my students had done nothing to indicate any conotation other than that. I felt something extra-ordinary would have to happen to change my thinking. In the past three years three things did. First was besting all Japanese, westerners and all but one Korean in the Korean Kum-Do sword tournament of '99.

Note*** just noticed the icon button was still on. Like I said this is my first attempt with forums. Please excuse any computer-tech errors.

The second was my Senbongiri event. It allowed me to fully test IYR technique and the last of my personal doubts whether it would actually work when pressed to the limit. Obviously it did. The third, was to be able to transmit that information to students who can then impliment it on a consistant basis. In tournament format of impartiallity like the NABA events they too made it happen. Even in Ryu specific events they are proving the IYR process works. Only then did I feel validated that what we had been working on was coming to fruition. Unlike the times past of being held back by former instructors and coleagues that I had experienced in my previous affiliations with 'main stream Ryuha'. The Japanese thought process that 'the nail that sticks up must be pounded down' has a certain virtue all its own. I have always sought out traditional instruction from the best available in a particular endeavor and accepting the brunt of treatment that comes right along with it. Yet I am an American teaching Americans.
By simple virtue of this fact, coupled with my respect for Budo (in this case particularly Japanese Budo) I had departed somewhat from some old ideas which don't work well in the world we live in today. One of which is the idea of eliteism for the sword arts. Yes, Japanese sword arts have always been the practice of the elite. That essential practice is good yet the idea of the eliteist and eliteism gets old pretty quick. America has always been successful (as we at IYR have been)
with the approach that the right question answered at the right time opens doors and lights dimly lit meanderings. IYR and the NABA are proving that.

G. P. - specificly about 'Soke'
When we look at the literal defination of 'soke' it means 'founder. Since the specifics of technique, positions of stance, posture, and movement are original, developed from twenty years of research and training here in America and in Japan, they are in fact mine. The title is a specific one. I am the founder of IYR technique. Fact-we are studying in the style of Japanese history and culture of the sword arts. We are not studying middle eastern, Ethiopian, or Eskimo sword technique. If we were the appropriate title from the respective culture would apply.

Dave Brawdy - Hi Dave. The NABA Board of Directors are a group of like minded individuals from a wide variety of diciplines and sword art forms both Koryu and Gendai who see the virtues of the NABA as valid for providing an organized alternative to 'ryu specific' tournament/taikai activity. The 'so called Eastern Regional' was a Toyama Taikai pure and simple. But more on that later.

Guy Power has never taken the oppertunity to discuss observe or participate in any aspect of IYR or the NABA. His comment is a generic generalization (par for the experience level) that IYR is an ecclectic stlye.
-True- IYR does have some basic similarities - we use a katana, there are kesa and kiriage (gyaku kesa), yoko giri swings, and tsuski, as well as numerous blocks, paries, and feints. There are also variations to the transition from post cut to precut position which set it apart. What further set it apart are the response application to impetus (the situation) for the specifics of the technical use and a wide array of movement to deal with overcoming multiple attack stiuations (not unlike this forum-smile!).

It also seems redundant for some to attempt to vilify virtous behavior and a genuine effort to bring some unity and sense of itself to the American sword community as a whole. This is something that 1000 yrs. of close minded seperatism in Japan has never acheived. For all the titles of those mentioned by G. P. with all due respect (which is considerable) these people have done precious little if nothing to bring together the community of sword practitioners here in the U.S. and N. America.

Many here in America have seen it as their duty to bring all the traditions of Japan sword community here to America in their entirity including those unsavory aspects of favortism and lack of honorable recognition of acheivement through fair play and honest effort. The Yoritomo/Yoshitsune phenomenon if you will, like those detractors of the NABA concept. Those who wave their pedigree like a flag of validation have yet to prove their metal works (pun intended) in a fair format of impartiality.
I forgive G.P's. insinuations and inadequate attempts to explain something he is not in the least familiar with. In fact there are few people outside IYR schools who have ever seen IYR technique as a general rule. As I have stated IYR is process oriented and only the inner circle of the advanced group have seen all the 26 kata and four expanded sets in the system. Of those technique, those students in order of rank and ability are only up to practicing five or six of the total number thus far. Public displays of IYR technique are reserved for four senior students and of course myself as seen in the Senbongiri event and the subsequent video tape available on our site.

Further validation for the NABA,
The Toyama Taikai/NABA Eastern Regional Tournament - This is one case in point where an all Japanese/Toyama Ryu
judging team (contrary to the NABA formatting) negotiated every Toyama practitioner into a winning position. Don't misunderstand me, some of those who placed high truely deserved it. Those of you who were there know that the rules were continually bent, ammended, and finally changed to acheive that end. I am proud to have been part of that event to see some expert cutting by some of the practitioners there yet only to a point. One prime example was this: The rules stated that if someone missed a noto or cut themselves they were out of the competition for that event. Yet in the two Kata final of yondan and above Bob E. (host for the event)
missed both noto and cut himself (fortunately not bad). My final round was also run from Toyama Kata #6 and #7 run flawlessly without error. After the final round Hataya sensei (one of the judges and coordinators of the event) approached my wife saying, "congratulations, your husband won". She stated "no he got second". Hataya, "no he won, his technique was better, I'll correct the error". Then in the certificate cerimony Bob E. still got the 1st place.
I will state for the record "winning that event mattered nor matters to me NOT AT ALL". Yet it emphasizes the real need for nonpartisan tournament judging. This is the role of the NABA.

NEIL YAMAMOTO - HI NEIL, DON'T YOU STILL OWE ME A DINNER??? BIG SMILE! Words like 'legitimate', and 'officially sanctioned' are common terms used to describe the efforts of martial artists (some more highly respected than others-there we go again Ken) with proven acheivements to their credit. Where the NABA is concerned (if you had taken the time to read the site carefully and /or attend any of their events since you are a local here) it doesn't matter who knows who or who does what. It is a level playing field judged by a cross section of experienced sword and Budo people who refer to the specifics of a formal judges rulebook with an index, glossary of terms, and explainations which clarify the activities, conditions, and uniformity of the event.
These guidelines are not bent, changed or manipulated for the benefit or demise of an individual or group, specific ryuha, or lesser known Japanese type sword style. For the NABA words such as 'like' and 'trust' come naturally in the eyes, hearts and minds of those who participate when they experience the simetry and level playing field the NABA events produce. Still some will always stand at a distance generous with rash remarks expounding the supposed virtues of their ways, all the while not participating or if they do making excuses why they didn't do well. With the NABA if your stuff works best and (in Kata) looks better than the other persons... YOU WIN! There is no pomp other than that which lends itself naturally through the course of circumstances honoring 'human virtues' (all things good) associated with this magnificent tradition and heritage of Japanese culture. As far as "sanctioning" goes, it refers to organized formal activity with guidelines and a history of safety and high proceedural quality. Yes Neil, IYR, I, and many others are too familiar as are those of the sword and Aikido world with the Japanese approach of, give us your money and we will divide your country (America) between us in Japan and let you use our titles (until we decide differently). It is common knowlege in some informed circles that "the best teachers in the world are in America". If this isn't the case why else would Japanese M/A interests bring their tour de force here to recruit as many of us into their styles as possible. I and the Directors of the NABA have made the choice to not forfeit our free will to the dictates of those who have nothing more than the promotion of their ryu specific adjendas in mind. The perference here seems to be for others to explain what we do at IYR as something else other than what it is. Facts speak clearly. The NABA and IYR are doing and proving something unique. That being, you don't need to be a drone of a specific Japanese ryuha to get results which 'surpass' conventional/traditional methods and means. You're so close by here Neil, what, 15 minutes?- you should stop by and see who out cuts better. It is different any given day yet IYR is about high consistancy. So is the NABA. Don't misunderstand me please.
I encourage everyone to come to IYR and participate in tournament activity, NABA and otherwise, to see for yourself. Though young compared to some traditions, this technique of IYR and it's students are proving their validity through the process which is IYR Battujutsu.

Thanks to Tim Wilmot and Karl Nygard for your accurate replies on your posts. Clear and to the point like your sword technique.

Ken Shire on AAU participation - All I will add is that their insurance has never addressed the specific issues of tournament target test cutting. Those involved in the rule structure have minimal experience in the particulars peculiar to test cutting activity. The year long insurance company motivated question/answer session of the formatting for the NABA in the words of the V.P. of underwriting "you have really done your home work. You have dispelled every misconception we had about this sort of activity."
Again, with your and others level of personal experience w/IYR and the NABA, the reference 'THE' though maybe less than appropriate grammar, is far from and has nothing to do with Budo. Also your comment 'esteemed gentlemen' - Who is to truely say what and who can be considered, in the subjective light of esteem? Proof is ultimately in the doing and the results produced. The sword, (certainly at IYR) is the vehicle for improving ourselves without the angst of becoming. It is ultimately virtousness and its process, which are most important, living fully today for a better tomorrow.

Mr. Scott - Thankyou for the input. This could be a negotiating point with the NABA ins. carrier in our continual efforts to provide low cost comprehensive coverage for tournament activity.

Will Graves comment of Bob Elders group and their insurance.
I guess they didn't let him know about this coverage program when he did his event last year. He told me the parks department ins. he was to have was nearly dropped when they found out 'live' blades were going to be used. Though they did presumably cover his event, it was the high individual cost factors from the many other companies he said he checked with that limited his choices. NOTE * his event was not covered by the NABA insur. yet it was originally an NABA SUPPORTED EVENT. See NABA site for clarification.

In closing I appologize for the length of this post. Thought best to get it out in one whoosh. Thanks E-Budo!!!

FastEd
11th February 2001, 08:42
Hello Mr. McCartney,

I know this post will probably generate alot of response, so I'd like to be the first off the bat! I have a few questions I'd like to pose on some things you have written. I'll quote the section from your message and then post my question to it, below:


Originally posted by Russell McCartney


Unlike the times past of being held back by former instructors and coleagues that I had experienced in my previous affiliations with 'main stream Ryuha'.



Could you be a little more specific here?, by using the term "main stream" you lump a whole lot of organizations together and collectivily cast them in a poor light, which might be a little unfair.




Dave Brawdy - Hi Dave. The NABA Board of Directors are a group of like minded individuals from a wide variety of diciplines and sword art forms both Koryu and Gendai who see the virtues of the NABA as valid for providing an organized alternative to 'ryu specific' tournament/taikai activity.



With regards to "ryu specific" Again, I guess I'm looking for more detail here. As far as I understand it, there are not alot of sword tournaments going on in North America, especially "by ryu", so are you also including the Kendo and Iaido Federations within your definition of ryu specific?

The reason I would disagree with you, if this is the case, is the very existance of Seitei and Toho, which are representive forms and by their very nature, not ryu specific.




Many here in America have seen it as their duty to bring all the traditions of Japan sword community here to America in their entirity including those unsavory aspects of favortism and lack of honorable recognition of acheivement through fair play and honest effort. The Yoritomo/Yoshitsune phenomenon if you will, like those detractors of the NABA concept. Those who wave their pedigree like a flag of validation have yet to prove their metal works (pun intended) in a fair format of impartiality.



Who is bringing these unsavory aspects to North America?, who is waving their pedigree? You know, you paint everyone with a statment like that. I don't wave my pedigree, I earned it, does that mean I have to come out to your NABA tournament to prove it? Are you saying all the tournaments I have attended are not impartial?




With the NABA if your stuff works best and (in Kata) looks better than the other persons... YOU WIN!



Here's the problem,(with kata) how do the judges know what works best and what looks best without knowing the particular ryu being demonstrated, extremely well?

I mention this because it's an obvious problem (every judge has a different opinion) and I feel it will result in the very bias you strongly disagree with. The approach used by the Kendo and Iaido Federations to address this issue was to develope representative kata that everyone would practice. Thus when competing, you have a basis for judging an individuals skill in preforming a known explicity defined set of movements.




That being, you don't need to be a drone of a specific Japanese ryuha to get results which 'surpass' conventional/traditional methods and means.

I encourage everyone to come to IYR and participate in tournament activity, NABA and otherwise, to see for yourself. Though young compared to some traditions, this technique of IYR and it's students are proving their validity through the process which is IYR Battujutsu.



Have you or any of your students ever participated in a Kendo Federation sponsored Kendo or Iaido tournament? If so, how'd you fair? Seeing as the IKF is the largest Japanese sword related organization in the world, a good placement there would go a long way to proving the validity of the IYR system.

Well, thanks for your time, I wish the NABA best of luck!
Sincerly,


[Edited by FastEd on 02-11-2001 at 02:47 AM]

Joseph Svinth
11th February 2001, 12:11
Ed --

Rather than argue about things unseen, perhaps you could arrange with Mr. McCartney to get a videocassete of Ishiyama's recent taikai. Guy Power also would probably be able to provide video of himself. Meanwhile, Kim Taylor has a copy of "MA: The Real Story," showing Meik Skoss doing kata, and I would assume Kim also has film of Bruce Campbell someplace.

Anyway, if you watch these videos side-by-side, then I think all your questions will be fully answered to your satisfaction.

