There have been a few comments in recent threads (eg Skill vs Eloquence & Kacem Interview) concerning the differences between the various senior Japanese practitioners’ movements. So I’m curious to hear people’s views on this There seem to be various schools of thought on why each of them move differently and teach differently. For example: Garth’s proposition that Hatsumi sensei changed the way he trained & taught in the 80s and hence Tanemura sensei’s style is closer to the way that Takamatsu taught Kacem seemed to imply that the fact that all of the shihan perform the forms differently is evidence that none of them have mastered the true/source form and only one, young, individual will be given this by Hatsumi sensei at some point in the future There is a school of thought in the Bujinkan that because everyone is different (physical make up, personality, etc) then it is optimal for each person to create their own, unique blend from the core principles of martial arts Probably there are more, but I’d be interested in exploring this a little if people are up for it
I feel that although outward appearences seem to show that the Japanese shihan all move differently to some degree, actually under the superficial appearance they in fact all move in the same way. Regarding the "truth": Soke is always talking about isshi soden, so I guess he is indeed holding something back for only his successor. However when he was ill, maybe he split the "truth" into several parts so that it would not be lost if he did pass away but would also not all be in one persons hands. Purely speculation on my part! (Did Kacem really say that BTW? Was he implying that "his way" is more correct than theirs?)
I wasn't in the Takamatsuden schools long enough to understand much of it but it just strikes me that if one has any real understanding of what Guy A is actually doing, this shouldn't even be a discussion. He's doing this to create this effect, and here's how, and how it fits into its "moment". If one can't even articulate this, then there's plenty of road ahead yet before there's any chance of finding any One True Way that may or may not really exist. If there is a One True Way, completely independent of function, then all one can do is wait to be told. Then, one must pick who to believe based on something other than function. What, then? Just some thoughts. I never really was "in the loop", and I'm much further away from this particular loop than I was, so take it how you will.
That, my friend, is exactly what is wrong in the Bujinkan. Most people in the Bujinkan do this and they base it on their limited understanding of: the 9 ryuha reality combat the skill of their teachers Most people in the Bujinkan have no idea of the core principle of Martial Arts. They have never been in a real fight. They have never tried to apply what they train against resisting opponents or other Martial Artists. They never learned how to do things correctly. What happens in reality is that most people in the Bujinkan 'create' something new because they cannot do the kata in the first place. In fact they cannot do it correctly with their own students or other Bujinkan non resistant Ukes let alone with a resisting opponent from another style. A good example what this leads to in Aikido you can see here: http://youtu.be/FTi12NSWD04 This thought that everybody can and should develop their own style of training is the problem. Only people of Menkyo Kaiden level or that have a large body of experience in real fighting or both should be allowed to create in in this way. The Bujinkan is such a mess, it has a bad rep with other martial artists. And this is one of the main reasons.... Don't get me wrong, there a skilled fighters in the Bujinkan besides its flawed methods for teaching real skills and most of them have extensive experience in other arts or reality. But they are not the majority. And that is a shame.
That is the problem for martial arts in a peaceful society. If someone without the right experience started a new style in the Sengoku Jidai, they would not have al long line of successors i wager... Regards, Tom.
@pankeeki Yup don't disagree, but also don't want to spawn yet another thread exploring the inadequacies of many buj dojos or the process of "master the form before breaking it" or similar as they have been done to death already More interested to explore if people are ok with various good approaches (eg each shihan teaching forms differently) or if people feel differently
@KJ Yes I agree, but in the trad ma world it seems many feel differently so I'd like to understand their perspectives
Regarding the shihan, I think it's only natural that they are all different. This depends on many human factors – personality and capacity are two that come to mind. Someone like Mr. Tanemura obviously has a different character from someone like Mr. Senô – this is a given, as not everyone has what it takes to create a new organization and run it like he has. And the same goes for all of the original students of Sôke. Everyone is different. You can put ten people in a room, show them a technique and you will get ten interpretations based on different experiences, understandings, concentration at the moment, capacity, etc. I have heard stories of how one of Takamatsu sensei's teachers was pretty much the same as Hatsumi sensei is today, in terms of "teaching", whereas another one was very strict and the third was something in between.
