Likes Likes:  0
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 77

Thread: Innovation

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Essex UK
    Posts
    17
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default Innovation

    I have been a member of this group for some time and only recently started posting.

    First of all let me say how impressed I've been by the general quality of debate on this forum. Although I have not read through the whole back catalogue of threads I find myself pleasantly surprised by the high quality of discussion and vast wealth of knowledge out there.

    If I might be so bold as to present a question:
    This comes mainly out of reading the past threads, as well as the results of my solitary foray into a particular line of discussion that I felt relevant to my own experience.

    I am curious as to how you people resolve in your own minds the apparent contradictions of martial arts innovators within traditional disciplines, in this case, namely Karate, and the preservation of those same traditions?

    I ask this because my reading of some of the past threads detects an ultra-conservative standpoint from prominent members of the forum - which I entirely understand. I.e. If you belong to a tradition that has deep roots and take the posture of a conservator (some may say curator) of that tradition you will fight tooth and nail to preserve it intact. A dilution or contamination of that system may put it under threat of extinction.

    But what of the innovators, those who combine disciplines to take the root art(s) in a new direction. Within Japan in the early 20th century martial arts history is littered with such individuals. But where do the likes of Funakoshi, Konishi, Ohtsuka and to some extent Mabuni fit into this picture? Are they dismissed as aberrations and products of their time (political and social) and therefore of little value?

    I note with interest dismissive comments about how some of these above mentioned individuals did this "disservice" or that "betrayal" to the brand name of Karate. Yes, I've heard it all before, read the book, "Japanese militarisation, blah, blah" etc. But does that mean that the products of those systems are somehow dismissed as inferior, a shadow of some earlier incarnation that was somehow pure and untainted by history?

    Reach far enough back into the past and the innovators are there - and their critics: - (see Motobu's critical remarks about the ability of Itosu!) What's lost in history is lost in history, and there is a certain point which we will never be able to look back beyond. Is it possible that perhaps there is a dream of some kind of Okinawan Golden Age (I think Harry Cook wrote a letter about this same "Golden Age" in an edition of Fighting Arts International.)

    So I was just wondering, does innovation have a place among traditionalists?
    And also, how does one preserve a system untainted - indeed, should we set preservation orders upon certain schools, as is perhaps the case with the Katori Shinto Ryu school of swordsmanship?

    Apologies if this ground has been gone over before and, if this is the case, perhaps you could direct me to the past thread.

    Why do I get the feeling that this thread will be short lived, or killed off by overzealous, (but well intentioned) moderation like the last thread I was involved in was (See, “Wado Ryu?”).

    Tim Shaw

  2. #2
    Gene Williams Guest

    Default

    Wow, Tim, you sure ask a lot of questions I have actually thought of beginning a thread like this but decided I did not want to go through with getting embroiled in the discussion that would follow. Oh, well, let the good times roll! I have trained in Motobu-ha Shito-ryu for about 28 years now, I began in Shorin-ryu in college. I have been teaching since 1980, hold the rank of sixth dan and am a shihan in our organization. So, there is my pedigree as a basis to say anything. I always begin with kata, because they are the identifying mark of all traditional ryu. I believe they are the most important part of training ( including their applications and partner work), and should be maintained and performed as they have been passed down. Now, I realize that we can never know exactly how some of the kata were done by the originator, or what bunkai he actually intended for some of the moves. However, the major kata of most Okinawan/Japanese ryu are recognizably the same kata. Even Shotokan kata are recognizable to an Okinawan student (wow, those look like the Pinan, why did they give them a funny name and leave so much out? ). This brings us to innovation, whose name is Funakoshi Just kidding, he wasn't the only one.
    In my opinion, Funakoshi changed the Okinawan kata the most in order to please the Japanese. As much as he is criticised by Okinawans (and I don't really care for the JKA way of doing the kata, but Shotokan is a fine, traditional ryu), he did not erase the identity of the kata, he maintained the general spirit of the kata, and he made his changes, I believe, with integrity. You mention Mabuni, dear to my heart since I am Shito-ryu. His innovation was primarily to combine Naha and Shuri kata into one syllabus. He also developed some kata of his own, in a very traditional format. I would argue that Funakoshi, Mabuni, and others of that era were the last of the karate apostles, by the way. They were still close enough to the time when there were actually challenges and fights among the old guys, and still close enough to the direct line of descent of the kata from China and to some of the original bushi who brought them back. I know this is very arguable to some, but we need a basis from which to start.
    So, I see the orthodox kata as the Canon of karate, sort of like the Apostle's Creed and the Lord's prayer. They remind us from whence we came, who we are, and hopefully where we are going. I don't like to see them messed with. I don't like to see gratuitous changes because some modern karate ka thinks he knows better. Some things should remain the same. We don't change Shakespeare, we don't change Dickens, and we don't change the Creeds. I also do not believe in modern made up kata. What is the point with all we already have? These take a life time to master and are closer to the soul of the art...they are the soul of the art.
    Now, as for innovation in bunkai, no problem as long as it is true to the moves and spirit of the kata. Sometimes a block isn't a block, and certain moves can be done on the ground, might have been designed for that. Some kata can be interpreted as against multiple opponents. That's enough for now. You have really opened a can of worms! Why am I getting into this messy stuff?
    So, there is an opinion from a hard core traditionalist. Now, Tim, go stand in deep shiko dachi for fifteen minutes somewhere for disturbing my equilibrium Gene

