Likes Likes:  0
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 76

Thread: Origin of Iai arts

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Posts
    157
    Likes (received)
    0

    Talking Soorry for my interruption.

    I know this question is not somewhat related to seiza, is Iaigoshi a battle ready position or it is just somehow near that idea of seiza waza?

    i might open a thread on this.

    I heard that some samurai or bushi could fight from standind to iaigoshi to standaing again and so on. I do not know if it is true or not. It will be great to know on this since some koryu school use this stance as a primarily basic stance. (like some use seiza as their basic).
    Pablo Rosado.
    Dojo drop-out
    practicing with my shadow nowdays



  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Palo Alto, Ca, USA
    Posts
    1,324
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Go to the following link for a discussion of the original MJER curriculum:

    http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/show...t=Earl+Hartman

    In any case, it iseems clear that except for the solo iai component, none of the other components are still practiced in their entirety. The tachiuchi no kurai is only one part of the repertoire of paired forms. AFAIK (and Guy Power and Peter Boylan could probably help here) Nakayama Hakudo learned some of the paired forms; I believe there is a book on Muso Shinden Ryu (the Shimomura-ha of MJER as popularized by Nakayama Hakudo) that contains photos of some of the paired forms.

    As far as I can tell from my teacher's book, the bojutsu, yawara, and torinawa stuff was already gone when he was quite young, and he died at age 72 almost 30 years ago. His senior deshi, Noda Sensei, still teaches in Shikoku and his students practice some of the seated paired forms, although not the standing ones (tachiuchi no kurai). If Noda Sensei's group, the MSR people featured in the book I saw, and the Jikishinkai people got together, they could probably piece together a large part of the paired forms curriculum. But I doubt that will happen.
    Earl Hartman

  3. #18
    Ben Bartlett Guest

    Default

    Thanks for the link. It looks as though at one time the curriculum was quite extensive; it's a shame those forms will probably never be recovered. I would've loved to work on them. It makes a lot of sense that there would have been more paired forms at one point, since they certainly would better prepare you for actual combat, plus I can definitely see the advantage of learning to use multiple weapons (in fact, I think jojutsu is still practiced at the Jikishinkai's hombu dojo, but whether it's the same style as was originally practiced in MJER or not I do not know). It's always a shame when once vital aspects of an art disappear. Still, I'm thankful for the aspects I do get to learn.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Yamagata, Japan
    Posts
    218
    Likes (received)
    5

    Default

    A few quick comments,

    I think the MSR book Earl is referring to is Danzaki Tomoaki's "Iaido: Sono Riai to Shinzui" which, in addition to the standard sets of iai kata, also contains 6 addition sets of two person kata (52 kata in total).

    Regarding seiza, it is pretty much "common knowledge" among all the practitioners and teachers I know and have met in Japan that seiza as it is used in today's iai is simply a training method and not done because it was a situation that might be faced in real life. Many schools have parts of kata or even entire kata that are for the purpose of ingraining a certain technique or style of movement that isn't directly related to combative use itself, but will effect how people move in more realistic kata and combat itself. In fact I have even heard MJER teachers lecture the students on that point when teaching the Omori ryu... "We do this seiza only for training purposes, they didn't actually fight like this in the old days". At some point during the Edo period it seems that a number of ryu simply added seiza into their curriculum. Reasons my vary, but in general it seems like it was simply the thing to do. I believe Liam Keeley addressed this point in his article on Tatsumi ryu in the second Koryubooks book. In Hoki ryu this also seemed to be the case where, even today, the majority of the techniques are either done standing or from tatehiza (I would also add that the Hoki ryu tatehiza is very different from the MJER one, more comfortable and alot easier to move in and out of).

