The Budokai forum closed up, and the mudslinging, name calling, and nay saing seems to be back on e-budo. Specifically, I noticed the return of legitimacy and history as topics for discussion. You know, people bashing Fred Lovret and company.
I am not a student of Lovret or his styles of martial arts, but I have had the opportunity on three separate occasions to take classes at one of his student's dojo, including a seminar taught by Lovret. I found their technique to be less effective than some, but more effective than most. I have also found them to be among the nicest, most sincere praticioners of martial arts I've met.
What strikes me, though, that claims made by Lovert's two schools seem very believable in comparision to those made by the founders and headmasters of many "legitimate" koryu. For example, many ryuha claim divine transmission of principles and techniques from well known warrior kami. Many claim being taught their techniques by tengu. Others claim direct decendency from pre Heian period royalty.
But, you say, we don't actual believe such things today, and have reasonable hypotheses about the truth of such things. Yeah, sure. Ask your average aikidoka about the history of Daito Ryu. What about people living 400 years ago? Many probably took such stories at face value. So even if Lovret and his students are lying about the history of their ryu, they are being at least as honest as the founders and headmasters of many legitimate ryuha.
But, you say, Lovret's technique is bad, and it's not koryu. Have you seen Lovret's technique? Have you studied it? And not just at a one day seminar, but for a few year. How many other koryu have you studied to which to compare it? My guess is that Lovret's ryuha are more effective than some systems, and less effective than others. They are probably share similarities with some styles, but are different in other ways. In other words, Lovret's ryuha are unique, just as with all other ryuha.
But, you say, his concepts on strategy, bushi philosophy and warrior lifestyle are completely wrong. Oh yeah, unlike the myriad of modern and Tokugawa martial artists who are published. Hagakure is venerated by the countless unwashed masses. Have you read it? What a poorely written, internally inconsistant, non-sensical piece of crapola. Even Draeger, whose word has been viewed as law for decades, is considered less than completely correct by many, including those who knew him and studied with him. And he was in the thick of it.
Have you read most modern publications on martial arts? I've read Lovret's "Way and the Power" and to be honest, I think it stacks up very well. I can't vouch for its accuracy, my PH.D. is in engineering and not Asian studies or cultural anthropology, but it is internally consistant and logical.
For those of you who wish to start blasting another's martial art tradition, think about your own. What questionable claims does your own martial art push forward? Even the well known martial arts of Judo, Aikido, and Karatedo have their questionable claims. And that doesn't even include the numerous times many of us have streached a story just a little bit, over dinner, to make it tell better. In 20 years, these stories will be gospel as told by your own students, but embellished two fold with every retelling. So next time you want to blast another style, spare the rest of us, and don't.
My purpose of writting this is not to make disparaging comments about anyone (except maybe the auther of Hagakure, but that was a side effect, not the purpose). I personally have a lot of respect for Draeger, the Skosses and others who have provided us in the west with such a wealth of information. My purpose is to ask those who make disparaging comments about others, to take stock of their own traditions first, and spare the rest of the world from their enlightened and superior wisdom.
Michael D. Heiler