Joss
12th February 2001, 02:07
Originally posted by Joseph Svinth
Rather than argue about things unseen, perhaps you could arrange with Mr. McCartney to get a videocassete of Ishiyama's recent taikai. Guy Power also would probably be able to provide video of himself. Meanwhile, Kim Taylor has a copy of "MA: The Real Story," showing Meik Skoss doing kata, and I would assume Kim also has film of Bruce Campbell someplace.

Anyway, if you watch these videos side-by-side, then I think all your questions will be fully answered to your satisfaction.

Just out of curiosity, what would one see then? Sorry if I can't read between the lines but I just started less than a year ago.

Thanks,

JD

Joseph Svinth
12th February 2001, 04:33
Joss --

When dining out, some people like Mickey D's while others prefer sushi. Which is better? Depends on your tastes, doesn't it?

Anyway, because he lives in Toronto, I recommended Ed ask for copies of videos. However, inasmuch as you live in Seattle Metro and practice Ishi Yama Ryu, then in your case I suggest that you visit some of the clubs listed at http://www.kendo-pnkf.org/iaido.html and http://kendo-canada.com/ckf_dojoadr.htm .

Compare, contrast, choose for yourself, and then be happy with what you have.

12th February 2001, 20:57
Hello Mr McCartney,

You stated:

"When we look at the literal defination of 'soke' it means 'founder."

Well.........not exactly. There have been several energetic debates on this subject here on E-budo. I finally resorted to checking this out with Setsuko Tahara, owner of Tahara International, a court/legal translation consultation company operating in California. She stated that this definition (founder) is difficult to support as researching the terms radicals indicate a more accurate albeit ancient translation to be "head of household or patriarch" This translation obliquely implies the assumption of this position thru inheritance only. I know using the term "soke" as founder is even done incorrectly by several Japanese instructors. The word is antiquated and not of common usage by modern Japanese so it's incorrect usage is not realized by many inside or outside the budo world. It is still however technically incorrect. (We do this all the time in English BTW) She stated a more accurate and antiquated (and therefore appropriate for budo) translation of the word founder would be "ryuso" as it indicates the beginning or source of a tradition instead of the assumption of an already existing one.

Picky perhaps but with all the questionalble 10th dan, Soke, Sijo, Super Sifu grandmasters wandering hither and fro I would opt for the picky & correct term if in your shoes. Nobody can really fault you for being a founder and being open about it. Soke is room for question and links you with the likes of ..... well... never mind.... we know where this headed!

Good luck in you venture.

Respectfully,

ghp
12th February 2001, 21:11
Russell,


G. P. - specificly about 'Soke'
When we look at the literal defination of 'soke' it means 'founder.

It may be interpreted that way; however, "Soke" means "comprehensive family" and implies the person is the leader of the family. A soke needn't be the founder -- the title is usually an inherited position -- if the ryu lasts beyond its founder.

A founder is "Sosha," or "ryuso" . I think "sosha" is more appropriate in your case -- just as if you had founded a company, bank, club, etc.


G.Power - "I don't think Mr.McCartney considers himself..."
In my thirty years in the M/A, the past twenty dedicated to swordsmanship,...

I am not aware you had been studing iaido for 20 years. Wasn't your first teacher Mr. Obata (Toyama Ryu)?


... and ten of that as first an instructor of my own classes and later my own shool, I had refrained from any title other than chief instructor.

Very commentable.


I always had strong feelings about IYR and its process, which for the most part I kept relatively silent about. I felt that I nor my students had done nothing to indicate any conotation other than that. I felt something extra-ordinary would have to happen to change my thinking. In the past three years three things did. First was besting all Japanese, westerners and all but one Korean in the Korean Kum-Do sword tournament of '99.

Russell, I don't see how this one event qualifies you to found your own style. In what rank category were you competing and in what events did you beat everyone? Surely you didn't compete in the "8th dan and higher" category! If you won the open cutting event, well, that's something to be proud of. But don't let that feeling propell you in a false direction. Did you match your one-time Korea performance in Japan? If so, how many times? Nick Suino won the All Japan championships 4 years consecutively in his category (4th dan, Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu). And I believe both Bob Elder and Peer Halperin did quite well at an All Japan Battodo taikai. Surely the thrill of winning a competition wouldn't convince you to found your own style.

Did you mention the other two significant events? You probably are referring to the senbongiri. Please, Russell, don't let showmanship get in the way of your goal. Can I do senbongiri? Right now, no. You did an amazing feat. However, so what? Just as if a karate man broke 1000 roofing tiles. So what; what's that to do with budo? Senbongiri is viewed by the majority of we "elitists" (like Nakamura sensei who has his own words about a similar episode) as simply a theatrical stunt. Yes, I know it required stamina, and it was difficult. Well, so is banging one's head into a brick wall -- but head-banging into a brick wall and senbongiri are not budo. Honestly, the more you mention senbongiri, the further away you place yourself. Don't believe me?


Since the specifics of technique, positions of stance, posture, and movement are original,developed from twenty years of research and training here in America and in Japan, they are in fact mine. The title [soke] is a specific one. I am the founder of IYR technique.

Thank you for making my point as to exactly why Ishi Yama is not a Japanese art. I apply this same logic to American born Japanese-style fighting arts ("American karate") that are derived from a Japanese style, cobbled together, then presented as a "new" way of doing the same old thing. It's not "Japanese" karate, and a founder of such is not a soke. Generally speaking, American "karate" uses either non-standard kata, or standard kata that is close enough to identify the system from whence it came. The closest you could come to accurately describing your school is, "an American teaching system culled from Toyama Ryu, Nakamura Ryu, Ryuseiken, and Shinkendo." Please add/delete a style as appropriate since I don't know your full background.

If you stuck with any one teacher long enough to gain a sufficient level of training and/or licensing -- and taught that system, [i]then you could rightfully say you are teaching the "Japanese budo" of (for example) Ryuseiken (Mr. Saruta), or Toyama Ryu (Mr. Obata). But just to sample those styles, modify them, then piece them back together and present them as your "ryu" does not make a "Japanese system."

The fictitious Dr. Victor von Frankenstein reanimated a hodge-podge of body parts in an attempt to create a human being; he failed -- his creation had no soul.


Fact-we are studying in the style of Japanese history and culture of the sword arts. We are not studying middle eastern, Ethiopian, or Eskimo sword technique. If we were the appropriate title from the respective culture would apply.

I disagree, but then I've been accused of being an elitist.


Guy Power has never taken the oppertunity to discuss observe or participate in any aspect of IYR or the NABA. His comment is a generic generalization (par for the experience level) that IYR is an ecclectic stlye.

Hmmmm. I continue to remain distant from IYR because I feel uncomfortable with its origin. True, I've not seen it in the flesh, but I have seen it. And I have seen your performance.

As for the ... "(par for the experience)...." comment, I'm confused as it can be read two ways. Do you mean that someone with my experience --somewhat more vast than others here -- would conclude yours is an eclectic system? If so, I would agree with your observation. If, however, you mean "someone with as little experience as G.P. and wouldn't know better" ... well, then, I'd have to disagree.


-True- IYR does have some basic similarities...

Russell, from what I've seen, you far exceed "basic similarities."


it also seems redundant for some to attempt to vilify virtous behavior and a genuine effort to bring some unity and sense of itself to the American sword community as a whole.
This is something that 1000 yrs. of close minded seperatism in Japan has never acheived. For all the titles of those mentioned by G. P. with all due respect (which is considerable) these people have done precious little if nothing to bring together the community of sword practitioners here in the U.S. and N. America.

Russell, beleive it or not, some of us do not want to see the rise of swordsmanship in America. We purposefully want it to stay small for quality control. You know what I see -- and fear? The "Flavor of the Decade" phenomenom such as the "Kungfu Decade" and the "Ninja Decade."
I DON'T WANT THAT for swordsmanship -- I want iaido/batto/kenjutsu to remain elite. I don't want every wannabe who's seen a samurai anime or chanbara film to flock to my dojo.


Many here in America have seen it as their duty to bring all the traditions of Japan sword community here to America in their entirity including those unsavory aspects of favortism and lack of honorable recognition of acheivement through fair play and honest effort....Those who wave their pedigree like a flag of validation have yet to prove their metal works (pun intended) in a fair format of impartiality.

Color me guilty! But let's examine the burr under your saddle: Those who wave their pedigree like a flag of validation. Russle ... It is a flag of validation. I do agree with your gripe about favortism and recognition, though. It is part of the Japanese culture (dango -- contract fixing; each contractor takes his turn at being let the contract regardless of his price/quality. It is the standard practice ... of which I do not agree). But "dango" is the only part of your argument that has validity. I sense you do not like the fact that many of us have spent time in Japan (real time, not short visitations) and have documentation from recognized organizations. And when we do not regard you with the "awe" that you "deserve," you call us elitists. And you forget that you do not have the diploma. Heck, I can be the best damned rocket scientist in the US (self taught, of course) ... but if I don't have a degree (MS, but PhD preferred) from a recognized institution, I won't get a job at NASA. By the way, that's an allegory -- I am not a rocket scientist.


I forgive G.P's. insinuations and inadequate attempts to explain something he is not in the least familiar with. In fact there are few people outside IYR schools who have ever
seen IYR technique as a general rule. As I have stated IYR is process oriented and only the inner circle of the advanced group have seen all the 26 kata and four expanded sets in the system. Of those technique, those students in order of rank and ability are only up to practicing five or six of the total number thus far. Public displays of IYR technique are reserved for four senior students and of course myself as seen in the Senbongiri event and the subsequent video tape available on our site.

Russell, do you know how you are beginning to sound?

--Guy Power

Eldorobo
12th February 2001, 23:11
Hello Mr. Powers if we could jump off course for a second. Why I have nothing to say for or against Mr Russell McCartney, I wanted to see if I read something right.

Did you just say that you wanted to keep the sword arts elite and away from most MA.
I am shocked that someone like yourself who had to (most likely) face huge problems when you trained in japan would want to carry that type of additude over here to the US.
It is the members only club mindset that leads so many martial arts into disarray and encourges people to gain a little rank then leave to start their own style. It is also the reason there ase so many ripoffs making it up as they go along. Its also the reason while many people can't afford to train under a solid master. I know a sword teacher not far from me who requires that new studant buy every thing they will ever need as far as swords and uniforms before they start their first class. When you add up the cost of uniforms, a bokken and an iaido blade then a cutting sword you just dumped a few thousand dollars before your first leason. But as he is the only person teaching a real sword system commericaly within 300 miles its his way or no way. luckly my karate instructor trains under shihan McClafferty and I train under him. But if there were a few more people teaching then it would stop instructors from holding those who wantr to learn hostage. The sword arts need to remember the leason of Koga ryu ninjutsu. A single car crash and no more Koga ryu. I wouldn't be surprised to find quite a few swords arts that a fire or some other medium size accident and they would go the way of koga to live on only in the minds and computers of 16 year old grandmasters.

I don't think there should be any art that is denied to anyone. Just think about this. What if Nakamura(most likly spelled wrong) had refused to teach you for whatever reason. And respectfully don't be quick to discount young people who saw a movie and decide to train. We all started somewhere and hopefully we all still are here

Just my 2 cents
Have a nice day Mr Powers

Joss
12th February 2001, 23:30
Hi Guy,

I've got a few comments reg. your post, and I'd like to point out things that I perceived as inconsistencies.

First, you say that "It is part of the Japanese culture (dango -- contract fixing; each contractor takes his turn at being let the contract regardless of his price/quality. It is the standard practice ... of which I do not agree)." (I'll add to that a strong bias toward nationalism and favoring Japanese nationals.) If that is the case, why do you also say that "some of us do not want to see the rise of [Japanese-style] swordsmanship in America"?

Indeed, it would seem to me that only a strong non-Japanese practitioneer base can change those elements of Japanese culture that you and all of us despise. The overwhelming evidence suggests that those cultural elements won't be changed from the inside. The American practitioneers of Japanese Martial Arts have a unique opportunity to influence those arts in the right direction. Every opportunity includes a degree of risk, but it's no reason for American practioneers to refuse to assume some leadership.

(By the way, I'm French - I don't care where the innovation comes from and I certainly don't think that everything American is better...)

In addition, you seem a little disconnected with reality when you state that limiting access to Japanese swordsmanship will preserve the art. Go lurk on the Swordforum and Bugei forums, and you'll read countless post of people who don't have access to proper training / Sensei, but *WANT* to learn at all cost. What happens then is that they end up buying a couple of books, at best a few videos, a Practical Katana, and start cutting plastic bottles in their backyard. Do you not think that this endangers the integrity of the art more than to give those people access to proper training?

I understand your fear of the "flair of the decade" phenomenon, but surely, fear is not a reason to refuse to act. Surely too, there are martial arts (judo? Aiki? Kendo?) that have survived (or benefited from) a larger, international base of practitioneers. Also, you should take comfort in the fact that swordsmanship will always be expensive. This by itself should keep it a fairly elitist art.

To sum up my points, I for one believe that anything trully alive benefits from new blood and needs to evolve. Stagnation is death.


Second, your very restrictive interpretation of the word Soke could be easily ridiculized. Would you then say that the sushi I eat at my local restaurant is not truly sushi, because it was not made in Japan?



