Independents

Chris I get what your saying with regards to the traditional trappings of any system and if that is what someone wants then that is fine but the overall aspect of getting it really has nothing to do with any traditional trapping as they are just a reflection of any given culture and don't really have any bearing on the actual combat applications of any system and that is my point and for someone to make a blanket statement of foreigners don't get it is just too broad for me to accept.

If there are as you say only a handful of seniors passing on these skills and your not within that small click so to speak which in turn means you won't get it then for my money you shpukd not bother as they are blatantly holding back on you and any rank or grading they give you is a farce.

But if someone has a good grounding in a system and I would say 18 years training will give you a good grounding unless your as thick as mince then they decide to open their own groups and add other personal expeariancea in to the mix which they feel will help improve their personal system I see no problem with that.

And if they decide to keep using the name Ninjitsu or Karate or Arnis because this is what they feel is their main base then inalso see no problem with it.

Is it traditional Ninjitsu? No but then what is traditional. 200 years ago when one of lets say the Shihans decided to adapt something and change it it would have been considered modernising yet today it would be considered traditional because it has been practiced that way for 200 years. And 200 years later someone else comes along who is not Japanese and has a different way of doing or applying the same principles why are they any different if they feel it improves what is trying to be achieved. And that is my point.

As for my standing in Niten Ryu. Not much really I studied it intensely for 3 year and on and off for a few more purely because I was too far away to intensely train in it. I have 3 main chief instructors that head up my group with 3 assistant chief instructors. One of those chief instructors is a senior rank in Niten Ryu as he has trained with mentor a long time and I with him and so I do have a good understanding of the traditional trapping in this system. I am told I should be way higher ranked in it but I don't feel I should be because I personally feel I never spent enough time in it so I am happy to stay a mere lowly rank but I still look to it as it has improved certain aspects of my Arnis which I feel is my base art and heavily influences everything I do.

I hope that makes it a little clearer of why I never by into the foreigners don't get it thing but I do understand the traditional trapping of a few arts and don't discount them either as FMA has a few trapping of its own which many find hard to understand but that does make them any less proficient in Arnis as a whole.

Best regards

Pat

 

Bodies haven't changed much (well, there are certain changes, most particularly between the older Japanese body type and a modern Western body type, but that's probably getting a little too far into it), but the cultures that surround and dictate action and behaviour have. That has lead to radical differences in the forms of violence encountered, which is why techniques do need to be adjusted.

It's not just Asian systems, though. If you think back to the older form of boxing, and the posture found there (with the arms held out from the waist, the palms facing up etc), it looks pretty funny compared with modern boxing postures. But back in the day, it was the way you stood... and the reason was the different forms of attack that could be expected. Before the Marquis of Queesnbury rules came it, boxing involved much more than just fists, and the elongated guard was used to aid in creating distance, in order to avoid being grabbed and grappled (or worse, in the case of "Dirty Boxing"). But the environment changed, so the attacks did, and the techniques followed suit accordingly. Interestingly, though, a form of the same concept is popular today as "The Fence", popularised by Geoff Thompson.

And that's the thing. The techniques need to be altered to reflect the modern environment... but the lessons and principles that guide those techniques, whether older forms or modern, are timeless and therefore free from need for adaptation. The principles of Te Hodoki remain timeless, but the exact methods, and the types of grabs they are performed against may need to be updated.

 

Mr O'Malley,

What is Niten Ryu?

 

Hi Pat,

As I said, I agreed with you on the whole "Westerners can't get these things" idea... I had a little, uh, run-in with RP a while back when he said a similar thing, and pointed out that some systems, such as Toda-ha Buko Ryu, have only Western Shihan, no Japanese. But what needs to be realised here is that those traditional trappings are fundamental to the argument being presented in regards to what is or isn't defined under the Ninjutsu banner. You really can't get around it.

Not necessarily. It depends on what you're being ranked in, really. For example, the Bujinkan ranks you in Budo Taijutsu, which is Hatsumi Sensei's expression of his understanding of traditional martial arts, based on his experience and preference, and as such, that is what the student body is getting. Then you have the concept of esoteric knowledge, whereby certain things are not for everyone straight off the bat, it needs certain requisites to be met first. That may be time in system, other areas to be learnt first, certain relationships to be developed, or any of a number of other things. It may even just be that you need the experience to recognise it (it's always present, but you may not "see" it until you have enough experience). Ninjutsu (as a subject and skill set) is very much that kind of thing, when it comes to the Bujinkan.