    As for iai being used for the battlefield, assassinations, etc. I agree that iai in and or itself is probably not very useful on the battlefield against armored opponents, but I think there are some other points being overlooked here which cause a number of people to simply dismiss iai training. Alot of older ryuha do in fact contain iai training and it is important to look for possible reasons why. Probably the most obvious is the fact that it actually involves using a real sword, rather than a bokuto, which is a very different animal. Few people can deny the value of actually getting used to and farmiliar with using the actual weapon your life will depend on, and standard kenjutsu practice is far too dangerous a method of training to do that in. Also, pre-Edo warriors did not "live" on the battlefield and in fact probably spent very little of their overall time on one. Yes it was the place were their combative skills needed to be the best, but I think it is fairly safe to say that violence in pre-Edo Japan was probably not limited exclusively to the battlefield. One's battlefield kenjutsu training was obviously of extreme importance, but iai training could also impart one with some other skills that could be useful at some point as well. It isn't the sole focus of one's training, but it has value so it is done. I think those two factors alone are probably good enough reason for many schools to have included it in their training.

    Regarding it being used in assassinations... Probably it was by someone at some point, as you could much more easily approach someone you are trying to kill with your sword still in your saya than you could if it was drawn, but I really only see this being used in an outdoor setting. Indoors it doesn't seem very likely as one most likely wouldn't have their sword anywhere near by and if a weapon was going to be used indoors it would most likely be a wakazashi type blade one could keep while indoors. Katayama ryu kenjutsu has a number of well illustrated densho and some of the techniques show in them are for dealing with someone attacking your superior in an indoor, seated, setting. More often than not the attacker was using a kodachi and none of the techniques involve either party using a full katana indoors.

    Just a few thoughts,
    Rennis Buchner
    Last edited by Rennis; 24th January 2002 at 19:52.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    119
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Re:Seiza
    Seiza (and Tatehiza) are definitive,static positions from which certain kata begin. A kata has to start somewhere. I think one purpose of these seated positions is that they are uncomfortable and not particularly easy to move from. Why train from postions that are easy to move from? If caught in a difficult position, you would be less prepared.It's not supposed to be easy(training,that is) The whole idea is not that you have to be in seiza or tatehiza to apply a technique, but that by training from these postures (especially a combination of postures), you should be able to respond more quickly from whatever crouching, sitting,or transitional position you happen to be in at the moment you are attacked.
    Re:Paired kata
    Dan, they are not as rare as you seem to think they are. Many,if not most, MJER branches,and some MSR branches, do Tachiuchi no Kurai. Tsumeiai no Kurai seem to be a bit less common, but can still be found occasionally in some groups. Danzaki-S's book shows the above, as well as Kurai dori(which seems to be an alternate set to Tachiuchi no Kurai), Daisho Zume, and Daisho Tachizume. I believe that is all the paired sword kata except the Daiken Dori. I think it is reasonable to assume that Nakayama Hakudo knew at least this much of the curriculum, and perhaps Daiken Dori. One of my teachers has confirmed that Mitsuzuka Takeshi (who studied under both Nakayama and Danzaki) knows and used to teach many of these kata at his dojo years ago. My impression is that there is not much interest in these kata in Japan. It seems that we are much more interested here in the west.

    Brian Dunham
    MSR SanShinKai

  6. #21
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Colo Spgs, CO USA
    Posts
    377
    Likes (received)
    2

    Default

    While iai is not all my specialty, it is a subject of great interest, and I've been following this and other similar threads (some of which have been mentioned or referrenced by other posters) for some time. I would like to comment only on this point that Rennis mentioned:

    "Many schools have parts of kata or even entire kata that are for the purpose of ingraining a certain technique or style of movement that isn't directly related to combative use itself, but will effect how people move in more realistic kata and combat itself."

    I agree totally with this comment. And would only add that in addition to effecting the way people move, it might also effect how people think and respond in more realistic situations as well. In both my experience and study/research this is very often the case, and is frequently misunderstood by practitioners with limited experience, and even sometimes by those with extensive experience - but limited to a particular style(s). This actually accounts for a lot of misunderstandings and even criticism of certain arts.

    I have on numerous occasions seen experienced practitioners (even expert teachers whom I otherwise respect) witness a demonstration of some school's kata and/or methods, and critique the school, teacher, or practitioners demonstrating as "not having a clue", "being worthless for real combat", "not being able to cut that way", "having various openings, bad habits, etc..." yadda, yadda... When in fact they simply didn't understand, appreciate, or realize the purpose or nature of the kata/method(s) they were seeing, or the way in which those kata/methods actually fit into the overall context of the ryu's system.