Finally, as a beginner, I can tell you that cutting *never* only requires stamina. Once again, you seem at odd with any other swordsman I've talked to or read. They all insist that technique is paramount in any cutting test. Also, we all know that with exhaustion, technique is the first element to suffer. If you agree to those, you have to admit that Senbongiri is at least as much a test of Soke McCartney's technique than of his stamina.

Cheers,

JD

Neil Yamamoto
13th February 2001, 00:59
Hi Russell and all concerned.

Dinner? How about Dim Sum instead?

I have read the NABA site – it was a while ago when I tumbled onto it while researching some questions I had on western martial arts and there was a link to the site.

First, I dislike organizations of any sort for the most part. I have to deal with many in my job, and I just had another group offering me membership to be legitimate as a martial artist. Like a Korean group has the ability to judge if I know a Japanese martial art. I’m sure this colored the tone of my post more then was intended.

Second, If I truly meant to criticize, then you would know it. There are a lot of people out there who know or remember me as a result of my sinking my teeth into a subject here on e-budo or more appropriately, slamming a bokken into the head of the subject matter. There are still a handful of people who bug me about what I have posted even before the crash wiping out e-budo for a couple months and that was a long time ago in forum years.

If you want to have a level playing field, I applaud the effort, but this is the same idea that started organizations like IMAF, WUKO, - whose board my uncle was on and I know some of the politics there as a result -, Testing boards for many groups, etc.

You are right, what people think doesn’t matter, but any time an organization starts up to try and administer fairly, it never seems to work that way in reality. Usually personal differences erupt and as we all know, the green stuff creeps in with some people. Hopefully you will succeed with NABA and avoid the pitfalls.

At your last event, yes, there was good organization for how people performed and it appeared you had good sponsor support. If this is what NABA provides, congratulations, it’s working so far.

I have no problem with any self - founded style. Stop and think back to when you first started teaching in Seattle, I told anyone who asked me to go and see for them selves if what you were doing is credible. I also know James Williams of Bugei Trading and know he would not support any one unless he believed what you were doing was worthwhile. James is doing much the same as you with his Nami Ryu heiho-an American originated martial art with origins in Japanese arts. Bernie Lau is also in the same boat as are many of the e-budo crowd.

In my opinion, what makes some one credible is how they present themselves. There is no masking or revisionist history, they can name all their instructors, when they started, how long they studied and where. This is more important to legitimacy in my view and that is the crux of my complaint against most organizations. Personal politics end up being ruling factor, teachers end up based on “who knows who” or money and to hell with the students.

The best instructors are not just here in America, they are in Japan, Europe, etc and are the ones who are hard to find and tend to avoid the limelight. Why do the Japanese Martial arts interests come here to recruit? It’s simple. Easier to recruit given the social structure, large population, and easier to fool people as well. “Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, now I got all your green!” seems to be the rule here in my opinion. Another way to look at it is why did the Japanese and Chinese come over here to work in the late 1800’s and the early 1900’s? The money and opportunities were here.

Doing what you are doing with out attachment to any Japanese group is fine. I don’t think any Japanese (or any other overseas organization for that matter) does a really decent job in communicating the goals of the group. The exception is when there is a resident director who has a strong familiarity with the culture where they are living as well as a strong understanding of the Japanese culture and how to communicate it. These factors combine to make an overseas connection work well. Other wise cultural differences as well as language barriers all get in the way and destroy any cohesion in the group.

That being the case, my twisted humor took over. I also have had the thought that all American origin martial arts organizations abandon the Japanese clothing and terminology used as well. Culottes in place of hakama? As a friend suggested to me as a result of a similar conversation, why not get some cane field workers with machetes competing as well to contrast Japanese to North American cutting techniques.

As I posted in the earlier thread, I tell people to go see and talk to the people for themselves and make their own judgment calls. If the trust and quality is there, then join. If not, watch your wallet. I still hold by that.

ghp
13th February 2001, 02:01
Hello Joss and Eldorobo.


You both bring up some good points, and I shall attempt to answer them.
=========
Joss:


If that is the case, why do you also say that "some of us do not want to see the rise of [Japanese-style] swordsmanship in America"?

We don't mind expanding -- we (I) are cautious about over-extending. Some growth is good, too much is not. I am not saying others are unworthy -- I just don't want iai oversold. I just don't want it to be the MacDojo of swordsmanship.


Indeed, it would seem to me that only a strong non-Japanese practitioneer base can change those elements of Japanese culture that you and all of us despise. The overwhelming evidence suggests that those cultural elements won't be changed from the inside. The American practitioneers of Japanese Martial Arts have a unique opportunity to influence those arts in the right direction. Every opportunity includes a degree of risk, but it's no reason for American practioneers to refuse to assume some leadership.

Hold on a minute! I may not like the Dango system, but I am not going to change "Culture." Talking of "changing culture" equals "Americanization" to me -- and then we are not talking about Japanese swordsmanship. Japanese swordsmanship is "Japanese" because of its culture -- not because you use a katana and call your waza by Japanese names. No, remove Japanese culture from swordsmanship and you'll get the stuff put out in the MacDojos.


In addition, you seem a little disconnected with reality when you state that limiting access to Japanese swordsmanship will preserve the art.

Look at this from another perspective. Limiting the art limits the dilutions that have happened to the 3 arts you mention below:


Surely too, there are martial arts (judo? Aiki? Kendo?) that have survived (or benefited from) a larger, international base of practitioneers.

Precicely my point. Look at how these arts have changed from a budo. They are now a "sport, philosophy, sport" in that order (albeit with some of the original budo trappings remaining). Aikido is a bit schizophrenic -- meaning it has two personalities; (1) arty-farty budo-bunny types, (2) budo types. The Budo portion --(2)-- in my own way of thinking, is composed of both schools: some Aikikai and all Yoshinkan. However, (1) seems to be an off-shoot of the Aikikai; I've not noticed any bliss-bunnies from the Yoshinkan.

As for kendo ... that's been a sport since 1947. Kendo is no more a budo than is European fencing -- they used to be martial arts; they are now exclusively "sport minded." I grant that you will find some teachers (like the police dojo) who instill budo, but they are the vast minority. Others are just fooling themselves -- especially those who think that receiving a blow to the neck is acceptable because it doesn't give a point.


Second, your very restrictive interpretation of the word Soke....

That is not "my" interpretation. That is "the" interpretation.


Finally, as a beginner, I can tell you that cutting *never* only requires stamina. Once again, you seem at odd with any other swordsman I've talked to or read. They all insist that technique is paramount in any cutting test. Also, we all know that with exhaustion, technique is the first element to suffer. If you agree to those, you have to admit that Senbongiri is at least as much a test of Soke McCartney's technique than of his stamina.

Joss, at an experienced level of training, cutting is stamina. Why? Because by that time in one's shugyo all the tiny elements have become "technique." Yes, hasuji is very important -- but with more experience you'll find that you don't have to concentrate as much on the technical aspects of hasuji, enkeisen, maai, tenouchi ... they just "happen." What were the quality of cuts during Mr. McCartney's senbongiri? Regardless, senbongiri is showmanship.
============
Eldorobo:


Did you just say that you wanted to keep the sword arts elite and away from most MA.

Well, yes, I did say that I want to keep the sword arts elite. I do not want to deny anyone, but as I've stated above, I do not want swordsmanship over-hyped, over-sold, and over-produced. I don't want commerialized swordsmanship. I do not want to keep swordsmanship away from most martial artists, either -- I just do not want it to become "common." I don't want to see a "Kenjitsu" (sic), Kenjutsu, Pre-Edo Kenjusu, "Billy-Bob's Gen-U-Wine eye-ae-do (with 11 secret hurts and slices)" ect. dojo on every corner. Excessive expansion is not to anyone's advantage -- unless one wishes to franchise "kenjitsu dojos."

In the 1970s, many "karate" schools started teaching "kung fu." Don't laugh, I experienced this travesty. In the 1980s we saw these same dojo change from the satin sashes to black dogi and masks. But they still taught karate, and any weapons work looked like karate with a weapon. Now, with the rise in popularity of swordsmanship, I fear we are witnessing not the "growth" of iai, but the dilution/prostitution of iai/batto/kenjutsu.


I am shocked that someone like yourself who had to (most likely) face huge problems when you trained in japan would want to carry that type of additude over here to the US.

See, that is the fallacy of those who haven't been to Japan ... there is no trouble learning from a recognized teacher (in most cases). Most teachers are happy to have a foreigner -- their usual concern is the language ability of the student. Even the most exclusive style will admit a person who is willing to live in Japan.

I will not deny a student -- and have not, yet. I just do not want to see the MacDojo Effect.


It is the members only club mindset that leads so many martial arts into disarray and encourges people to gain a little rank then leave to start their own style.

This happens, but not because of the "members-only" mindset. It happens usually because that person wishes to be the leader; or, because someone wants to be a swordsman but doesn't have the resources (after all, America is a huge country -- you just can't have qualified teachers in every town); or it happens because a person thinks he is better than what his teachers think.


It is also the reason there ase so many ripoffs making it up as they go along.

These people are profiteers and opportunists.


...I know a sword teacher not far from me who requires that new studant buy every thing they will ever need as far as swords and uniforms before they start their first class. When you add up the cost of uniforms, a bokken and an iaido blade then a cutting sword you just dumped a few thousand dollars before your first leason.

No comment.


But as he is the only person teaching a real sword system commericaly within 300 miles its his way or no way.

"Real sword system" ???


luckly my karate instructor trains under shihan McClafferty and I train under him. But if there were a few more people teaching then it would stop instructors from holding those who wantr to learn hostage.

The sad part is that not everyone who wants to train will be able to train. It's really some tough luck and I can empathise. But it will always be so. As I said, our country is too large, and there are not a lot of teachers (comparatively speaking) available. The Japanese sword arts will survive, and will survive well. It is a fallacy to believe that in order for the ryu to survive it needs hundreds or thousands of students. Only a fraction thereof will ensure survival.

Golden Retrievers are popular. Some puppy mills capitalize on the popularity and will breed the dams 6 times or more. Does this ensure the quality of the breed? No, just the opposite: it floods the market with substandard puppies that are not screened for personality, hip displacia, eye problems, etc. If you want a Golden Retriever, go to a reputable breeder. If you want Japanese Swordsmanship, go to a pedegreed dojo. If you don't mind it not being authentic, that is fine too.



I don't think there should be any art that is denied to anyone. Just think about this. What if Nakamura(most likly spelled wrong) had refused to teach you for whatever reason.

I agree with your statement --{you spelled Nakamura sensei's name correctly, by the way}. I want the Japanese sword arts to be taught sincerely without changes to waza (yes, some changes to cultural "norms" such as the dango system should not be carried over).

Let me be clear -- elite does not mean exclusive.


And respectfully don't be quick to discount young people who saw a movie and decide to train. We all started somewhere and hopefully we all still are here

Well ... I do not accept anyone younger than 17 in my dojo. I was 17 when I began Mugai Ryu iaido -- 17 is probably mature enough. I would take a 16 year-old if he or she were mature. My main point originally was that people who watch chanbara or anime have an incorrect idea of what iaido is. I wouldn't outright exclude such a person -- but I've seen the "Highlander" wannabe before, and I don't want him in my dojo. Generally, though, those type seldom come back a third time.

Well, have I been enough of a curmudgeon for today?

Elite does not mean "exclusive" -- unless one makes it so.

Regards,
Guy

Eldorobo
13th February 2001, 02:14
My mistake I meant to put real Ken-jutsu style.
While there are lots of iaido around to my knowledge there are only a handfull of Ken-jutsu in my little part of the world. The most of them being Bob Elder and his crew who I believe you know and my instructor who only teaches (Ryu Sei Ken etc) to a few studants as he doesn't teach commercly anymore due to restraints on his time a dojo was causing him.

Animo
13th February 2001, 02:28
I have had the pleasure of both socializing and competing with the Japanese. I think both Americans and Japanese are continually surprised when the other group does not live up to our stereotype images. Sadly, both cultures generate individuals that re-enforce our worse expectations. I did not find the judges favoring Japanese nationals in the last competition that I participated in. This competition was held in Japan. First and third place in Tameshigiri in the Nidan / Sandan division went to Americans. First place in team cutting also went to the American team. I am sure there were many individuals that did not like losing to the Americans. This does not mean that the Americans were superior swordsmen to the Japanese. Winning does not mean you are the best. It just means that on that day, you looked better than the other guy. Thank your luck and your instructors when you come out on top. The only way to impress the Japanese (or any other group) is to do it on their terms. It is easy to see our differences and overlook our similarities. I am as guilty as anyone else.

arioch
13th February 2001, 02:58
Guy Power Sensei -

First off, with the semi-hostile undercurrent in this thread I want to state up front that absolutely nothing in my message is intended as an insult, slur or anything other than sincere questions seeking a sincere answer ... even if my poor writing somehow gives off a different impression.

In a previous reply you stated a belief that a rise in American Swordsmanship will cause the same McDojo effect that other MAs have experienced. I have to admit I don't see the logic here...it was the lack of quality instruction that presented the opportunity for the scam artists...

If a product or service is desired but a lack of providers is present, the desire does not go away - it usually intensifies. After a while the desire for "quality" is sacrificed for "availability". This is what causes the McDojo effect - people not being able to receive quality instruction turn to "what ever is a available".