Sure, agreed. The question then is what is the resultant system. Sandstorm brought up Robert Bussey, who refers to his system these days as "Bussey Combatives", and his training background is long and varied, including some Bujinkan, and a lot of Korean systems. However, as it is really none of those things, he came up with an unrelated name for it.

Oh, and 18 years may not mean anything in understanding and ability to deal with violence, depending on what is being trained... 18 years in Kyudo, for instance....

Uh, mentioned this before, and I don't want to seem petty here, but it's Ninjutsu, not Ninjitsu. Sorry if that seems small, but one is correct, and the other is exclusively used by fraudulant individuals we do our best to be distanced from. But to address this point, I'll go back to my boxing analogy... is it still boxing when it's got kicking and grappling, or knife work? Or is it something else?

Traditionally, if a Menkyo Kaiden (full mastership licence) holder adapted, or changed the system he was teaching, then it would typically become a new Ryu, or a new branch of a Ryu (a Ryu-ha). The traditional aspect of the previous one would be a huge influence on the new one, to the point that the new one would most likely be seen as a continuation/extension of the original, and therefore still traditional.

But to address what you're meaning here, it would not be the same Ryu. For example, the founder of our Takagi Yoshin Ryu was ranked in a number of systems, such as Ito Ryu Kenko Ryu, and Kyochi Ryu. When he founded the Takagi Ryu, he did not use their name, or even the definition of combative lessons that they used. We also have Koppojutsu traditions coming from Kosshijutsu traditions. In other words, they are named according to what they are, not necessarily where they came from in that regard.

Dean has gotten there before me, but no, actually that just raises many more questions.... When you say "Niten Ryu", what are you refering to exactly? And what form of rank do you have/should you be/does this individual hold within this system? Sorry, Dean and I will be a little more than interested in the answers to this one....

Sure, but we aren't dealing with newer systems whose ideal is modern effectiveness. I hope that's made clearer as well.

And to you.

 

So boxing as a sport has changed, but is somebody trying to take your head off any different today as it was yesterday? If you talk about a progression or evolution, you have to show how it changed. Your example is a bit different. For example, the high guard to a cover position seen in boxing today is fine for protecting your head against punches when you are wearing gloves but to say that is a progression or improvement is a bit of a misnomer. I don't think it would work as a good defense against a blade attack. So again, context is important.

The cultural conventions of different countries, regions, ethinic groups, even neighborhoods can be different. That is nothing new, and are things people have always had to take into consideration. Just because "curbing" may be common in some areas doesn't mean you have to change your ground defense training program. If you already know how to avoid being kicked in the head, it is the same.

Of course modern firearms and other weapons like stun guns did not exist, so I could see a need to take new technology into consideration but if you practice not getting hit by moving off the line of attack, it is the same thing you would try to do if somebody was trying to zap you.

Once you get to the bottom of the techniques, you find that they disappear if you had to actually use the them in any combat situation, so again, where is the need to change? From the sound of your argument, you are talking about strategy and recon issues, ie knowing your opponent.

Another consideration that hasn't been mentioned here is that Hatsumi sensei studied many other martial arts before training with Hatsumi sensei, some traditional, others not. That experience I am sure stuck with him in his practice and development of his art.

 

Yes, it is. There are various reasons for this, by the way, one of the big ones is the increasing globalisation of society, which leads to this "but everyone does it the same!" misunderstanding in martial arts. I'll get to that.

Agreed about the example. I chose it because most people will have some sort of reference to the differences in their heads, through movies, television etc, so can relate to it fairly easily. But to look outside the sporting arena, there are a number of other considerations to take into account.

First off is clothing. Obviously the big one is armour versus no armour, but there are also distinctions regarding the types of cloth that may be encountered, which may lend itself to certain hand-holds that are not as apparent in other clothings. Next is the social stigma's and expectations with regards to a fight. If we go back even just a few decades in the West (I'm thinking more about here in Australia, so you know, but the same basic concepts, albeit with different details, exist across all cultures and countries), then there were certain things that you could expect in a fight... and certain things that you could expect not to happen. For example, fights were often kept relatively "fair"... in that there were people around to make sure that you didn't run away (and get labeled a "coward"), as well as to ensure that nothing too bad happened (weapons being pulled, gang attacks etc). If you broke any of the unwritten conventions, you risked being labeled a "dirty fighter", and losing social status (something not to be underestimated when looking at the rituals and customs of any group). Obviously today, that's a very different story, with armed and group assaults being more and more common.