    I also believe it's quite common for practitioners, and even many modern teachers of koryu arts to not know themselves the real (or original) intents, purposes, and contexts of various aspects of the curriculum they study. The kata may have been preserved, but much of the teachings (reasonings) behind and within them have been lost. What's left is the proverbial rice bowl art or dying koryu. At least, that appears to be the case in many traditions practiced now-a-days. I can think of some cases where soft styles have even become hard styles - or at least are perceived by outsiders (and often even their own members/teachers) to be hard styles - and usually it's because of a shallow or limited understanding of the practice(s) in question, and it's particular purpose or place within the over-all curriculum.

    One could distill all of this to the simple maxim that war and strategy is all based upon deception - and especially within the koryu arts, appearances as well as practices can be and often are quite deceiving. Correct me if I'm wrong, but perhaps that is partly what Ben was alluding to when he made this comment:

    "some of us in iai-dominated koryu know it wasn't a battlefield position, too. "

    I could almost sense a "duh!" hiding behind that comment and the wink.

    Pardon me if this is a slight tangent, but I thought that Rennis' above mentioned point was a good one that is often overlooked these days.

    Brently Keen

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    119
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Brently,

    Very well put! I am constantly trying to hammer this exact point into a friend's head when he thinks he knows what he sees.

    ps- here is an old picture of my teachers (Mitsuzuka Takeshi and the late Paul Sylvain) doing Tsukekomi from Tachiuchi no Kurai.

  8. #23
    Dan Harden Guest

    Default

    Brently writes

    While iai is not all my specialty, it is a subject of great interest, and I've been following this and other similar threads (some of which have been mentioned or referrenced by other posters) for some time. I would like to comment only on this point that Rennis mentioned:
    "Many schools have parts of kata or even entire kata that are for the purpose of ingraining a certain technique or style of movement that isn't directly related to combative use itself, but will effect how people move in more realistic kata and combat itself."
    I agree totally with this comment. And would only add that in addition to effecting the way people move, it might also effect how people think and respond in more realistic situations as well.
    In both my experience and study/research this is very often the case, and is frequently misunderstood by practitioners with limited experience, and even sometimes by those with extensive experience - but limited to a particular style(s). This actually accounts for a lot of misunderstandings and even criticism of certain arts.
    I have on numerous occasions seen experienced practitioners (even expert teachers whom I otherwise respect) witness a demonstration of some school's kata and/or methods, and critique the school, teacher, or practitioners demonstrating as "not having a clue", "being worthless for real combat", "not being able to cut that way", "having various openings, bad habits, etc..." yadda, yadda... When in fact they simply didn't understand, appreciate, or realize the purpose or nature of the kata/method(s) they were seeing, or the way in which those kata/methods actually fit into the overall context of the ryu's system.
    I also believe it's quite common for practitioners, and even many modern teachers of koryu arts to NOT KNOW THEMSELVES the real (or original) intents, purposes, and contexts of various aspects of the curriculum they study. The kata may have been preserved, but much of the teachings (reasonings) behind and within them have been lost. What's left is the proverbial rice bowl art or dying koryu. At least, that appears to be the case in many traditions practiced now-a-days. I can think of some cases where soft styles have even become hard styles - or at least are perceived by outsiders (and often even their own members/teachers) to be hard styles - and usually it's because of a shallow or limited understanding of the practice(s) in question, and it's particular purpose or place within the over-all curriculum.


    ********************************


    Hi Brently

    You and I seem to agree on just about everything, But this is one of the silliest things I have read in a long time. Although I agree that many things in kata are not what they appear to be, have logical underpinnings, and are supposed to be performed differently in force on force, and have discussed this at length- you my friend, have taken it to the sublime. To place them in context, they read like this

    Not everything seen
    is what it is
    Not everything done
    is what it looks like
    Not everyone who does them (you include experts here)
    Knows why they are doing them
    Some, most, or no one who sees them (you include experts here)
    Knows or can adaquately judge if it can work, or be made to work, or even how to know what criteria to use to establish if it could ever work.