If the Sword Arts are to avoid this the good practioners need to be vocal about "what it takes to be good, and the commitment involved"...the good people need to be more vocal than the tricksters and scam artists...the good people need to take every "teaching opportunity" they can get (teaching opportunity is something as simple as telling somebody that the crap they do on highlander would get somebody killed if they were doing that stuff for real).

You also have mentioned several times in your replies the concept of Budo. I've heard and read the arguments about what people believe budo to be...I'm curious as to your "gut" interpretation and why you stated that kendo is not Budo? I agree that the "act of Kendo" is not budo, but the same can be said for any MA...including the so called "real sword arts". Isn't it the practice and the teaching that makes something budo and not the actual physical activity...isn't it the instruction / instructor that brings or removes the budo from the the activity...or am I missing the point somewhere. If I go practice Kendo and become a better person, learn a calm resolution to fate and try to make the world around me a better place, haven't I gotten Budo from my Kendo practice?

Rob Lowry

Joseph Svinth
13th February 2001, 07:17
1. Anybody over the age of 18 who says s/he would do anything to learn iaido and isn't already training 3-5 days a week is pulling your leg.

For example, anybody in Seattle who owns a car, a $200 gunto, and two sets of dogi can easily train seven days a week in iaido. Ditto for people living in Toronto, LA, San Francisco/San Jose, Vancouver, and Honolulu. If four nights a week will suffice, then all kinds of major metropolitan areas pop up on the list.

Don't live in Seattle, Toronto, etc.? Well, move there. The folks did say they would do anything, and necessary sacrifices may include moving out of Mom's house and getting a real job.

2. As for American swordsmanship, I'm all for it. But I have to ask -- if it's American, then why retain the Japanese Halloween costumes, the usually misunderstood and mispronounced Japanese technical terms, and the fancy-Dan titles?

MarkF
13th February 2001, 09:54
Originally posted by arioch

In a previous reply you stated a belief that a rise in American Swordsmanship will cause the same McDojo effect that other MAs have experienced. I have to admit I don't see the logic here...it was the lack of quality instruction that presented the opportunity for the scam artists...



And what caused this lack in quality instruction? The founder of judo, saw that and commented on it in the 1920s and lamented the lack of quality teachers. But the problem wasn't in a lack of good teachers really, it was the total politicalization and international pool of "judo for everyone" which caused the lack. Everyone too old for competition is a teacher.

While it is true too many cooks spoil the broth, so too can the over-abundance and ease of availability to a martial art. What I have to hope for now, is that those seeking quality will eventually flter through the mass of judo dojo and see out the instruction so lovingly tended by Prof. Kano and crew, but it was probably too late by 1895. True, he may have saved many ryu of jujutsu which lacked a future, but in his haste to be the most giving man he was, he was all ready running to catch up with a bus going too fast for him to hop on board. And when quality did exist, the "official" school of judo, pretended he (they) didn't exist, e.g. Kyuzo Mifune.

Guy is correct in protecting something I fear is all ready on the way of all Japanese Martial arts. Keep it too small, IE, refuse students, and it just may be gone with the wind. Too many will weaken the broth.

One thing is true, though. The club was designed, even those called sports, for a minority and that is one thing I don't think will change. But if you think you can walk into a judo dojo, or a kenjutsu dojo of any kind and think you are getting quality, think again. The lack of quality teachers was caused by the lack of quality students, not the other way around. The teachers are/were students, too.

john mark
13th February 2001, 12:10
Originally posted by ghp
Well, yes, I did say that I want to keep the sword arts elite. I do not want to deny anyone, but as I've stated above, I do not want swordsmanship over-hyped, over-sold, and over-produced. I don't want commerialized swordsmanship. I do not want to keep swordsmanship away from most martial artists, either -- I just do not want it to become "common."



Very interesting discussion.

Mr. Power,

Would you teach a person who you believed would not be good for the school? For example, would you teach a person you thought had low moral character?

Thanks,

glad2bhere
13th February 2001, 14:38
Dear Mr. McCartney, Mr Svinth et al:

My hope as I begin this post is that you will accept my apology in advance for any rudeness you may perceive in what I am about to say. You could probably fill a small library with what I DON'T know about Japanese swordsmanship let along the politics and organizations and personalities involved in the two strings I have read.

In the two years in which I have training in Korean swordsmanship under GM Koo in Chicago I have had the satisfaction of watching my skills expand and integrate with my first love-- Hapkido. I have also experienced little twinges now and again as I have read on this Net of the pleasures people have experienced at the various competitions and demonstrations among their dedicated followings. I, too, would like to present my skills for comparison in a public venue and I was very pleased when, quite rcently M Todd Miller expressed his intent to hold a tournament/demonstration which would focus more generally, though not exclusively, on Korean swordsmanship. Apparently there will be both cutting and form competition and it will be organized through NABA-- an organization which again I am woefully ignorant.

I will also add that my anticipation has now been tempered by the incredible contention I read among sword practitioners regarding the nature of their art. Frankly, folks, this kind of crap I can get from other Hapkido practitioners. I really don't need to read of adults who gripe over who is doing what and to whom and with what legitimacy or authorization. At least in THIS area I can speak with some level of authority as I have witnessed this sort of narcissistic self-destruction for years in Hapkido.

There are, in fact more than a few ways of building and strengthening a system. One way is to make that system (sword or otherwise) exclusive, elite, and with limited access. This is the stuff of eugenics and hopes to produce some ultimately pure essence of the Martial Art. It also increases the frequency of in-breeding and expression of toxic recessive traits. Another way of strengthening a system, sword or otherwise, is to open the doors and let in new material and thought from the outside. Initially this may be uncomfortable for the "establishment" but it is an approach that consistently produces a stronger albeit less romantic version of the system.

Some years ago, Shinkendo and S Obata were taken to task for their innovations. In my own tradition, Korean swordsmanship is adjusting to the introduction of Hai Dong Kumdo. But if you think that things are actually going to improve for having put up tradition walls, stationing policy guards at the doors and only passing in deferential acolytes, you folks have more problems that I do! A sign of intelligence is that people are able to moderate their behavior in response to changes in their environment. I guess what I need to know is if I am in the company of intelligent, caring adults, or do I need to keep my distance for fear of being caught up in the turmoil you folks seem to enjoy so much? It must be an extraordinary pressure for the individuals who have penned some of these posts to need to work so hard to consistently be in a position of right. I wonder how much more would have been accomplished for the good of the art by exchanging rather than withholding information, by recognizing rather than denigrating each others' efforts. You seem to have some excellent role-models in Mr. MacCatney and Mr. Svinth. I am curious how it is that others are not working harder to emulate their example?

Best Wishes,
Bruce W Sims
http://www.midwesthapkido.com

arioch
13th February 2001, 16:14
But the problem wasn't in a lack of good teachers really, it was the total politicalization and international pool of "judo for everyone" which caused the lack. Everyone too old for competition is a teacher.

Again...a reinforcing loop and not a root cause. Seriously, without adding any qualify statements think about logic in this statement: "Judo for everyone killed the quality of Judo instruction". It doesn't add up. However, if you say: "The demand for Judo instruction, caused by the Judo for everyone mentality, created a surplus of students and a lack of instructors." Now take that a step further: "the imbalance between instructors and students created a void that was filled by 'poor' instructors".

This is the first Archetype in Jay Forrestor's Systems Thinking - Limitations to Growth. The way to solve these types of problems is to "not push growth" and "to remove the factors that limit growth". Being "people" we will all have our different opinions on what exactly "not to push growth" means, but I think we can all agree that ignoring the situation and hoping the demand fades away on it's own won't work. I also think we can all agree that increasing the supply of quality instructors will help "remove the factors that limit growth".

Rob Lowry

For more information on Systems Thinking, check out the following MIT website http://sysdyn.mit.edu/ - or - find a copy of Peter Senge's Fifth Discipline.

13th February 2001, 17:47
Hi All,

Posted by Mark F. ;

" And when quality did exist, the "official" school of judo, pretended he (they) didn't exist, e.g. Kyuzo Mifune.

Amen Mark. Kyuzo Mifune was THE greatest Judoka of all time. Amazing! And most of todays young Judoka hate watching him on tape because he was so damn good. No muscling and forcing of technique. Smooth like a cat ol' Mifune. Like Takamura Sensei use to say, "Now thats Judo!"


As far as this debate goes I really appreciate where Guy Power is coming from here albeit with a little less enthusiasism. I have the same knee jerk reaction to popularizing kenjutsu that he does. Will the quality go down and the art degenerate to McDojo status. Anyone want to take bets? I bet the odds makers in Vegas would side with Guy here! Time will tell I guess.

Now I dont know Mr McCarthy at all and know little of his credentials. If he wants to establish his own system and is honest about his credentials I say good luck to him. Thats his right. If I was looking for an instructor it would be credentials and reputation I would seek out first and then I would judge the rest with my own eyes. Like Joe and Neil said, to each his own.

I must confess that the statement about beating the Japanese and Koreans and such leading you to found you own system caused that me that involuntary knee jerk reaction again. Yeeoww...thats not a good reason to found your own system if I haven't misread your meaning Mr McCarthy. Consider this anaology. Would you rather learn boxing from Muhammad Ali or Angelo Dundee? Thats right, I'll take Dundee even though he might not be able to last a second in the ring. Understand? This rationale is reminescent of the American Tournament Karate mess that happened in the 70's. Americans were mopping up the Japanese and Koreans in open tournaments and started founding their own systems..... Where are they now? Is Skipper Mullins system still around. How about Pat Burleson's or Joe Lewis's. Can anybody even name these guys systems? The fact is once these guys natural athletic ability went so did they systems they founded. Were the systems bad? Nope, but they lacked something didn't they. What was it? Mr McCarthy, if you know the answer then you're fine and your system will probably out live you. Good Luck!
Seriously!

My Japanese instructor poked and challenged the koryu establishment ocassionally and was most un-Japanese in the way he did it. He took some of flak over it but was also quietly respected for it. Why? Because he put in the time and was passed a menkyo kaiden before he founded his own ryuha. He also simply went by sensei until the day he died.


Tobs

dbeaird
13th February 2001, 19:27
I have to admit that I'm new to Japanese Sword Arts, and Martial Arts, but the discussion of styles and developing new styles has left me with a couple of questions and some opinions especially as they pertain to Sword Arts.

I can understand developing a new martial art that could be practically tested (in combat or competition) and using the results of the test as vindication of the value of the new style. With sword arts, it's impossible to go through that process of validation and so wouldn't any "new" sword art just be nothing more than theories and a new way of dancing with sharp things?

I think we'd agree that the purpose of studying sword arts is not to prepare for combat, but either to develop the artist, or to research and preserve a dying art. Developing a new style defeats the second purpose entirely, and I would like to ask why a new style would be better at the first than an existing art?

The other question I'd have to ask is how is it possible for someone to create a new sword art style in today's world? I recall reading somewhere that there were three stages to learning a martial art, the first being repetition, the second being exploration and the third is innovation or creation, and that for purposes of sword arts, the last stage can no longer be reached. This might have come out of Suino, but I think I've seen it in a couple of places, hopefully someone will come along with the right words and explanations there.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful to anyone who has created their own style, but I am confused as to the thought processes that would go into reaching the decision to create one, and the actual method of creating it once the decision was reached.

arioch
13th February 2001, 19:28
Originally posted by Toby Threadgill

Will the quality go down and the art degenerate to McDojo status. Anyone want to take bets? I bet the odds makers in Vegas would side with Guy here! Time will tell I guess.

[/B]

I also believe they quality will slip - but for a very sad reason.

Does anybody honestly believe that our ignoring the rising popularity of the sword arts is going to lessen the desire of the uniformed to "pick up a katana and play samurai" with or without proper instruction?

If the good instructors / teachers / mentors ... don't step up to the plate, the assholes who are in this to take our money will get the opportunity they desire. Simple supply and demand.

BTW - the part about Russell McCartney sensei is actually out of the correct context...if you go back and read his response, the three recent events were his impetus to adopt the title of Soke instead of Chief Instructor and not the founding of this own style (which he has been teaching for 10+ years).

Rob Lowry

Joss
13th February 2001, 19:54
Hi Guy,

Reading your post, I can't help but think about how isolationist doctrines have systematically failed during history - see the Roman Empire, 1930's Europe and 1940's America, and Japan before Perry's Black Ships. Those strategies have never succeeded in helping anything survive - they just run contrary to evolutionary principles.

We should remember that swordsmanship is not only an art - it's a set of techniques used in combat. As such, they've had to evolve in the past, if only due to technology changes (e.g., riding vs. on-foot engagements, tachi vs. katana, armor changes,...) To want to "preserve" swordsmanship and protect it from any external influence is delusional. If anything, I personally find that many schools are getting further away from the brutal practicalities of swordsmanship. Some kata or flourishes I've seen seem suicidal and impractical. (Note that I am not commenting on the underlying virtues of the way of the sword here, nor on how sincere practictioneers are.)