Cultural conventions go much further than that, though. For example, a traditional Japanese lapel grab and punch is typically performed with a step-through punch, where as a modern form of it is done with the punching-side leg kept back, and the grab pulling you in tight (into the strikes). This changes entirely the angles and targets of the techniques, so you know. And the reason for this comes down to the traditional weapon usages in Japan, with a dominant idea being to have the same hand and foot forward (to maximise the body weight going into a strike/cut, to maximise the reach, and more. I have even heard the idea that it is to do with traditional Japanese farming methods, as opposed to Western hunting methods [running, which leads to a different body mechanic for boxing, wrestling etc, being Western in origin, compared to Japanese arts such as Taijutsu, Jujutsu, Aikido etc]). In other words, there's a reason that the lunge-punch is the most common attack in the various Ryu-ha, whereas it just ain't a common modern attack.

There is also terrain to consider, with Northern and Southern Chinese systems being differentiated by Northern being more upright, and Southern being wider and deeper in their stances. This is a reflection of the terrain in which they were developed.. but if you are then in completely different terrain, should you still be using the same postural concepts? Within our traditions, there are many kamae that, as they are, are far from practical in a modern setting, and result in pain for the person silly enough to try them. I remember hearing about a Western Dan grade who tried to assume Ichimonji on a bus many years ago against a couple of youths... he couldn't move (he was too immobile in his posture, as he was too deep, and there wasn't room), so the other guy just reached out and broke his fingers. Now, the black belt who tried it, I would say didn't get Ichimonji in the first place, but it's still an example of a posture that may have worked back in the day, but not in a modern situation.

With regard to the globalisation that I refered to earlier, what I mean is that this is a rather unique time in history, in that "fighting", or violence, is starting to look very much the same the world over for pretty much the first time ever. This is due, in no small part, to the fact that almost all cultures are now very aware of others, and the information presented is from common sources. If you were to take an Italian Fencing master to old Japan, they would be amazed by the differences in the forms of attacks. Strategically, they would be very similar, but mechanically vastly different. Same for unarmed fighting. When we see images of Gladiators fighting on television shows, it always looks just like violence does now, but the methods of moving were most likely rather different; different postural forms, different attacking ranges and methods etc. The only reason we think that everyone always fought the same way is that we see everyone fighting the same way now... I might suggest watching some old Samurai films, such as Akira Kurosawa's, and watch the way "scraps" happen there. It ain't the same as what we see on the news.

And that's an example of employing the principle, but adapting the technique.

Pretty much, yeah. And once more, the principles upon which the techniques are based don't need adjustment, just the exact mechanical way they are expressed.

Oh, I haven't forgotten that... I think that's one of the big reasons that he is teaching his expression of the arts, rather than the Ryu themselves. But that doesn't change the way the kata are found in the Ryu, does it?

 

At the risk of being nitpicky this is not correct - Panantukan had the close and high guard for this very reason because extended limbs were cut/lopped off quite quickly due to the speed of the knife attacks. It looked like modern boxing whilst boxing itself was still in the Sullivanesque guard

With regards to the bodies and attacks etc changing, physically you are correct - but mechanically the level of threat faced by people now is very different indeed. Every man and his dog has exposure to and MA of some sort, coupled with MMA's advent, HAOV, socio-economic factors, legal repercussions etc - at the very least there needs to be a change in the environmental aspects taught.

Now again with that said I take your point about the style itself remaining true in concept - this is central to my own arts doctrine about the style being secondary to the principle it embodies

 

The problem is ,as I see it,that the unarmed combat system from the Kan's ,has never been tested.
People pap on about 900 years blah blah battlefield tested by ancient warriors blah blah
I say Pfffft.
When was there a battle of unarmed warriors?
There were challenges between schools.Again Pffft
These were like minded and similarly trained individuals at set venues at set times .So not much of a test to me.
Whereas Sandstorm,or me even,has tested our application and found it either fit for purpose or not .As the case might be.
Of course people will trot out the usual"well you didn't do it right" malarkey.But these people have never actually done it themselves(except the anonymous ones who we cant check up on .they all have)
That is also why people go Independent.
That people with little or no fighting history deem fit to tell people with a great deal of history ,how to go about it is almost comical.