  3. #3
    Bustillo, A. Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Gene Williams
    We don't change Shakespeare, we don't change Dickens, and we don't change the Creeds. I also do not believe in modern made up kata. What is the point with all we already have? These take a life time to master and are closer to the soul of the art...they are the soul of the art.
    Gene
    Based on that analogy. No, we don't rewrite classics. Yet modern writers come up with new masterpieces.
    Works by Hemingway, James Joyce, Herman Hesse, among others.
    So, there is room for modern forms and they should have a place too.

    In a previous post, you mentioned something about you didn't think much of 'forms made -up in some backyard.'

    Where do you think the traditional katas were devised?
    Last I heard... not on Mt Olympus.
    Last edited by Bustillo, A.; 18th March 2003 at 17:17.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Essex UK
    Posts
    17
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default Innovation

    Gene,
    Thank you for that.
    As newbie to this forum perhaps I've rushed in where angels fear to tread.

    I can see what you’re saying; that there’s a demarcation line that cuts off at probably round about 1930, albeit a blurred line. And that you base the demarcation on the distance that those individuals are able to reach back into, as well as their experience of the ancient traditions.

    You also seem to be suggesting that it is the essence, not the exact content of what is being taught/passed on that counts, or have I got that wrong?

    I’m not so sure that your comments, “They were still close enough to the time when there were actually challenges and fights among the old guys,” wouldn’t cause some controversy. I have a memory of someone arguing that Okinawa in those days was actually quite a peaceful environment, but that’s all relative.

    So, it appears that it is important to the conservative element to actually draw the line somewhere, not just at the historically relevant period where traditional martial arts stops, but also where it starts. And the latter being dictated by the necessity imposed by the limitations of living memory or recorded memory. (I can't help wondering at this stage what the hard line conservatives think about "rediscovered" aspects, principles, techniques that seem to be popping up all over the place, but perhaps that's a subject for another thread.) I'll brace myself for more Shikodachi

    Tim Shaw

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,861
    Likes (received)
    89

    Default

    Besides the nomenclature changes what were the changes that Funakoshi made to his Karate to make it more favorable to the Japanese people?
    Ed Boyd