Trying to take out of Japanese swordsmanship those elements of Japanese culture that we despise (e.g., dango) and replacing them by Western style fair play and meritocratie doesn't mean that all or even most Japanese cultural aspects of Japanese swordsmanship should disappear. To the contrary, we are all committed to preserving most part of both traditions (in clothing, ceremonials, etc) and moral virtues. However, there are some "moral virtues" of samurai that I, as a Westerner, have to reject (loyalty to a lord / organization / sensei vs. to my personal principles on what is Right or Wrong, for exemple.)

You seem to live in a black & white world, where any innovation coming from the US will lead to the total Americanization of Japanese swordsmanship and the McDojo phenomenon. For exemple, you say: "...I am not going to change "Culture." Talking of "changing culture" equals "Americanization" to me". Once again, and with all due respect, I find this a conservative and negative attitude.

By the way, it is my understanding that Judo and Kendo were sports in Japan before their internationalization. One might regret this or not, but you can't put the fault on their popularity. Taking that into consideration, I would argue that internationalizations of those sports was beneficial to them - it provided good humored competition, a fixed set of rules, and impartial referring,... (I would also tend to think that it is because they were sports that they became popular globally, and that because Japanese swordsmanship is not a sport, it will remain a fairly confidential - elitist - discipline.)

As a side note, I think that by "elitist" you mean high standard - you're not talking about a class system. I think we're all committed to that.

You said that "the sad part is that not everyone who wants to train will be able to train", and Mr. Svinth added that "the folks did say they would do anything, and necessary sacrifices may include moving out of Mom's house and getting a real job." This is all well and good for practitioneers who are committed to the core, and train several days a week, etc. A very small % of today's practictioneers fit that description. I can understand how true artists feel about their way, and that you would want all practitioneers to be ultra-commited. This is unrealistic, because even most of those hard core people have started by being + or - casually interested. There has to be an offering (i.e., dojos open to anyone meeting standards of good presentation, respect, politeness, personal hygiene, etc) for those casually interested people. Else, there is no opportunity for true artists to be able to arise. (In truth, some of them would be lucky enough to be discovered, or will seek a sensei. But many wouldn't have the opportunity to ever discover their vocation.)


Senbongiri:

Reg. your comments on Senbongiri showmanship, I would have to ask you if you would put Obata-soke's Kabutowari in the same category? Also, I persist in seeing a contradiction between your saying that Ishi Yama Ryu is not a proper Japanese swordsmanship technique, and your admission that McCartney-soke's technique was solid enough to resist the fatigue of Senbongiri.

Cheers,

JD

[Edited by Joss on 02-13-2001 at 05:59 PM]

Animo
13th February 2001, 20:25
Mr. McCartney,

I ask you to refrain from your continued defamation of the Orlando Tai Kai. Ueki Seiiji Sensei - 8th Dan Toyama Ryu Kaicho of Zen Nihon Batto Do Renmei, Hataya Mitsuo Sensei - 8th Dan Toyama Ryu Chairman, Sakaida Sensei - 6th Dan Toyama Ryu, were the main judges at the event. These men have all worked hard to bring Japanese swordsmanship to the US. I might add that none of them make a living by teaching swordsmanship. I hold them in the highest regard and am angered at how you have represented them.

Not all of the people who placed and not all of the winners were Toyama Ryu students. No Toyama Ryu student placed in the Shodan and under kata (Some did Toyama kata like yourself, but I believe that none did more than attend a single seminar). All the students from Ueki Sensei's and Hataya Sensei's American dojos were eliminated. The judges seemed to have a preference for Toyama Ryu and traditional Japanese kata, but they were definitely not stacking things for their students. Tameshigiri does not leave much room for partiality. The cuts and targets were published well in advance of the competition.

Some of the standard Japanese rules were modified before the competition to allow leniency for people unfamiliar with this type of event. This was a surprise to all of us. Disqualification of both competitors in tameshigiri was not used. It is an elimination tournament, but both people are eliminated if they both make bad mistakes. The same standards were maintained throughout an event. I think that the only rules changed during the competition were due to failure of anyone to get past the qualifying section of the wakizashi-cutting event. Everyone was allowed a second chance with a simpler cutting sequence. There was a regrettable mix-up with the Nidan/Sandan tameshigiri event due to confusion and the language barrier, but those most affected were the first to set that behind them.

I think you will find as much if not more partisan judging at any event.


[Edited by animo on 02-16-2001 at 07:38 AM]

arioch
13th February 2001, 22:20
Originally posted by dbeaird
I think we'd agree that the purpose of studying sword arts is not to prepare for combat, but either to develop the artist, or to research and preserve a dying art. Developing a new style defeats the second purpose entirely, and I would like to ask why a new style would be better at the first than an existing art?


I think you've asked a great question that practically everyone will have a different answer for.

For starters, Nakamura Ryu, Shinkendo and Toyama Ryu were all developed in this century (I might be wrong on the Toyama part though) and are three of the more heavily respected sword styles. I beleive there are a couple of other "gendai" styles but my knowledge in this area doesn't go that far.

If you go to the Dragon Times web site you can read several translated articles written by Nakamura Taizaburo on his development of Nakamura Ryu and thoughts on Iaido...here is a good snippet from one of them:


My cutting techniques are effective in their simplicity: the thrust (either single or double-handed); the downward vertical cut; left downward diagonal cut; right upward diagonal cut; right downward diagonal cut; left upward diagonal cut; left horizontal cut; and right horizontal cut. No theatrics, just combat-effective techniques.

My system is based on studies of how to bring the sword blade to a halt following a cut, how to parry, and how to progress to the next combative posture by utilizing the sword's kinetic energy.

Doesn't sound that different from any other sword art, but obviously he saw something wrong with, or lacking from, the different styles he had experience with.

I'm not aware if you've done any reading about the life of Nakamura Taizaburo, but if you haven't you most definitely should ... he is a genius and I think every modern practioner owes this man a debt of gratitude for everhting he has done - and not just in the development of Nakamura Ryu.

Just because it's old doesn't mean it still applies or was ever that good to start with.

Rob Lowry

dbeaird
14th February 2001, 02:06
Originally posted by arioch

For starters, Nakamura Ryu, Shinkendo and Toyama Ryu were all developed in this century (I might be wrong on the Toyama part though) and are three of the more heavily respected sword styles. I beleive there are a couple of other "gendai" styles but my knowledge in this area doesn't go that far...

Rob Lowry
[/B]

My understanding is that Toyama Ryu was developed for the purpose of teaching sword technique appropriate (if anachronistic) for modern (well, WWII kind of modern) military application. In other words they were techniques specifically designed for practical application. Sort of a streamlined set of techniques that used swords carried in military fittings. (My appologies to any practitioners if I got this wrong, I'm still new at all this, I've never even met a Toyama Ryu practitioner). I can't say that I'm familiar enough with the other styles to be able to know their origins.

Since it was developed for martial purposes, it doesn't quite fit into the category I was thinking. I was recently contacted by members of the Hokushin Shinoh Ryu, a school developed in the early 20th century. The founder learned his trade from people who might legitimately have expected to use a sword in combat and began teaching people who might see combat armed with a sword. Personally, I see these cases as developments designed to fill a real world need.

The same needs that existed (or were perceived to exist) in the pre-WWII era no longer apply though. The difference I see is really the same difference between what are termed dead languages and living languages. A living language, say English or Japanese is modified through daily use to meet the needs of the people who use it. Once the language is no longer used for daily communication (classical Latin or Greek for example) the language stops changing. Essentially it comes down to this question: Why do we need a new Sword Style?

Since there is no need to change existing styles to either meet new needs, or meet the old needs better, I can't see how a new style could be developed without in essence "making it up" or just mixing techniques to develop some "new moves".

If the sword art is developed for personal development (my primary reason for taking up Iai), it would seem that creating a new art would defeat the purpose in a way. Look at it like this: I gain insight into my own faults as I practice, I learn how to see my mistakes and correct them and strive for a goal that while practically unattainable still gives me benefits from each step I take on the path. By creating a style, I would lose the benefit of a guide on the path. There would be no standard set to measure my achievements and no one to tell me I was doing it wrong and no way to determine how to do it right through real world application.

The art that I'm learning is handed down to me by people who originally learned it the hard way. I can't see any way I would be able to improve on their teachings in this day and age.

arioch
14th February 2001, 02:46
Funny...I think we both study a sword art for similar reasons, and for precisely the same reasons, I would not endeavor to create my own style.

However, everybody has the "thing" that gets them through the day and for some people (obviously not you or me) it's tinkering with something until they can make it better - and since we have no actual way of testing our theories, in the world of Japanese swordsmanship better is a very subjective thing.

Rob Lowry

dbeaird
14th February 2001, 03:07
Originally posted by arioch
Funny...
However, everybody has the "thing" that gets them through the day and for some people (obviously not you or me) it's tinkering with something until they can make it better - and since we have no actual way of testing our theories, in the world of Japanese swordsmanship better is a very subjective thing.

Rob Lowry

I have a brother who's just like that. Sad thing is that of all the things he took apart to "fix" or "see how it works", after he put them together again, not one of them would work. Average life expectancy of a transistor radio in my house was something like thirty minutes.

Joseph Svinth
14th February 2001, 10:41
Systems with invented traditions of course see nothing wrong with invented traditions. Meanwhile, systems with historic roots tend to emphasize historic roots. Ego either way: unless the teacher is going to do all your training for you, then all that matters is whether the system works for you.

As for Masters, the proper abbreviation in English is "Mister." I can handle calling old guys Mister. (Just because they mangle English doesn't mean I have to.) But Grandmaster? Please. When I hear the guy's mother-in-law and employer calling him Grandmaster, then I'll think about it. Until then, he can give himself his own handjobs.

Robert Reinberger
14th February 2001, 12:13
Please excuse me if you feel I'm not qualified to join this discussion, but I think I'm able to give my opinion on some of the general aspects.

I don't know any of the contributors or styles personally.
I don't have any experience in Koryu. What I practice is:

1. A hybrid style called "Jiu Jitsu". It is, what evolved from the art that was introduced to Austria at around 1905, and undoubtedly was influenced by modern day Judo as well as Aikido, Karate and other systems in the last decades. Not what I would call an "authentic" system, but I still like it.

2. A Gendai Budo style called "Jigen Ryu" ( <IMG SRC="http://linear.mv.com/cgi-bin/j-e/s=12/fg=b/inline/nocolor/jap/%bb%fc%b4%e3?TR"><IMG SRC="http://linear.mv.com/cgi-bin/j-e/s=12/fg=b/inline/nocolor/jap/%ce%ae?TR"> ), which teach mainly Jujutsu and Iaijutsu. The school was founded by Harada Sensei. The source of our Jujutsu is Hakko Ryu (also a Gendai art), the source of the Iaijutsu is Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu (a Koryu). I call this style authentic.

After that introduction, so you know where I come from, and that I hardly can be called a "Koryu-snob", a designation sometimes used here at e-budo.com.:


Rob Lowry wrote:
First off, with the semi-hostile undercurrent in this thread I want to state up front that absolutely nothing in my message is intended as an insult, slur or anything other than sincere questions seeking a sincere answer ... even if my poor writing somehow gives off a different impression.
I want to second this approach, and, in my case, would like to point out that my poor English may also give a different view that is not intended. Regarding the "semi-hostile undercurrent" in this thread I for one think that everybody has stayed within the borders of civilized and mostly even polite discussion so far.

Regarding Soke

No, Soke does not mean founder, as was explained earlier already. It also does not mean highest ranking teacher or best "technician" of a system. In fact, it has nothing at all to do with the terms or meanings like "teacher", "master", "expert" or similar designations.

As a proof of this claim I "offer" Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu. The present Soke of this school is the head of the family that inherited the style, but hasn't created the style and doesn't even practice it. The (for the lack of a better term) "technical head" of the system is Otake Shihan, who is neither the founder nor a family member (as a marginal note, this may illustrate why I don't really understand the current problems in Daito Ryu).

I tend to see it that way: Soke is an ancient term to describe the "head of a (Japanese) family, even in a wider sense, like "clan". In connection with Japanese "Budo" (I don't like this expression, because I don't think there is another Budo than "Japanese" Budo) it also came into usage with styles that are no longer (or never where) "family heritage", therefore meaning something like "head" or "headmaster" of a style. The latter (headmaster) may be one source of the misunderstandings around that term.

One might discuss the usage of "Soke" or "Shodai" or "Shodai Soke" within some Gendai styles. I'm not as strong biased in that connection as Mr. Threadgill seems to be, in that way commendable respecting the views of his late teacher.

However, both usages have something to do with, and are close connected to Japanese culture, IMHO. Therefore I think the term shouldn't be used for or in connection with a style, that was not created in that culture. BTW, the same is true for the word "Ryu", again IMHO.


Joss Delage wrote to Guy Power: Second, your very restrictive interpretation of the word Soke could be easily ridiculized. Would you then say that the sushi I eat at my local restaurant is not truly sushi, because it was not made in Japan?
My opinion: surely no, I wouldn't say that, because Sushi is Sushi, made in Japan, or not. But this Sushi originated in Japan. If you make something else, it may be based on (again: Japanese) Sushi, but it isn't Sushi.