 

And this is what I was getting at when I said that they have always been as much intellectual pursuits as physical. The way I see such systems is as teaching strategy and tactics to those who would act as officers, or generals, as they would be the ones learning such systems. Those poor unlucky souls on the battlefield would have basically "Stab with spear; repeat!" as their training, and if they were lucky, they came back and got to do it again later. The complex lessons, though, contain strategies and tactics that can be applied on large or small scales, in single combat, or mass army movements, and that is a big part of what the arts are teaching.

 

So has the unarmed stuff been tested or not?
This is what I mean when I say its becoming an intellectual pastime

 

I'd say yes, but then again I'd also say that that is not it's primary function within the art. But really, it's going to depend on which system you're looking at. Takagi Yoshin Ryu, for instance, will almost certainly have had much of it "tested", whereas it's less likely for something like Kukishinden Dakentaijutsu. I know of certain weapon systems which were born directly out of life and death experience, though, so there really can't be any generalisation to that degree in these arts.

And once again, George, it's not that they're "becoming" intellectualised.... this is what I meant when I said you were showing a lack of understanding about these arts.

 

George,

Maybe go to your favorite web search engine and type in "martial arts" "ruling class" and the point will become clearer.

Not saying everyone's going to agree with the points made within the search results but there are certainly those who do.

:hat:

 

Chris,when you said this"Your take on the entire concept of martial arts that comes through in all of your posts is that you don't care where it comes from, provided it works for you,"
I said ,yes that is me.
So you are missing my point that if you feel the TMA is not fit for YOUR purpose then an Indy I will go (hi ho,hi ho and all that)
So don't think that I don't understand how studying in a traditional way,shall we say,is not all you say it is and gives you what you want.
But it is unsuitable for my needs.
I could not care less about weapons and tradition.But that does not mean I don't thing they are of great value to others.
Just as I think the traditional stances are unsuitable for my needs If that's what someone else values ,good,great,champion.
That does not mean that I can divorce myself from the 15 years and more where it was my main Art.No more than I can unlearn the arts I did previously.
This thread is not about can you learn to fight doing a "Kan" Art,that has been done to death, Its about why some of us left.

 

That's part of it but it's also about what people who've gone their own way are offering in terms of training methods.

 

Fu,I don't have to .I know every well what he is saying.And who studied the arts after they were formalised.
But do you think the people who did it first did it in this fashion.You know the ones who's life might have depended on it?
Perhaps they did .
But as ever thanks for trying to help.I appreciate your intentions.

 

Yes it is.But that is nothing to do with what Chris is on about.
Is it?

 

I figured you probably did but I was trying to make a point without bringing any extra nasties into this thread. :hat:

 

Kenpo Niten Ryu as far as I am aware came originally from the Shaolin temple in China. I'm not too offay with the history as I was not too interested in it. But it teaches all aspects of fighting including kicking punching elbows knees locks grappling throwing and weapons fighting. The spar bare knuckle with only one rule. Don't go back and you win by ko

Like I said I was not into it's history so that's all I can tell you.

Best regards

Pat

 

Just my two penneth

To take reality Please's point about not evolving and therefore martial systems not needing to evolve and be updated, we have to ask why then have martial systems evolved.

If we go back in time to the times of the Hoplites with the phalanx, and then onto the Romans with armour such as the lorica segmentata, scutum and gladius, then into Saxons and the use of archers supporting swordsmen in single combat, and then on to the shiltron and then to the hundreds years war with the use of the Pavisse and then to the war of the roses with armour plate, and then to the English civil war and 30 years war with the tercio we can see changes in methods of warfare.

If therefore combat didnt have to change because we have not evolved as RP said, we have to ask the question, "Why did it"?

And maybe the reasons we have to change and adapt what we do today from the old arts has much in common with why arts in the past also had to change. After all if we take RPs view point that we don't need to evolve the art because we havent evolved, then we should all be practicing with flint hand axes and sticks.

 

Has the unarmed stuff ever been tested?

I take the lack of response to mean ,no(so we will ignore the question as it is a bit embarrassing)