  6. #6
    Gene Williams Guest

    Default

    Hi All, Damn it, here we go To Mr. Bustillo: I still don't think much of the kata I see that have been made up by today's so called "masters." Neither do I place Hemingway, Hesse, Joyce, et al in the same class with Shakespeare and Dickens (hey, I was an English major). I think a line does have to be drawn somewhere; it is difficult to draw, I will admit, but there are characteristics of the old, classical kata that I think are definable and recognizable. I believe it has to do with the culture in which the kata were developed, call it cultural archetypes, a way of thinking that was qualitatively different, centuries of Chinese/Okinawan cultural exchange codified in the kata, or a combination of all that and more.
    Ed, Nagamine's book, "Tales of Okinawa's Great Masters", gives a pretty good account of some of the things Funakoshi did and changed that the Okinawans felt were misrepresentative of Okinawan karate. Morio Higaonna and I had a discussion about this at seminar once, and Kuniba used to talk about this some. Kokutsu dachi JKA fashion: totally uncharacteristic of Okinawan karate, probably adopted because it was used a lot in Japanese kenjutsu ,and therefore more pleasing to the Japanese eye; shuto uke, changed so that the wrist, fingers, and hand are in line. It is pretty, but won't block anything; diminished use of sanchin, creating hangetsu dachi, the whole one punch, one kill mentality is a sword philosophy. There are many other subtle changes and some not so subtle. Now, that isn't really the issue here, because I count Funakoshi as one of the classicists in karate, it is just that Shotokan is very different from the Okinawan styles. Hell, just doing the Pinan after doing JKA Heian was an entirely different feel and spirit. Those things are significant. Dammit, Ed, aren't you Goju, why are you messing up my day
    Tim, you have to be careful when you say it is the "essence and not so much the content" of kata, because essence is vague and modern wannabee's will take that and make up kata with flips in them I don't think the Okinawans separated essence and content so much. That is Western philosophy. I do think that each kata has a certain spirit in how the moves are done, the breathing, rhythm, etc. that gets passed down when the kata is taught and which continues to develop along the same line as the practitioner gains years in the art. Enough for now. Let's see what this drags out. Gene

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,861
    Likes (received)
    89

    Default

    Thanks, Mr. Williams.

    If you ever get a chance look at old printings of Funakoshi's books that still has the original pictures. A friend of mine has them. His karate looks a lot more Okinawian than the pictures that were put in the books after the reign of Nakayama. I assumed most of the changes that occurred were due to the university karate movement and the desire of the young karate guys to be able to have competitions like the judo and kendo guys had. The karate of the JKA doesn't look like the karate of Funakoshi but that doesn't mean he didn't change things. I am just a Goju guy I don't know anything about that stuff.
    Ed Boyd

  8. #8
    hector gomez Guest

    Default Just a thought !!!!

    Ed,

    I like the way that sounds The Nakayama reign"but you are correct in that this little part of karate history changed the course of karate at large, especially when the university guys wanted to make karate into a sport similar to judo and kendo.


    Here is a thought I have had for a long time and although I would be the first to admit that I don't know all the exact dates and details of most all okinawan & jappanese karate history.I believe this is the time frame catergorized by Ed above as the nakayama reign era, it is here were the old okinawan karate methods were lost(something that is argued on here constantly)were they really lost?or not taught to the jappaneese?or did the jappaneese simply want to improve upon the art and add their own flavor to karate?


    Remember the lost bunkai(that mostly involves grappling&striking vital areas) that most okinawan stylist constantly complain about the jappaneese karate practicioners not knowing?

    Well my friends it's hard to imagin okinawan practicioners having a better grappling application method than the pro judo nation of japan especially after the turn of the century,could it be that the jappaneese with their very proven grappling history & methods for grappling wanted to bypass some of these so called grappling applications and make karate more streamlined,direct and to the point?

    I am not totally convinced that the only reason karate changed it's
    focus in it's kata was simply because it was put into the schools system and cleaned up for everyone to practice in a safer way.

    Could the mostly pro japaneese judo nation of japan of which they had a lot of vast experience in things like grappling not totally believe in all of the okinawan karate applications and interpretations?


    I really believe they took it and said this will work and this will never work.with this we ended up with jappaneese shotokan karate I am not here claiming it's better or not,just stating what might have happened.I really find it hard to believe that they were completely unaware of certain bunkai apps or interpretations in transforming the okinawan karate system into jappaneese karate system that we all know.


    let the ripping begin and by the way it must always continue to change and evolve for the sake of tradition.

    Hector Gomez
    Last edited by hector gomez; 18th March 2003 at 23:05.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,861
    Likes (received)
    89

    Default

    Weren't most the Okinawian Meijin innovators and changers? The one exception may have been Uechi. I don't know anything about Uechi Ryu except what my Goju Ryu teacher who holds a 4th dan in Uechi showed me. Very cool stuff.

