PDA

View Full Version : classical/traditional



mawriz
30th December 2001, 09:34
can anyone explain me the difference between classical and traditional jujitsu? is one more effective than the other? can one concider any of them as sport or neither of them should be concidered as sport.(i'm new to martial arts) thankyou.

maurizio scicluna

Neil Hawkins
31st December 2001, 09:22
Hmm, hard question. To me it's a question of semantics, they can be the same thing, but I consider there to be a slight difference. Although I would not consider either to be a sport.

Classical (IMO) relates to a school that has remained unchanged, i.e. it is a true Koryu. Traditional (again IMO) is a school that holds the principles of its Koryu foundations but has continued to evolve.

This will probably start some debate, so I'd better elaborate whilst I can. :)

I do not consider a modern system that trains in Traditional ways to be 'Traditional'. The school must have unbroken links to its Koryu heritage, but for a variety of reasons it has continued to develop its style to add new techniques or modify techniques to fit modern attacks.

For example some schools (such as Tsutsumi Hozan and Shin no Shindo) have added pistol disarms, handcuffing techniques and police baton techniques. These techniques are developed from older techniques for knife disarms, tying with cord and short stick, but have been adapted to suit the modern application. The underlying principles of unbalancing and physiology are still there and most people will see the resemblance between the Traditional technique and the adaptation.

I still believe that the school should be able to identify the 'Traditional' techniques from the new ones and still teach them. Often the newer (street effective) techniques are taught first, whilst the older (but no less practical) techniques are reserved for senior students. This means that sometimes students don't hang around long enough to see the 'Traditional' side to the art and can be confused about origins.

Anyway that is my take on the difference, what do the rest of you think?

Regards

Neil

mawriz
2nd January 2002, 11:30
thank you mr. Hawkins,
does anyone knows at which time does jujitsu can be called classical?...during the time of samurai (14th-19th century) or before this warrior class?...as samurai developed Heiho ( Martial Strategy ) systems during the proliferation of warfare, Sengoku Jidai ( Period of Nations at War ) from 15th century to early 17th century Japan.

maurizio scicluna

fifthchamber
2nd January 2002, 16:27
Hello,
I am not sure about your question so forgive me if the answer is not what you wanted..
'Classical Jujutsu' (I guess) would be anything pre Meiji era..This (as Neil has pointed out) is what is considered to be the 'Koryu' period..Although it is really not that simple Neil has done a good job of trying to explain it above..
Koryu would be what I considered to be 'Classical' forms..The oldest proven/extant ryu being the Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto Ryu..Formed in the mid 15th century (...What he said!...Thanks Dan!!)..There were very probably schools of Heiho that existed previous to this...but they are no longer around and as such cannot be proven.
After the Meiji restoration the Budo became 'Gendai' arts or 'Modern' forms of training. These include Karate, Judo, Aikido etc.
A good site for introductions to the Ryu that are considered 'Koryu' or 'Classical' is at www.koryu.com
They have a 'basic' startup list and further information on some of the better known Koryu arts..And would recommend the site to anyone who wanted to know more about these arts.
Hope I helped answer your question.
Abayo.

Dan Harden
2nd January 2002, 22:38
Hi Ben

I think the date given for the founding of the TSKSR is the FIFTEENTH century
1447 to be more exact by Iizasa Chiosai Ienao




Maurizio

I don't think "effectiveness" is an issue relating to the study of a koryu. Just like modern arts-they are not all "one thing."
Some modern arts or artists,will probably be more effective and more to your liking. Further, not all masters of any art, of any age, may be able to handle themselves in a modern environment. The Koryu are not a panacea to the dilemas faced by those desiring a quick defense system........but then, nothing else is either. Sadly some play on that hype and the current (and hopefully temporary) interest in it. Thankfully more and more are seeing the balanced truth of it all.
In the fullness of time the various NHB tournament thingy's brought nothing lasting to those of us who were already in jujutsu. Those inclined, found their way in and out same as allways. So it will be with the new Budo tourists looking at Koryu. Ultimately their own shallowness will not be able to glean anything of depth and value-and they will leave too. Hopefully a few good men will pick up a weapon or look at their own hands and have enough depth in themselves to undertake a detailed study.

I mostly agree with Niel's take on a definition- though I consider both terms more or less interchangable. I don't always practice my jujutsu in its strictly classical form so I don't know what the hell to call it.

As for dating it. It seems somewhat consistent among those in the know (historians and researches) to consider the Meiji restoration (1868) the end of an era per se. It was a cultural shift. It more or less signalled the end or abolishment of what was left of the "established" warrior class of Japan. You will have to do some independent reading to get a better understanding of it all.
At any rate it seems as good a date as any to set up a "new" begining for many things Japanese.
Anyway, its all good, if you get the chance go see them or better yet try it. My guess is you'll like it.

Regards

Dan