Let me take another example here, originating from my own culture, to explain what I mean with "technical (and otherwise) authentic" in that connection: In Vienna, we have a famous dish called "Wiener Schnitzel". It originally came from Milan, Italy, and was altered in certain ways, that made it to what is called "Wiener Schnitzel". Of course, if you use all the "correct" ingredients and procedures, you can make a Wiener Schnitzel in the USA. Why not?. But if you alter the ingredients or something else, it simply isn't a Wiener Schnitzel anymore. Maybe, that a lot of people will like it's taste more than that of a Wiener Schnitzel, it doesn't matter. I would prefer you to call it "American Shneetsel" or similar. Of course, the name is not copyrighted, and therefore you may still call it Wiener Schnitzel. But I think you have to understand, if I say that this is not an "authentic" Wiener Schnitzel.

Regarding quality in connection to authenticity and popularity:

The problem I see here, is the need for objective criteria for ranks and functions (including titles) in large organizations. A lot of considerations made by a Sensei for issuing any of the above cannot be written down and objectivied (?) IMHO. Therefore, the criteria of regulations used in large organizations tend to overemphasize the technical skill alone, sometimes even including "success" in competition. Over the time, you will get high ranked practitioners, seen as teachers and authorities automatically more or less, that haven't learned essential parts of their arts (those parts, that are not strictly technical. I hope it is clear what I mean here, I'm not really happy with my explanation but don't know how to formulate it better, in English). Therefore the Wiener Schnitzel taught by this people is called by this name, but, compared to the original, isn't a Wiener Schnitzel anymore. Soon students of this teachers again will have new ideas, create their own styles, and the art will shift away from the root with every step. It is that kind of changes, I suppose, which is criticized by the admirers of "original" Judo, Kendo, Karate, etc. for example.

Therefore I think, there is a need for the preservation of the original styles, if for nothing else, than for the possibilty to "check" what the differences are, and if the similarities are still enough so that the style practiced can be called "Schnitzel", at least. And this preservation can only be achieved if the original style keeps it's special qualities because it still can be overlooked by it's current head, that makes it's decisions on everything else but an "objective", "democratic" or "equal rights" basis. That is not possible, if you have hundreds of thousands of followers around the world, I guess.


Joseph McDonald wrote: The sword arts need to remember the leason of Koga ryu ninjutsu. A single car crash and no more Koga ryu. I wouldn't be surprised to find quite a few swords arts that a fire or some other medium size accident and they would go the way of koga to live on only in the minds and computers of 16 year old grandmasters.
Yes, things like that happen. A lot of Koryu already suffered that fate. It can not be excluded definitely. For example: If you own a picture painted by Peter Paul Rubens, it is an antique. It's good to make photographs, and even copies. However, if the original is destroyed in a fire, you don't own an antique anymore. You only have copies of an ancient painting, and photographs, but the original is destroyed forever.

Regarding the necessity of the development of new "sword arts" as well as the altering of existing ones in principle I agree with the statements of Mr. Dan Beaird. Regarding hand to hand combat it maybe a different thing. However, if there are new sword styles founded for whatever reasons (including only formal reasons), I think they should stay as close to the original as possible, and, if they are not founded in deep connection with Japanese culture, should not be propagated as "authentic".

I'm using the following designations:

1.) Old (Koryu), and authentic (for example: Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu)
2.) Old (Koryu), and not authentic (changed in some ways not connected with Japanese cultur and/or history and/or technical system of the respective art, please excuse me if I don't give an example for that)
3.) New (Gendai), and authentic (example: Nakamura Ryu and Shinkendo, I suppose)
4.) New (Gendai), and not authentic (please excuse me, if I only give an inappropriate example for that, only to illustrate what I mean: Tae-Bo)

Neither is bad per se. But I would prefer No 4 - arts not to pretend being a No. 1, 2 or 3 art.

Sorry for the lenght, and if I have bothered you.

Regards,
Robert

carl mcclafferty
14th February 2001, 15:19
Joe (McDonald):

I've had many long discussions with Mr. Power. The basic rule in Japanese swordsmanship is "refuse no one, chase no one". But that does not mean that you need to "keep" everyone. Take your own instructor. He pretty much lost his "commercial" dojo, because he would not compromize for tuition. How many people has Jeff given them back their money and shown them the door. How many of you study sword at the Ryushinkai out of the many that started there, not many. But you few who still train with him are turning into fine swordsmen. That was Mr. Power's point "quality over quanity" i.e. McDojo, (not elitism) but it got lost in the overall reply. Guy works three jobs and still teaches anyone willing to work hard on his "day" off. Sounds like Jeff: working two jobs, raising a child on his own, and still taking time to train you for basically nothing.

Carl McClafferty
PS Give my best to everyone.

14th February 2001, 15:29
Joe Svinth,

You wrote:

"As for Masters, the proper abbreviation in English is "Mister." I can handle calling old guys Mister. (Just because they mangle English doesn't mean I have to.) But Grandmaster? Please. When I hear the guy's mother-in-law and employer calling him Grandmaster, then I'll think about it. Until then, he can give himself his own handjobs."

You have been hanging around Neil Yamamoto too long!

I almost hurt myself laughing my arse off here. I have got to meet you. Maybe I can scrape the time and money together to get up to Seattle soon. Dang! Im still laughing!

Tobs

arioch
14th February 2001, 17:34
Originally posted by carl mcclafferty
Joe (McDonald):

I've had many long discussions with Mr. Power. The basic rule in Japanese swordsmanship is "refuse no one, chase no one". But that does not mean that you need to "keep" everyone.


Thanks Carl, you helped clear something up for me. I've been caught up, and rather infuriated by something I "remembered" Guy Power sensei typing - I've been mumbling elitist-asshole-snob under my breath for a couple of days now. After reading your post I immediately saw what I thought was a contradiction and went back to read the post by Power sensei...well POOP...I remembered incorrectly.



Well, yes, I did say that I want to keep the sword arts elite. I do not want to deny anyone, but as I've stated above, I do not want swordsmanship over-hyped, over-sold, and over-produced. I don't want commerialized swordsmanship. I do not want to keep swordsmanship away from most martial artists, either -- I just do not want it to become "common."


I absolutely agree this statement, and all that we are left with is the "exact measure" of over-hyped, over-sold and over-produced...which as humans beings, we may never agree on - but I'm OK with that.

Rob Lowry

Tim Wilmot
14th February 2001, 21:57
Good Afternoon Everyone,

Having watched this subject go on and on and on and on, we
maybe missing the real point here. That point from my chair
is that we care a great deal about this art and want to keep
it as true as possbile.

I don't know of anyone in the sword community, who wants to
see anyone at any events in a clown suit, big feathery wings, lightning bolts etc etc.

I do feel that the sword arts don't lend themselves to the
Macdojo definition. The art cannot be made easier. People
of low character,etc,etc will not last in the sword arts.

None of the people that I have met in this artform would tolerate any acts of disrespect, cruelty and rudeness. Let
alone clown suits, feathery wings and lightning bolts!!

It is good to have spirited discussions on subjects. We
must be able to see the forest for the trees. Everyone
here wants the best for the Sword arts. The best way to
find out someones heart is to meet them, train with them,
eat with them. The truth will show itself in time.

Train hard, be good to each other, and be good to yourselves.

Tim Wilmot

Nathan Scott
15th February 2001, 02:10
Hello,

There have been several interesting topics discussed in this thread so far, but it's been moving so fast that it's hard to keep up!

I'd like to address a couple of quick points if anyone has any patience remaining. I've been spending some time researching succession methods in ryu-ha as a result of the controversy in Daito ryu a few months ago - and in particular the Iemoto system ("Soke" system) in question here.

Guy Power wrote:


It may be interpreted that way; however, "Soke" means "comprehensive family" and implies the person is the leader of the family. A soke needn't be the founder -- the title is usually an inherited position -- if the ryu lasts beyond its founder.

I think your confusing the "so" in Soke with a different kanji. I don't have my jiten here to offer Nelson numbers, but I believe the "so" your referring to is the same as that found in "SOshihan", which does translate literally as "comprehensive".

The "so" in Soke does in fact translate as founding, and is the same "so" used in other titles such as "SOshi", "RyuSO" and "KaiSO".

"ke", from memory, loosley translates as "line", making a reasonable translation of Soke as "founder's line".

As someone else noted, well known systems like Kashima-Shinryu and TS Katori Shinto ryu have both adopted a "Shihan-ke" line and a "So-ke" line. The Soke line continues the blood line and (often times) has the last word regarding administrative matters, and the Shihanke line continues the art's technical transmission and tend to manage the art's transmission on a day to day basis.

There were/are many many ways of structuring traditions (ryu-ha), and it would seem that the more you try to apply rules to the application of the Iemoto system or any other older system, the more you will find that it does not hold up consistently from ryu-ha to ryu-ha historically.

It would seem that Iemoto system (in the context of the Iemoto-natori structure of organizing a ryu-ha) was borrowed by some bugei ryu-ha from other non-military ryu-ha, such as Ikebana. This organization allows for licensed branches to be opened under the direct control of the art by the Honbu/ headmaster of the art.

However, it would seem that it was extremely rare to find bugei ryu-ha using this system until the modern age, and even then of course, not "all" ryu-ha chose to adopt it.

In other words, the concept and use of "soke" has relatively little historical use within bugei ryu-ha, and is somewhat of a modern adaptation, so to speak.

A study of some of the books specializing in bugei ryu-ha will show a large variety of succession and structure patterns.

Also, while it is not uncommon to find that the line of Soke is inherited along the bloodline, I would not go so far as to say "usually". Each ryu-ha will develop criteria and patterns for succession, and those patterns and criteria will usually be considered seriously in issues of rightful succession. For example, Takeda Tokimune Soke of Daito ryu made a public statement to the affect of "whoever succeeds Daito ryu must be technically competent". This was his wish, and is a big consideration with regards to their issue.

Some ryu-ha will strictly follow the blood line, others will choose the most capable and skilled exponent, others will literally adopt the most skilled exponent and capable exponent into their family in order to continue their name, and still others who are well known Budo-ka will be given or asked to "take care" (succeed) their art in hopes that the association will save their tradition from dying off completely. Case by case.


A founder is "Sosha," or "ryuso" [if it lasts long enough to be called a ryu]. I think "sosha" is more appropriate in your case -- just as if you had founded a company, bank, club, etc.

I've never heard of "Sosha" (not that that means anything!) - do you mean "Soshi" by any chance? This term is used by leaders of a tradition or movement, though I understand that it is typically used by those involved in religious movements and the such more than Budo.

One option of course is simply to use an English name! :)

Toby Threadgill also wrote:


My Japanese instructor poked and challenged the koryu establishment occasionally and was most un-Japanese in the way he did it. He took some of flak over it but was also quietly respected for it. Why? Because he put in the time and was passed a menkyo kaiden before he founded his own ryuha. He also simply went by sensei until the day he died.

This is something I've said before and still maintain as well Several people have brought up Shinkendo and Nakamura ryu as examples of other modern systems. I would remind you that, in the case of Shinkendo for example, Obata Kaiso had Menkyo Kaiden and quite a number of other very high ranks in Budo, and was entrusted with the Honbu dojo for the United States in Nakamura ryu, Toyama ryu and USA Battodo from one of his instructors, Nakamura Taizaburo Sensei. These are some very heavy credentials and experience to have to back the founding of a new style, and is what I see missing from a great deal of new styles splitting off here in America in particular.

Some new systems are apparently being established prematurely, judging from the fact that the founder's are still seeking affiliation and instruction from other instructor's and/or organization's after founding their own style. I don't know much about Ishi Yama ryu (one of the original topics of this thread, supposedly), so I can't comment in their case.

In Shinkendo's case, Obata Kaiso opted to adopt the Iemoto-natori system for his art, and has established licensed branch dojo worldwide. In Shinkendo's case, Obata Kaiso has made it clear that he wishes to keep the art in his family line. Soke is an appropriate title in this case, though he has never asked any of us to refer to him that way (I've never heard the thing about the founder not using such a title - I must have missed that thread). It seems to me that you are either "of the founding line", or you are not, but I can't debate this for a fact.

But regardless of whether or not the relatively recent use of the term Soke in bugei ryu-ha was used for the founder of every system or not, it would seem (judging from some of the official paperwork that Obata Sensei has signed) that Obata Sensei prefers to use the term Kaiso when referring to his founding of the art anyway.

Of course, none of these terms (except for Sensei) are forms of address, but since Obata Sensei is so highly skilled and respected (at least within our own group) we try to show reverence by using this title when referring to him indirectly. Personally, I think there is another reason why Obata Sensei prefers not to use the term Soke as much, and that was alluded to by someone else earlier in this thread.

Some people who are Shihan level are referred to as _____ Shihan by their juniors/peers, and some are simply referred to as _______ Sensei. Again, case by case, and system by system.

I haven't found a rule book yet that indicates otherwise!

Sorry for the length,

Robert Reinberger
15th February 2001, 06:51
Regarding the Kanji for Soke, they are described at Jeffrey's Japanese<->English Dictionary Server as:

http://linear.mv.com/cgi-bin/j-e/S=48/fg=b/inline/nocolor/jap/%bd%a1%b2%c8?TR souke head of family; originator

SOU: dictionary search code ``!3D21''
Classification: Sixth Grade, Frequency-of-Use: #1008
readings: SHUU, SOU, mune, kazu, shi, so, soo, taka, toshi, nori, hiro, muna, moto, yoshi
English tags: `religion', `sect', `denomination', `main point', `origin', `essence'
Radical: 40, Stroke count: 8
Encodings: JIS 3D21, EUC BDA1, Kuten 2901, Shift-JIS 8F40, Unicode 5B97
SKIP code: 2-3-5, Four-Corner code: 3090.1
Indices: Halpern #2228, S&H 3m5.1,N616, Nelson #1294, Henshall #889, Heisig #1100, Heisig #679, Morohashi #7106, Gakken #1023

KE: dictionary search code ``!3248''
Classification: Second Grade, Frequency-of-Use: #94
readings: KA, KE, ie, ya, uchi, ari, e, ku, tsuka, be
English tags: `house', `home'
Radical: 40, Stroke count: 10
Encodings: JIS 3248, EUC B2C8, Kuten 1840, Shift-JIS 89C6, Unicode 5BB6
SKIP code: 2-3-7, Four-Corner code: 3023.2
Indices: Halpern #2273, S&H 3m7.1,N165, Nelson #1311, Henshall #83, Heisig #541, Heisig #1185, Morohashi #7169, Gakken #81

As always, one must look beyond the mere literal translation to apply it correct.

You will notice the usage of the Kanji "Ke" ("Ie") in "Iemoto":

http://linear.mv.com/cgi-bin/j-e/S=48/fg=b/inline/nocolor/jap/%b2%c8%b8%b5?TR iemoto head of a school (of music, dance); head family of a school

IE: dictionary search code ``!3248''
Classification: Second Grade, Frequency-of-Use: #94
readings: KA, KE, ie, ya, uchi, ari, e, ku, tsuka, be
English tags: `house', `home'
Radical: 40, Stroke count: 10
Encodings: JIS 3248, EUC B2C8, Kuten 1840, Shift-JIS

MOTO: dictionary search code ``!3835''
Classification: Second Grade, Frequency-of-Use: #356
readings: GEN, GAN, moto, chika, hajime, haru, yuki, yoshi
English tags: `beginning', `former time', `origin'
Nelson Radical: 7 Traditional Radical: 10, Stroke count: 4
Encodings: JIS 3835, EUC B8B5, Kuten 2421, Shift-JIS 8CB3, Unicode 5143
SKIP code: 2-1-3, Four-Corner code: 1021.1
Indices: Halpern #1929, S&H 0a4.5,N137, Nelson #275, Henshall #106, Heisig #59, Heisig #60, Morohashi #1340, Gakken #328

For the application the same rule is valid, as is mentioned above. That a word has a certain meaning in it's literal translation, doesn't mean it can be applied in every case where the translation is used in another language. One has to take into account the specific usages in the cultural coherence of the original language. Mr. Scott, of course I agree with your statement that the usage of this words in connection with Bugei/Budo Ryu-ha, is not homogenous.

Regards,
Robert

[Edited by Robert Reinberger on 02-15-2001 at 01:15 AM]

ghp
15th February 2001, 07:14
Robert, thanks. I just lost a message I had spent 1 hour writing in response to Nathan's questions.
============

Nathan, ... What Robert says! I got dumb when I said "comprehensive." Sheesh ... I HATE doing that! I know better ... honest, I do!

Seriously, though -- and briefly now that I lost that great masterpiece...

Sousha (I even had the kanji for you) means founder, as does kaiso.

Iemoto -- head of a dance or acting family; head of family. I've never seen/heard this term used in budo. Does Obata sensei actually use the term Iemoto, or do you mean he just uses the iemoto-type heirarchy?

Ke -- house (ie/ke/ka). The "ke" in "shihan-ke" means the shihan "line" as you said. The "ka" as in "budo-ka" means "budo expert." We often use this term incorrectly, deshyoo? "Karate-ka" doesn't mean "karate practitioners" .. it means "karate experts." Hmmm... maybe "expert" is too strong; "an adept" might be closer -- no Nelson's ! Arrrghghhhhh

I agree with your comments regarding depth of study before breaking away; setting out along the "Ri" part of the Shu-Ha-Ri teaching. Obata sensei has some hefty credentials and experience, that's for sure.

I think his menkyo kaiden was in Ioriken battojutsu. As far as I know, he was 6th or 7th dan in Toyama Ryu before he established Shinkendo. Yoshinkan 6th or 7th, too -- and a 6 year uchideshi for Shioda sensei.

Obata sensei was even in Shioda sensei's book Dynamic Aikido. Open it up and see what he looks like with hair! Even in those days he was the "heavy." He makes the perfect "masher" -- and is thrown down a flight of concrete stairs by a young lady for his efforts.

Hmmmm ... that was it in a nutshell.

Regards,
Guy

Nathan Scott
15th February 2001, 18:32
Hello,

Mr. Reinberger, thanks for the exhaustive translation! I had never thought to use the Jeffrey's kanji for that. I checked your source code the first time you used it and was surprised to discover that it was something I'd been using for years anyway.

Thanks for confirming the Sosha thing. That's a new one for me.

I've not noticed Obata Sensei using the term Iemoto yet. One of the hanko he uses on our menjo is what would be considered the headmaster's stamp, which incorporates the title "Soke" in it's kanji.

Mostly he just signs his name unless it is something important, although in one of my books here at work I'm noticing that he wrote (in kanji) "Shinkendo - Kaiso Obata Toshishiro (date of signing)" and stamped it with his seal.

I do recall "ke" literally translating as house, but it seems to me that "line" seems to suit the context as a functional translation a bit better than house. I'm open to disagreement's on this though if some feel that the "house" translation should be retained in conversation - the kanji for "ke=line" is different. Also, I don't believe a ryu-ha that uses the term Soke must pass the art down through a family line, so perhaps a functional term for this might be "house/line of the founder" as opposed to "family".

Literal translations would of course be literal, however.


Obata sensei was even in Shioda sensei's book Dynamic Aikido.

Yes, it's pretty interesting! He is in the last section of the book (since I know someone's going to ask) wearing a suit, and is the aggressor in the sequences as Guy-san mentioned.

Regards,

ghp
15th February 2001, 21:58
I do recall "ke" literally translating as house, but it seems to me that "line" seems to suit the context as a functional translation a bit better than house. I'm open to disagreement's on this though if some feel that the "house" translation should be retained in conversation - the kanji for "ke=line" is different.

The "ke" in shihan-ke is the "house" kanji. You are correct that "kei" is line, but that is an entirely different kanji, used in a different sense, such as in "keizo" [lineage diagram] or "keichimyaku" [Buddhist "blood-line" transmission lineage chart).

Regards,
Guy

Rennis
16th February 2001, 04:11
This may be a bit off topic but...

Most of this information is available in other sources and I?@can't remember exactly what details come from where as I'm in an internet cafe at the moment (Hearst and Nishiyama Matsunosuke's books come to mind for some of this), but as I am studying the iemoto system in school I'll open my big mouth anyways. The iemoto system of transmission so common in many of Japan's cultural arts never quite fully developed in the martial arts, which is probably why Mr. Power said he has never heard the term used in relation to martial ryuha before. On reason for this can be seen from looking at the power the iemoto holds over his students. In most cultural arts, the iemoto is, "king" so to speak. He approves everything, dictates how things are done, determines school policy in all matters, etc. He has a wide network of teachers he has licensed spread through out various domains who are all under his direct control in matter regarding the school (and of course forwarding him money from their earnings made using the schools name) . He is therefore extremely influential in the lives of a large number of people spread out over a wide area. For arts such as dance or tea this doesn't pose a particular problem, but when you are talking about a large number of armed swordsmen, etc, it could pose a problem in the eyes of the government, who were trying their hardest to not allow cross domain networks of warriors develop ("the Tanaka clan and the Hirada clan might both hate the Tokugawa government, but separated and isolated, they are too weak to do anything about it" is the sort of reasoning going on here).

To prevent some of the various problems that could arise for a martial ryu, via the government, if they adopted the iemoto system in total, they altered it, bringing in the ever famous "full transmission" which made the recipient in effect independant from their teacher. They can go back home and teach (and make a living), but at the same time, don't create a situation where one particular person in Edo, or where ever, is in an all powerful position over a large group of warriors (that is the job of the government after all). I'd point out that I?@don't think anyone conciously decided at some point that martial ryuha should be organized this way. I suspect it was just a natural outgrowth of the social climate of the times. This would explain why there are so many variations on just how ryu were transmitted. In local rural or domain specific schools, often ryu were organized more closely to the full fledged iemoto system. In this sort of situation it would not be as big of a problem as all the warriors learning it would already be under the same organization network anyways (the domain they lived in). This would not work as well in places like Edo however, where one has warriors from all over the country coming and going on a regular basis. Someryu made the best student the "next guy", others kept it in the family. One could also argue that in many cases there isn't necessarily only "one inheritor" in some ryuha as all people who recieved full transmission could be considered "inheritors". Often there was a mix of all these elements at once, which makes it even more annoying for one trying to define "transmission in the martial arts". One really has to look at the ryu in question and figure out how it worked. It is for reasons such as these that a normalized system of transmission, such as the iemoto system, didn't completely develop in martial ryuha and hence the confusing mess one come up with when one tries to "define" in black in white terms exactly how martial ryuha were transmitted.

Don't know if this helps at all but...

Rennis Buchner

ghp
16th February 2001, 05:45
Hello Rennis,

Thank you very much for such an informative response. Lucky for us you are currently studying the iemoto system in school.

I can understand why the ruling government would want to keep the "warrior unions" unorganized (from a union standpoint). Keeping the tozama han weak (not allowing "unionization") and poor (sankin kotai) was a good way to ensure they couldn't launch an anti-governmental attack. Witness what happened when the rival Satsuma and Choshu han finally did forge a treaty.

Is this your theory as to why the iemoto system did not bleed over into the warrior class (keep them weak); or is this a commonly accepted idea? If it is your theory, it would make a good thesis paper.

Regards,
Guy

MarkF
16th February 2001, 11:34
Excuse me, but in another thread, and I think in another forum, Karl Friday said "soke" simply means "main family." The strange part of it to me, anyway, was that I had remembered it differently, as to mean "family man," yet when I did a search for it (I can't remember now where it is), it was main family, if that helps out at all.

Nathan Scott
16th February 2001, 19:10
Hi Rennis,

Thanks for confirming me notes. It's quite an interesting subject, but there seems to be virtually nothing on it in English.

Regards,

ghp
16th February 2001, 21:29
Hello Mark.

"Main family" is honke and sounds like "hone-kay." Robert and Rennis, currently living in Japan, might possibly give us a clearer understanding of this term.

Honke might equate to the main-branch of a ryu, indicating there are other followers -- adherents-- that are not associated by blood ("so-and-so-ha"). If the term honke can be applied to budo (I don't know), then we can presume the honke would be represented by the soke; and possibly, the branches could also have their own soke.

But this is just an idle guess -- I don't even know if honke can be appropriately applied to budo.

Regards,
Guy

maney
16th February 2001, 22:40
Originally posted by ghp

...snip...


G.Power - "I don't think Mr.McCartney considers himself..."
In my thirty years in the M/A, the past twenty dedicated to swordsmanship,...

I am not aware you had been studing iaido for 20 years. Wasn't your first teacher Mr. Obata (Toyama Ryu)?


... and ten of that as first an instructor of my own classes and later my own shool, I had refrained from any title other than chief instructor.

Very commentable.


Ok.... normally I'd let this slide, but since it can be read two different, and contrary, ways, I simply must ask. Guy, did you mean "commendable" (worthy of praise) or "commmentable" (sic, worthy of comment).

fpsm

ghp
16th February 2001, 23:20
Fredrich ,

Thanks for the "grammar check." Just to be clear, my comment should have been "very commendable" and it applied solely to the quote below (not the other quotes you listed):


... and ten of that as first an instructor of my own classes and later my own shool, I had refrained from any title other than chief instructor.

I think it was commendable that Mr. McCartney used the term "chief instructor."

Regards,
Guy

[edited to correctly spell Fredrich's name]

[Edited by ghp on 02-16-2001 at 05:25 PM]

Rennis
17th February 2001, 07:22
Hello Guy, Nathan and everyone else,

The theory I gave above isn't particularly original to me. Basically it is more of an arrangement of bits and pieces of info I've picked up along the way. As for it becoming a thesis paper of some sort, that actually may happen. My Japanese History Prof. is pushing me to do something on the transmission of martial ryuha as, as was said earlier, there isn't much in English on the topic of the transmission of cultural arts/the iemoto system in general, much less on martial ryuha. Cameron Hurst's (spelling?) book and an older article in JAMA are the only things out there that come to mind off hand regarding martial stuff, although I'm sure there are plenty of sources I am not aware of yet. Much like Nathan, my original interest in the topic came from looking into a specific ryu and having it grow from there. Anyways...

Best Regards,
Rennis Buchner

hyaku
17th February 2001, 07:22
I think what needs to be considered is not just the direct translation of the word Soke but the use of any Japanese title. There are deep religious and family ties involved here.