    Do the Okinawians in general currently seem to be more inclined to change their arts than their Japanese counterparts? One of my Kendo teachers is found of a saying 'In Japan the nail that sticks up get hammered down.' Which he relates to how the environment is very pro-conformity.

    Goju Ryu seems to have continually changed until Miyagi's death. Shodokan Goju Ryu from Higa Seiko is very interesting because Higa left Okinawa in 1937 to take a job on Saipan. He returned to Okinawa but never studied directly under Miyagi after his return. The kata from Shodokan have a interesting flavor. Jundokan according to Miyazato Sensei was supposed to represent what Miyagi Sendai was teaching as Goju Ryu at the time of his death. When I look at the kata from Goju Kai I personally see more in common with older Okinawian Goju froms than I do with the Jundo kan forms. I believe the reason for this is that the core of Nippon Goju Ryu came from Pre-War Goju Ryu. This maybe changing because I have been told that members of major Japanese Goju organizations have been training with Meibukan and Jundokan teachers.

    The kata was never the major difference between Japanese and Okinawian karate anyway, IMO. I think it was the training methods in general that are big the difference. Okinawian teachers teach more Sanchin Japanese teachers use a lot more calenthstenics. Okinawian teachers make more use of Hojo Undo using various training implements. Japanese teachers use a lot more Calenstenics.

    A guy I know was telling me a funny story about when he was training on Okinawa during the time he lived there. He was the only Gaijin in the dojo and he noticed that his Sensei didn't teach him the same karate that was being taught to everyone else and it bothered him. He felt maybe he was being short changed since he was a Gaijin, not being taught the real stuff. He finally questioned his sensei on it. His teacher told him that yes you very big. You must learn big man karate. Okinawian teachers I am familiar with do not teach cookie cutter karate.

    I don't know but adaptation and innovation seem very Okinawian to me. ( to a certain point.) The idea of not changing anything seems more in line with the mindset of the 4 major Japanese Karate systems, Shotokan, Wado Ryu, Shito Ryu and Nippon Goju Ryu then the okinawian teachers I have met.

    Doesn't a lot of it revolve around the reason for studying the particular art. I mean if you study a 450 year old sword art you are not going to change anything because your art is a living antique. I don't think Okinawian karate was meant to be an antique but then again what isn't broke doesn't need to be fixed.


    Number one thing not to say at gasshuku even though it is probably true: "But thats not the way you taught it last year Sensei".
    Ed Boyd

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    haltwhistle, Northumberland, England
    Posts
    323
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    I think, somewhat paradoxically, that innovation is the lifeblood of traditional karate. If early instructors such as Sakugawa, Matsumura etc hadn't revised, adapted, and modified what they learned then Shorin Ryu as it exists today would not exist. Instead there might be a form of Shaolin similar to the methods found in mainland China. The same is true of Goju Ryu and Uechi Ryu. I Miyagi or Uechi hadn't revised, modified etc the systems they learned then Goju Ryu and Uechi Ryu would not exist and people would be training in Tiger or Crane boxing.
    Choshin Chibana is reputed to have said "Karate as it is transmitted, changes every few years...It happens because a teacher must continue to learn and adds his personality to the teachings. There is an old Okinawan martial arts saying that states that karate is much like a pond. In order for the pond to live, it must have fresh water. It must have streams that feed the pond and replenish it. If this is not done then the pond becomes stagnant and dies. If the martial arts teacher does not receive an infusion of new ideas/methods, then he too dies. He stagnates and, through boredom, dies of unnatural causes."
    It is interesting to note that while Okinawan karateka may deprecate Japanese systems, Chinese boxers often look down on Okinawan methods; Robert W. Smith in his Chinese Boxing Masters and Methods (1974) refers to han Ching-T'ang who said that "Most karate started from spillage from Fukien province. It is in no sense profound..." p62. However there are those who do not rate Chinese methods. I was teaching in India a couple of years ago and I met a master of Kalari; his students put on a demonstration for us and I thought they were really good. I asked him what he thought of the Chinese systems he had seen, and he said that he thought they had missed the point - good for exercise but not real fighting!! I thought to myself that this all sounds depressingly familiar.
    Yours,
    Harry Cook

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Posts
    1,861
    Likes (received)
    89

    Default Re: Just a thought !!!!