Yes certainly Also there is an important role for innovation in warfare. I feel that the conundrum of whether innovation in budo is possible in peacetime is quite interesting
How many Pavarotti's are there? How many Leonardo Da Vinci? How many Bach? That doesn't mean there are not other great artists in all these fields, others just as famous, but it does mean all humans are unique. The real question is, are the people referenced in the OP demonstrating the principles they have learned over many decades, constantly being tested and corrected by their teacher? And who the heck are we to make anything but a pitiful assessment in comparison to the Soke? For all we know Soke might want each Shihan to be slightly different, according to their own strenghts and weaknesses. Here is my pitiful assessment by the way. Yes, body shape, age, injuries etc does play a part. Personality too. But like others said, if you are really looking you might see the same art at work, and the longer you train the more you might start to see it. Of course, everyone might find a limit, how far they can bend to the training. They might plateau, start doing their own thing or whatever it is, we certainly see this all over the world. However, unless we are ahead of someone in training we are in no position to judge if this is really the case or just a limited perspective of our own. All we can do is keep training and hope that we can reach our own utmost potential.
What would that core principle be, and why is Bujinkan practice supposedly failing to teach it? It's the same with countless practitioners of civilian martial arts of any flavor. It's also guaranteed to be the same for any obsolete-weapons art at all. So why isn't it quite so extreme a problem for people in other arts? Is the Bujinkan's goal to create "skilled fighters"? What's a "skilled fighter" in, say, Togakure Ryu Bikenjutsu or Kukishin Ryu Bisentojutsu, wherein no one does any fighting with the weapons in question in "reality" anymore? Who is at fault for the "flawed methods for teaching real skills" that you claim?
Yeah probably in some respects However, people nowadays have the opportunity to experience/learn from martial arts from around the world, adapt to new situations, weapons etc and whilst some (maybe most if not done by someone with a deep understanding of the tradition) of this will undoubtedly be baggage it may count as progress vs a purist/historical approach I guess to my eyes the perfect form is always to a greater or lesser extent “one off” or case by case. I think that an experienced martial artist can see the errors in someone’s movement and as long as there are no errors then it is defacto correct form. To my (maybe less experienced) eyes the ****enno don’t/didn’t display errors in their movements despite performing the forms differently. This is why I’m interested in Kacem’s assertion that the fact that they & the original students of Hatsumi sensei don’t perform the form identically means that none of them get it
Hi Garth Maybe I'm putting words in your mouth, but I took this post to mean you didn't think that training in the buj under Hatsumi-sensei is to study what Takamatsu taught Apologies if I misunderstood Dunc
Have the kaiden shihan expressed to their core, regular students that they are teaching them the "true art" rather than "Bujinkan Budo Taijutsu"? Or is this an idea that some Japan resident foreigners have theorised into existence? This idea certainly isn't evident on the blogs of some of the long standing Japan residents, where you see the idea of the Bujinkan as a global community stressed. Again, hands up any foreigners who have shoden menkyo.
In my opinion: You have to be able to face any man, with any weapon. The Martial arts are all about combat and survival The freedom in the Bujinkan makes that what little real transmission is there gets polluted by creations of people that don't know what they are talking about. Because there is no testing against other arts, little testing in reality and no sparring ;-) it is easy to fall for illusions in our training. Probably not, I'm not the founder of the Bujinkan so I don't know what its goal is. If you can face a skilled swordfighter with a live blade, it helps to be a good swordfigter yourself. If you can face a skilled swordfighter you should have no problem facing some punk with a knife. Mostly the students and the teachers ;-) The students don't test their teachers enough, don't attack realistically, etc.. The teachers hide their inability behind Henka and fantasy. The Bujinkan is free, but with freedom comes real responsability and everybody needs real discipline. It brings out how people really are. and that is not always a pretty sight.
Dunc posted Hi Dunc What I meant was that if the Bujinkan has changed since the 1980s in the way that benkyoka posted, then how can we be sure that what is taught now is the way that Takamatsu taught. I was just using the example that the Genbukan is different to the way the Bujinkan is taught/performed but they are both Takamatsuden. Thats not to say of course that each methods don't have merit or that one is closer to what Takamatsu taught than another or better than each other, just different. But I can understand why you misunderstood my meaning so no worries.
Kyudo? Kendo? You're ignoring a number of things that will be in that punk's favour, it's a poor example to be honest as it'll only apply on a purely technical level.