    Following this illogic I would add this

    Every expert isn't one
    Everything that has been taught is therefore unproven and up for speculation since those who know- may not.
    Every art is effective and rational by default? For only those who do them know what they really are.....oops they don't either! (your comment above)
    Or some really do know the core principles and can show them, but those learning don't know what they are learning, and even if they did they cannot judge it adaquately. This is of course taking your comment into consideration that yet again those who knew -don't- or maybe they do-wait know one can tell if they do or don't. :wink:

    So.........
    Believe everything you have been told works....oops, you can't do that either since it seems no one knows what does....

    ******************

    To your post Brian commented

    Brently,

    Very well put! I am constantly trying to hammer this exact point into a friend's head when he thinks he knows what he sees.

    *********************

    Following Your logic Brently- perhaps the friend is the one who really is seeing, and Brian is stuck in a box with a very narrow field of vision. Or it could be the way Brain says it is. But Brently, your logic obfuscates both at the same time.

    Since no one knows, and those who do- may not.
    We must try to test what is- to determine what is not.

    So who gets to do the testing?
    And who is qualified to judge?
    It goes nowhere......


    Sometimes you surprise me Brently.



    Earl
    Thanks for the input. As always you are a voice of reason.
    It still seems confusing in that of the several threads recorded here, and of my own private discussions with MJER people here and abroad, most openly state and whole heartedly agree with your statement that MJER is mostly a solo Iai art these days with a reduced percentage of paired form work being done and few teachers to be found who know them -to which Brian informed us that many, if not most, branches do the Tachi Uchi no Kurai??? And then adds that His senior teacher did them (years ago) and most people don't want to do them in Japan.
    I agree with your response to my query about preserving them-someone should make a concerted effort to put them together somewhere before they're lost to us forever. Your link to the other post lists an extensive repertoire of technique-are these being actively pursued by exponents of the art? If not, are there any methods in place to establish teachers?



    Assuming of course we can find those who know, and match them up with those who watch but don't know, and somehow have them agree that those who do know really DO know, although they can't know they know either.

    I have a headache

    Dan
    Last edited by Dan Harden; 25th January 2002 at 21:40.

  9. #24
    Ben Bartlett Guest

    Default

    It still seems confusing in that of the several threads recorded here, and of my own private discussions with MJER people here and abroad, most openly state and whole heartedly agree with your statement that MJER is mostly a solo Iai art these days with a reduced percentage of paired form work being done and few teachers to be found who know them -to which Brian informed us that many, if not most, branches do the Tachi Uchi no Kurai???
    These two statements don't necessarily contradict one another. If I remember correctly, in the current MJER curriculum, there are 42 solo kata, and 7 Tachi Uchi no Kurai kata. Even if most MJER branches study the Tachi Uchi no Kurai, it's pretty easy to make the argument that MJER is mostly a solo Iai art these days. As I stated in one of my above posts, at my dojo we do a lot of paired work outside of kata, but the vast majority of our kata are solo. I agree that it would be good if someone would make an effort to put together the other paired kata before they are lost forever. If anyone would offer to teach them, I personally would love to learn them.

    As a final note, I'd like to state that one of the problems with having a discussion about MJER is that a) it has split into several branches, and b) it's rather popular, so different people studying it have different agenda. Yes, it has degenerated from it's original form, and yes, kenjutsu does emphasize working with another person to a much greater degree (which is one of the reasons I'd like to study it as well as iaijutsu). However, while some people studying MJER mostly care about the aesthetic and spiritual aspects of it, some of us really are trying to keep it as authentic as possible. We may never be up to koryu kenjutsu standards, but we try hard. I guess I'm just trying to say, try not to paint us all with too wide of a brush.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    51
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Dan Harden
    Assuming of course we can find those who know, and match them up with those who watch but don't know, and somehow have them agree that those who do know really DO know, although they can't know they know either.
    Mr. Harden ~ LOL

    Can I use that as a quote in my signature?
    Ian R. Russell

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Palo Alto, Ca, USA
    Posts
    1,324
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Dan:

    There is no doubt that MJER is primarily a solo iai art now. My only point is that this was not always so, and judging from his book, which contains photos and instructions from the densho on how to perform them, my teacher knew all of the paired forms. As I have stated in the thread I referenced above, these were far more extensive than the 10 tachiuchi no kurai, which were only one part of the paired forms, and numbered about 48 in all, as I recall. Even the sword forms were outnumbered by the yawara/kogusoku forms in the original curriculum. It is fairly safe to assume that this part of the curriculum was known to Oe Sensei, but I imagine that that is where it stopped. When you think about how profoundly Japan changed during Meiji, it is amazing that the baby wasn't thrown out with the bath water entirely.