    Originally posted by hector gomez
    Ed,

    ...
    it is here were the old okinawan karate methods were lost(something that is argued on here constantly)were they really lost?or not taught to the jappaneese?or did the jappaneese simply want to improve upon the art and add their own flavor to karate?
    ....

    Hector Gomez
    High ranking teachers from Japanese Goju traditions have sought instruction from Meibukan and Jundokan teachers in order to acquire what they lost and/or never had.
    Ed Boyd

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    968
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default What are we studying?

    You know a lot of this really depends on the individuals reason for studying the martial arts. To say that "newer" forms take away from the art is nonsense. If you are studying the arts from a historical perspective, with an added benefit of learning to defend yourself against a common ordinary thug, the non changing approach is best. There is no need for change.

    If you are trying, however, to stay on top of the art of "combat", then I believe your approach would have to include change. Let me say that many "traditionalists" may keep the kata and other training methods the same, but not one spends two hours a day hitting the makiwara, for example. So much for keeping things "unchainged". If you leave any part of what the old ones did, you have then altered the training.

    The Okinawans changed their art to fit their needs, just as if the need were here today, and these "challenge" matches were being held today, with all the innovations available today you can believe they would be doing it differently. To say that after seventy or eighty years gone by that no one has the same enginuity that the old ones had is rediculous.

    As Ed brought up, Goju had undergone many changes, you can see the difference in the way kata are performed from one sect to another. Uechi was unchanged in that way, but forms were added by Kanei Uechi if my memory serves me correct. It is only today where we find ouselves not wanting to change anything. What of Mas Oyama's contribution to Karate? What about the movement he started and all the fine offshoots that have come. They may not look as pretty as some classical ryu, but the can sure open the can of whoop'em.
    Manny Salazar
    Submisson Sabaki

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    968
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default Very well said

    Harry, very well said.
    Manny Salazar
    Submisson Sabaki

  14. #14
    Gene Williams Guest

    Default

    Hi, Funakoshi's book, which I have, was written not long after he went to Japan. The pictures do appear to be more Okinawan than not, but Funakoshi was in Japan a long time and I'm sure the changes didn't happen all at once. Whether they were due more to Nakayama and the universities doesn't matter. The art was changed significantly. The point about the difference in training is well taken. My first intructor was Shorin-ryu from Southern Japan. Classes were kata and partner work, very little up and down the floor, very few calisthenics other than stretching.
    When I trained in Wado for a few years when I did not have a Shorin or Shito-ryu school, it was all up and down the floor and repetitive group kata.
    It is significant to me that all the major Okinawan and Japanese ryu do the same kata. Even though there are differences of stance, technique, and spirit of the kata, they are recognizably the same. There seems to have been very little inclination on the part of folks like Nakayama, Funakoshi, Motobu,
    Hayashi, Higaonna, Kuniba, Shimabuku, Otsuka, Kyan, Soken and a host of others to make up new kata. Mabuni did develop a few of his own, but he never promoted them above the classical ones. Oyama developed a couple of his own, but his primary kata are basically Shotokan. There is, I believe, a good reason for that. The classical kata provide us with a norm and a common language, if you will. When I visit a Goju school and see someone doing Seipei, I know that kata. I can see some differences in the spirit of the kata (characteristic of the style), maybe an angle or two are different, but it is Seipei...the same one I do. If I go to a Shorin school, I recognize Bassai Dai, Gojushiho, the Pinan. I can tell from the way the person does the kata how well he understands it and whether he has been doing it a long time or just a few years My class sometimes meets to train with a local Shorin-ryu school. We line up and do the same kata together, each student doing the kata their style's way. But they are the same kata. We have plenty to talk about and notes to compare. We speak the same language. When I go down to the local master of the Hunky-Dunky-ryu, I don't have anything to compare with what they do. There is no history, no common language, not to mention the fact that most of what I have seen in this vein is just awful or at best mediocre (and I have seen a lot of it all over the country). I have attended seminars given by the goju guys with Morio Higaonna. We do the same kata, except they don't do the Shuri stuff. Higaonna looked at my Seiuchin and said, smiling, "Shito-ryu, yes." Then taught me to do it his way. That's gold, folks. Where will you find that with the Hunky Dunky ryu? Chuzo Kotaka, when he split with Seishin Kai, developed a bunch of his own kata ( and he is probably one of the most qualified to do that). We learned some of them from him and his students, but not one of us does them anymore. They just didn't ring true when compared to the classics. So, innovation is dangerous because once it starts, where does it end. Oh, and you can argue that there are modern "masters" who can develop kata that are on par with the classics, but I have yet to meet one, and I have met a lot. Learning doesn't stop; new techniques continue to come out of the kata, etc., but the kata itself should keep its integrity and history. I'm tired. Tomorrow let's talk about the purpose of kata and what 's supposed to happen when you study them. Goodnight. Gene