Since the war there has been a decline in considering the father and grandparents as patriachal. Nevertheless Buddhist concepts traditionally observe Hotoke sama. The godlike veneration of those departed and the fact that we should try to follow in the examples they set. Also the animism in Shinto venerates people (the emperor) and nature. Anyone becoming a member of a certain family through budo has deep obligations to it.

Although there are very few Budo Ryu that are part of a religious sect, a major part of any ryu is to observe certain religious functions. Certain representatives of ryu attend Shrines and some are offered the privileged to demonstrate. There are also demonstrations in front of the graves of the founders of their particular art.

Years ago many were religiously and sincerely involved to the point of actual ritual suicide to follow their master in death.

The use of the sword is also questionable due to the certain events that have taken place in wartime. We have to be careful what we say about it and how we put over our use of it.

I feel foriegners have an even greater responsibility in this. As they were the object of its mis-use they are in a position to bring respect back to it for the Japanese in showing that they too have respect for it as a weapon that is used a teaching tool and that they respect the titles that go along with it whether they be recent or old.

To use any Japanese title that has any particularly special meaning requires a deep understanding of the Japanese Culture, and very strong ties with its religion and connection to a particular Japanese family etc. Without this connection I really see no point in using it.

The most eminent heads of ryu I know (a lot) do not even put their titles on Meishi (name/business cards). Their name alone and the ryu are sufficient.

Hyakutake Colin


[Edited by hyaku on 02-17-2001 at 03:02 AM]

MarkF
17th February 2001, 11:18
Thanks, Guy,
As long as you weren't calling ME hon-ke (honky).:D

Here is what Dr. Friday had to say. I guessed correctly and got it on the first try:


"Soke" simply means "main family," and can be used in a wide range of contexts, including arts other than the bugei. In bugei usage, "soke" refers to the founder's house, or to the current heir to the ryuha's formal headship; "shihanke" refers to the designated head instructor, or to a lineage of such instructors. A few traditions, like Kashima-Shinryu, claim dual/parallel lineages stretching way way back; in others shihanke are named in some generations and not in others. Usually (but not always), a shihanke is designated because the titular head of the school is for one reason or another unable to serve as the principal instructor.

Because "soke" refers to the family lineage, as well as the current headmaster, it's possible for some of the names on the list of "soke" to predate the actual ryuha. It's really just a matter of emphasis and choice on the part of the school--emphasizing the family tradition vs. emphasis on a particularly famous "founder".

It's best not to get too hung up on terms of this sort, because (like a good bit of Japanese vocabulary) their usage isn't always consistent and their meanings can be fairly amorphous.

It's also best not to take things like the beginnings of particular ryuha too seriously, since any dates or individuals cited are ultimately fairly arbitrary. The designation of any individual as the founder of a system is really only partly a matter of invention and innovation on the part of the "founder"; it's also a matter of politics and hagiography.

Bugei training and bugei ryuha did not become heavily formalized until the Tokugawa period. Before that, training for most warriors was an ad hoc mixture of learning from dad and your buddies, picking up on experience and inspiration of your own, plus scattered episodes of more structured coaching, sometimes from famous teachers (kind of like the way kids today learn to play basketball).

Obviously the "founders" of the various ryuha learned from someone somewhere, and the people who taught *them* must have learned somewhere too. If you want to, you could therefore trace any "school" back as far as you want, which is exactly what some ryuha do, when they speak of origins in the Heian period and such. When historians assert that ryuha bugei began around the 15th century, they mean that that was the point at which enough of the conventions, practices and traditions we now associate with the phenomenon began to appear to justify identifying the start of something new. Obviously, though, at least *some* of the information that defined the "new" ryuha had to have been around before this period--in fact you can follow that regression all the way back to the cavemen.


__________________
Karl Friday
Dept. of History
University of Georgia
Athens, GA 30602



I wasn't doubting you at all in the Japanese department, so forgive me for republishing what Friday posted. There is another post by Prof. William Bodiford concerning soke so if you'll pardon me, I'll be back in a jiff.
******

Here it is:


The Japanese term *sôke* seems to generate a great deal of confusion, not just among people who lack Japanese-language skills but among Japanese people themselves. In different contexts the term acquires different meanings and connotations. For this reason, when writing about *sôke* in English (or, rather, when arguing about its meaning) it is useful to distinguish the ways that this word has been used in different historical, commercial, legal, and contemporary contexts. The expert on this subject is a Japanese scholar named Nishiyama Matsunosuke. A brief English-language summary of his research can be found in the translator's introduction, pages 4--5, to *Edo Culture: Daily Life and Diversions in Urban Japan, 1600--1868* (1997; translated by Gerald Groemer; Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press). Detailed explanation can be found in his Japanese-language works: (1) *Iemoto monogatari* (Iemoto stories, 1956; Tokyo: Sangyô Keizai Shinbunsha), (2) *Gendai no iemoto* (Contemporary Iemoto, 1962; Tokyo: Kobundô), (3) *Iemoto no kenkyû* (Researches in the Iemoto System, 1982; Tokyo: Yoshikawa Kôbunkan). This last book is the classic study in the field. All Japanese scholars who write about *sôke* begin with Nishiyama's 1982 study. Since classical times in Japan there always have existed families that exercised exclusive commercial control over the production and distribution of certain crafts and manufactured goods. In most cases those families maintained their monopolies through the protection and patronage of local nobles or the royal court. These families operated much like corporations with many branches and other affiliated groups operating together. Even if proper male progeny did not exist economics demanded that the main family line must always continue since the monopoly power rested with that family alone. If necessary, therefore, another male from one of the affiliated groups would be brought in and designated as heir to succeed to the head of the family. The heir, whether related by blood or adopted, was responsible for maintaining the unity of the corporate families, maintaining their commercial monopoly, and maintaining their good relations with their patrons. The main family itself, as a multi-generational entity, and the head of the family both were called *sôke*. In Chinese *sôke* (*zongjia*) originally referred to the main lineage within a clan that was responsible for maintaining the ancestral temple for the entire clan. In Japan, like China, *sôke* assume the filial duties of ancestor rites, but the term implied stronger commercial overtones than religious ones. During the Tokugawa period many types of artistic and cultural activities, not just commercial enterprises, came under the domination of familial guilds that exercised monopoly or near-monopoly power over the performance of those arts and endeavors. Actors in Noh or Kabuki theater, practitioners of tea ceremony or flower arranging, performers of musical instruments like *koto* or *shakuhachi*, and participants in many other popular pastimes could learn their crafts or skills only from instructors who had been licensed by one of a very limited number of these familial guilds. Because the familial guilds enjoyed monopolies, they earned money from every single person throughout the entire country who participated in their particular type of craft or art. Gerald Groemer (cited above) neatly summarizes the commercial powers of these familial guilds: *quote* 1. Rights regarding the art --- for example, the right to secrecy, the right to allow or prohibit performances, rights over the repertoire or the set forms (*kata*) of an art. 2. Rights concerning the teaching, transmission, and licensing of the art. 3. The right to expel or punish members of the school. 4. The right to dispose of costumes, ranks (pseudonyms), and the like. 5. The right to control equipment or properties used in the art. 6. Exclusive rights to the income resulting from the preceding five items. *end quote* Let me emphasize that the above rights all were possessed by just one or two or three familial guilds that enforced their rights throughout the entire kingdom. Nishiyama argues that from the mid-18th century on these guilds provided a government-regulated medium for the distribution of cultural knowledge that allowed people assigned to different levels of society (nobles, samurai, lower warriors, townsmen, merchants, wealthy farmers, rural warriors, etc.) to interact with one another on near-equal footing. Historians have labeled the social structures created by the familial guilds the *iemoto seido* (iemoto system). In Tokugawa-period texts the terms *iemoto* and *sôke* were used interchangeably. Both words could be used to refer to the main lineage within a guild or to refer to the person who is the current head of that lineage. After 1868 when Japan became organized as a modern state, the government formally recognized the legal rights of *iemoto* (a.k.a. *sôke*) to control the copyright of all musical scores, theatrical plays, textbooks, and artistic works produced by members of their guilds. In this way the terms *iemoto* and *sôke* acquired strict legal definitions. To maintain their copyrights guilds had to register with the government as legal entities. At the same time they lost the ability to enforce commercial monopolies over the teaching and practice of their crafts. Before 1868 martial arts never were controlled by an *iemoto* or *sôke* structure. This is the reason why there exists so many different schools (*ryûha*) of martial arts. Different styles and lineages proliferated because the ruling authorities never would allow any single martial entity to exercise monopoly control throughout the land. In every generation there always existed martial students who broke away to start their own schools with their own secret teachings and their own repertoire of kata. When they issued diplomas they did so by their own authority without paying license fees to any larger organization. In contrast to the wide diversity of martial schools, only a limited number of schools of Noh or Ikebana or Tea Ceremony (etc.) could exist because the monopoly power of the *sôke* prevented any rival schools from being created. In short, the ability to found new schools constitutes a repudiation of the *sôke* power. If there are new schools, then there is no *sôke*. If there is a *sôke*, then there are no new schools. Osano Jun argues that the first marital art in Japan to adopt a *sôke* system was the Kodokan School of judo (see his *Zusetsu Nihon bugei bunka gairon*; Illustrated Overview of Japanese Martial Art Culture, 1994; Tokyo: Fûyôsha). Osano could be right. The Kodokan set the standards not just for members within one training hall in one location but for all participants in judo throughout the nation. The Kodokan defined the art, it controlled licensing and instruction, and it established branch schools that maintain permanent affiliation with the headquarters. If the Kodokan does not recognize something as being "judo," then it is not judo. Therefore, there is no such thing as a new school of judo. All of these elements constitute essential characteristics of traditional *sôke* in Tokugawa-period Japan. In actual practice, however, no one ever refers to the Kodokan as the *sôke* of judo. The term seems out of place with judo's emphasis on modernity. After analyzing the term in this way Osano goes on to suggest that present-day use of the label *sôke* by practitioners of small koryu traditions not only is incorrect but reveals an ignorance of traditional Japanese culture. Osano's strict historical understanding probably is too strict. He overlooks the legal changes in the status of *sôke* that occurred after 1868. Nowadays no *iemoto* (a.k.a. *sôke*) can enforce monopoly control over the practice of their traditions. Anyone can teach tea or flower arranging or anything else whether they licensed by one of the traditional schools or not. In this open environment, the traditional schools distinguish themselves from up-start rivals by pointing out that they constitute the direct heirs to a long familial history (whether fictional or real). *Iemoto* or *sôke* simply happen to be the usual terms for designating the main lineage in which a craft or art has been handed down. Therefore these words have become a part of common usage when discussing families who traditionally have possessed a proprietary knowledge of a craft or art. This social or popular use of these terms denotes a historical past, not a present-day commercial or legal monopoly. Consider, for example, the case of Kashima-Shinryu. In his books and articles the current head of Kashima-Shinryu, Seki Humitake, uses the label *sôke* as a designation for the Kunii family. He uses this term as a way of honoring the role the Kunii family played in preserving Kashima-Shinryu traditions. Down to the time of Seki's teacher, Kunii Zen'ya (1894--1966), Kashima-Shinryu had for a long time been passed down from father to son from one generation of the Kunii family to the next. The modern use of the label *sôke* simply acknowledges that legacy. In the writings of Kunii Zen'ya and in the scrolls preserved within the Kunii family, however, the word *sôke* cannot be found. Kunii Zen'ya never referred to himself or to his family as the as the *sôke* of Kashima-Shinryu. He simply signed his name. In writing out copies of the old scrolls (these copies would be handed out as diplomas), though, he usually would add the words "Kunii-ke sôden" before the title of the scroll. For example, if he copied an old scroll titled "kenjutsu mokuroku" he give it the title "Kunii-ke soden kenjutsu mokuroku." In this example, the original title simply means "kenjutsu curriculum" while the longer version means "the 'kenjutsu curriculum' transmitted within the Kunii family." Used in this sense of "transmitted within a family" the term *sôke* seems perfectly reasonable. Of course it is not meant to imply the existence of some kind of commercial monopoly. Now, I would be the last one to condone the use of obscure Japanese terminology to describe American social practices for which perfectly acceptable English words already exist. I cannot imagine how any non-Japanese could call himself a "soke" except as a joke. At the same time I must say that I cannot regard this term with any special reverence either. During the Tokugawa-period *sôke* designated a commercial system of hereditary privilege that took advantage of the ignorance of ordinary people for financial gain. Perhaps teachers of commercial martial art schools in America who adopt the title "soke" for themselves are more historically accurate in their usage than they themselves realize. __________________

William Bodiford Associate Professor Department of East Asian Languages UCLA


I saved these posts for purposes such as this when it comes up. Since I don't know squat about Japanese, I'm not trying to imply anything, rather, more as a discussion on what these two say on the subject.

(I'm sure Prof. Bodiford loves having his words strewn all over the floor like this).:)

Respectfully,

ghp
20th February 2001, 16:51
Mark,

Thanks for giving me those two expert sources. I've copied and saved them to file.

Great work!

--Guy

Gordon Smith
22nd February 2001, 14:23
Closing this off since we're no longer on topic. Start a new one on the meaning of soke if you wish.