    All I can say is, times change. It is simply not possible to deny that for most iai practitioners, combative effectiveness simply is not an issue. Or, should I say, practice is done in such a way that there is no way to test the combative effectiveness of the techniques, even if the practitioner himself believes that he is practicing with full combative intent. That is precisely why my teacher, in his book, emphasized the importance of practicing the paired kata and that they were a vital part of the curriculum. He stated quite plainly in his introduction to that section of his book that without diligent practice of the paired forms, iai would degenerate into a dance stripped of combative effectiveness. That is why he called his art "iai heiho" and not "iaido".
    Earl Hartman

  12. #27
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA USA
    Posts
    2,565
    Likes (received)
    46

    Default

    Hi Rennis,

    I agree with much of what you said, which was well thought out. Your observations on kata were spot on. From what I've seen, it is the subject of misinterpretation by many.

    We may never know for a fact why seiza with daito was introduced to iai. However, if exponents of iai find the methodology useful, then by all means keep with it. I don't believe this point is in debate.

    Personally, I think the confusion comes from the majority of books written on iai - at least in English (I haven't looked through Japanese language iai books). More times than not, these books offer combative explanations for these seiza forms, with the opponent standing about 3 feet away in jodan kamae: "as your opponent comes forward to cut you down, draw your sword and cut him first" (paraphrased). It does not take much experimentation to find out that the techniques as shown and described are typically not practical. How common is it for 4 enemies to attack you from 90 degree angles, evenly spaced out, at the same time? Good for learning, but such methods should be understood as body movement theory, and not "it is like this when the opponents attack".

    I've seen these kinds of unrealistic scenarios in many iai books, and heard them from many iai exponents. I believe this misinterpretation of the methodology to be the biggest source of misunderstanding between iaido and other sword arts.

    Also, until recent years, it would seem that most iaido-ka were using alloy iaito (unsharpened), not shinken. The use of shinken is a recent trend, popularized partly by the availability of reasonable quality production shinken (no more overpriced refitted gunto). I don't know if everyone in Japan is using shinken or not, but it was not the case outside of Japan. Performing to speed with an iaito is much different in all regards from performing to speed with a shinken.

    But in any event, I would agree that the inclusion of iai in koryu is a valuable practice, for the reasons you stated.

    Regards,
    Last edited by Nathan Scott; 25th January 2002 at 20:57.
    Nathan Scott
    Nichigetsukai

    "Put strength into your practice, and avoid conceit. It is easy enough to understand a strategy and guard against it after the matter has already been settled, but the reason an opponent becomes defeated is because they didn't learn of it ahead of time. This is the nature of secret matters. That which is kept hidden is what we call the Flower."

    - Zeami Motokiyo, 1418 (Fūshikaden)

  13. #28
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Blue Ridge, Texas
    Posts
    2,000
    Likes (received)
    125

    Default

    Hi Nathan,
    I believe (personal opinion alert!) that the reason for the explanation of attack in iaido kata is different than what alot of people now tend to think. It is important when performing solo kata to be able to visualize an opponent to strike at. I can stand and watch and tell when people are not doing that, it changes the entire range of motion. My belief is that the explanation of attacks (bunkei ?) was originally to give focus to the kata, not to simulate an actual situation. I do agree that I have heard people describe a patently impossible situation as the reason for the kata. There it is, my thinking on it for what it's worth.

    Cheers,
    Paul Smith
    "Always keep the sharp side and the pointy end between you and your opponent"

  14. #29
    Dan Harden Guest

    Default

    Hi Ian

    Actually I like this one better after I reread it

    "Since no one knows, and those who do- may not.
    We must try to test what is- to determine what is not. "

    I could put music to it. But feel free to use any quip you like. Please realize I had tongue planted firmly in cheek. Both Brently and Brian are serious practitioners and I was basically having fun stretching a premise that I fundamentally agree with in the first place. As a theory it has merit.

    In truth it becomes very difficult to determine what is behind the vale. Brian’s point in trying to hammer this home to a friend of his is valid and not valid at the same time. How can that be? An arts methods for teaching principles and strategy and / or for simply strengthening an exponent may not really express a fundamental combat strategy of the art. So in that vein, you may be criticizing something you are seeing as ineffective, when the very guy who devised the technique to begin with may be agreeing WITH you all the while. There are several cases that can be made in that regard. They are merely training tools.
    Inversely, we have techniques that are supposed to have once been effective but so much may have been lost that we don’t know how to adequately put it all back together-therefore some of what we see as sort of inane and problematic, may actually be just that-inane and problematic.

    In the end, many of us choose to follow a teacher that has for whatever reason effected us in such a way that we feel we can learn from them. I think many times it turns out to be a focus on an individual who we deem to be superlative in a given venue, and both our level of expectation, and our level of skill will change over time-hence the Budo flow.


    Guys, thanks for the explanation as to what appeared to be a confusing state of affairs of the state of MJER-well in truth I am still confused. I think you would be doing yourselves a favor by trying to keep it all together catalogueing it, and expand the teaching base. It sounds like in its fullness it could be very interesting indeed.


    Ben

    It isn't a question of painting everyone with a big brush, just trying to define what "it" is. As Earl reiterated what has been previously stated here- it seems to be all over the place-yet Brian says the paired forms are practice in many or most of the Dojos. Oh Well

    Although we try not to paint a broad picture you must agree with Earl, that there are many many guys who do not engage in it for any semblance of realistic functionality (I hate using the word effective when it comes to swords). Its the way of arts practiced by a very diverse section of people. Different agendas and goals make a very openended art.

    *****************
    Earl writes:

    "All I can say is, times change. It is simply not possible to deny that for most iai practitioners, combative effectiveness simply is not an issue. Or, should I say, practice is done in such a way that there is no way to test the combative effectiveness of the techniques, even if the practitioner himself believes that he is practicing with full combative intent."

    ******************

    Gee Earl, I recall reading very similar comments from "outsiders" who got blasted by MJER people for their trouble.

    I am not surprised that we agree on this issue as well.

    Dan
    Last edited by Dan Harden; 26th January 2002 at 04:28.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Des Moines
    Posts
    108
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    I hate to take this discussion back to the original question, and I think this has been done to death already, but I find myself writing this down anyway.

    We all agree that a bushi wouldn't wear a long sword while seated in seiza. It's generally agreed that when entering a residence that the daito would be removed and handed to a servant at the door (or some similar scenario). But what about bushi "on-duty" in their lord's castle, or visiting the castle of some other trusted daimyo? Would they wear their sword until sitting seiza before their boss/coworker/visiting bushi? Then what would they do with it? Take it out and place it safely to their right side, probably, where it can't be drawn quickly. Or maybe, one might, think, since everyone trusts everyone here and we're only talking for a minute or so, I'll just set it on my left, or hold it loosely in my left hand. Iai techniques would work in those cases as well as if the sword was really in the sash. This of course goes along with the assassination explaination of iai, and doesn't contradict the definition of "iai" given in the first post (which I actually don't believe is correct, but I can be my own devil's advocate). I know formal etiquette dictates that these situations never happen, but I often wonder how strictly the etiquette was really followed.

    Of course I don't know if this has anything to do with reality, I just made it up as one possibility, and I'd like to know why it doesn't hold water. I'm perfectly happy practicing iaido without having every movement explainable as being "combat-effective," and I think I get plenty out of it the way it is, but I'm all for discussing the history of the techniques too. As long as we're all here anyway.

    Ric Flinn
    Last edited by Ric Flinn; 26th January 2002 at 04:03.

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

Similar Threads

  1. Martial Arts from my perspective.
    By James Williams in forum Gendai Budo
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 19th December 2007, 10:53
  2. Martial Arts in the Modern World: Transmission, Change, and Adaptation
    By Joseph Svinth in forum Media and the Martial Arts
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 5th December 2003, 13:14

Posting Permissions

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