  15. #15
    Machimura Guest

    Default I will be cool...

    First off I will try to use some decorum. This thread will not be locked down, hahaha! OK of course Kyoshi Cook is 100% correct as always, and he's a Shotokan guy (and Goju). Hemingway and Steinbeck were NOWHERE near equal to Homer, Shakespeare or Dickens. Not even close. In the same breath I can also honestly say that the students of Miyagi and Matsumura were nowhere near as good as their teachers. Some were better than others, but with the exception of Hohan Soken all wanted their karate to become Japanized. That was their way of making sure their precepts and interpretations were passed on. It also gave them some money and fame. Nothing wrong with that.

    The problem some folks have, even the "sell-outs", which include most modern Ryu, Okinawan or Japanese, with the 100% sport interpretation of karate is the fact that a finely crafted chest of gold now has very few treasures left in it. You have a pretty container, but it is quite barren. Everything is pretty much standardized and when things become staus quo they no longer have a soul (or their own spirit).

    Hohan Soken always said that it was good to learn from other styles and teachers. He also said that his karate and the karate he remembers as a kid had its own flavor of grappling. Some call it Okinawan Sumo. It is more like jiujitsu than sumo, but without the gi. No gi JJ. So to say that Judo, sport JJ, is somehow superior to a more combat oriented Okinawan grappling form is just showing naivete'. There are things some of us don't know. Soken said severe dislocations and broken bones were common events in these Ti games. If you could learn from a system that teaches you these "lost" things, then why do Judo or wrestling? Ivan Gomes, a great fighter in the Gracie camp back in the day, eventually became a Japanese pro wrestler with the help of Inoki, and furthered his grappling skills by studying Judo at the Kodokan and Okinawan Sumo on Okinawa. When he returned to the mainland he was undefeated for 80+ matches, and this was real not WWE stuff.

    Althouhg he first trained at the Kodokan, what he learned on Okinawa was interesting enough for him to stay there and train. You have to understand that the new and improved sometimes ain't. If knowledge is lost or misinterpreted it is up to someone to "find" or "reformulate" it. This means not only the lost grappling techs in kata and karate in general, but also the invention of new kata. At a certain level the Shihan is required to atart thinking about his art from his perspective. Okinawan training is not rigid. Every student is taught similar principles based on their individuality. Also, a 7th or 8th Dan Sensei can create his own kata. Chibana did it, Ashihara did it and so did Shuguro Nakazato. If you are a "Master" and have mastered the styles core kata then why shouldn't you be able to contribute to your lineage? Think about it.

    Harry gave you a sample of the thinking of the Okinawans. They never believed that their karate was a stagnant thing. They understood that change was essential for "aliveness" and it has changed a lot. The foundation is usually easy to see, but revised too much a Van Gogh becomes a Van (hell)-No! Judo found this out when Judoka tested their world class skill against a real fighter from a real style like Royce Gracie. The Japanese don't care about efficacy or preserving the Okinawan or Chinese flavor of something. They are Social Darwinists like us and that's self-explanatory. $$$$$$!!!!

    Bryan Cyr

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. another innovation for women
    By boat_rocker in forum Member's Lounge
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 25th January 2006, 02:45
  2. Latest Nokia innovation
    By TimoS in forum Budo Fun
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 18th November 2003, 13:13
  3. Military Innovation
    By CKohalyk in forum Koryu: History and Tradition
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 7th March 2002, 00:37

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •