That "take what is useful" line only applies if actually gain the technique first. Or as it was taught to me "You can't discard something you don't have".
Agreed But I'm not talking about "throw away technique" etc I'm asking why learning from multiple sources within the art is deemed by some to be an inferior approach
I will throw in my 2 cents but I know that what I will say has allready been said here (maybe you forgot). One big fundamental difference is that the japanese teachers wont put in the effort of trying to teach you correctly with all the details if they know you will go to someone else after class. Its partly a cultural thing I think, but also one of universal respect. The other flip side is that I think you wont get good corrections if you go to different teachers. The material covered in the Bujinkan is so vast, chances are high that the other teachers are focusing on other things. Lets say I learn Matsu Kaze one class but misunderstand how to do the final throw. Next class is with some other teacher and he doesnt even cover basic waza at that class...Next teacher after that you ask if he can check your waza just to find out he does all differently than the first teacher. Regards / Skuggvarg
Can you give just one example of someone in the Bujinkan who has learned the ryū by receiving transmission from multiple sources? :dunno:
I do think that this is a valid point - especially if you live in Japan However, the degree to which it applies varies greatly on the teacher In my experience the ****enno are/were all willing to give corrections, points of detail etc privately to visitors who train elsewhere. Particularly if you are open to feedback, passionate about the art, a nice guy etc In some cases it depends on where else you train, but it's the minority Several of the ****enno have explained that they feel a responsibility to teach the members of the bujinkan who visit and help them raise the standard of the art overseas. It's perfectly traditional for Soke's senior students to have a responsibility to help Soke's more junior students
My question isn't that It's why do you think that this approach is more effective than that used in almost all other walks of life and arts?
The way I see it, you have to make the copy first. And here you are right, the quality of the copy is at first always worse than the original. But here is where the real work starts, and you have to fill out the copy to make it just as clear and beautiful as the original. Or even better. And, if you get this far, you can even embellish it a little bit by adding your own artistic sense – but this level is very high and few ever reach it... Copying is an art in itself...
It's kind of like asking why snow can't be green, or why pigs don't have wings. It's just the way things are. Same as with most other arts (IN JAPAN :bow1: ). This isn't about learning something in general, like playing the guitar. This is about learning a very specific ryū, that has been transmitted in a certain way for hundreds of years.
I don't think this answers dunc's question. A martial art, presumably, has one purpose; To make a practitioner into someone who is somewhat competent inflicting violence. I think dunc is asking why the master/Deshi way of transmission is a better way to achieve that. It's actually less efficient when you think about it. When most of these arts were born you needed to have scores of individuals trained in violence in as short a time as possible. A one on one teaching style would not be ideal in this situation. Being a good martial artist and being someone responsible for transmitting a school are not the same things. There are places for both.
I'm not sure Dunc is talking about being competent in inflicting violence in general. In that case, the MMA or Kickboxing forums would be better choices, because like you said, learning intricate ryūha with hundreds of years under the belt is not the most efficient way in terms of how long it takes to reach a high enough level unless you are a special talent. Just like in the battlefield time you are referring to, when only a select elite would train in these and other ryū while the masses would just have to rely on general skills, experience, and of course craziness... :evil:
Also to add what Big Will already mentioned, the way the ryuha are set up is to teach through taijutusu the art of fighting with weapons, from spear to kakushibuki. That means that while learning to do for instance hibari from SFRDTJ, you also learn the taijutsu needed for the iai kata hibari nuki of SFR iai. Weapons and unarmed fighting is exactly the same taijutsu wise in the nine ryuha. That is why it requires a very specific and detailed transmission. When you make a mistake with weapons you die. That is why you cannot really understand the taijutsu of the nine ryuha without the weapons part of the training.
Another example in my class on tuesday we did Gyokko Ryu Koku. In koku there are three different ways of doing the Shuto in the transmission. On of the ways of doing shuto is from underneath in a specific angle, with your elbow in a specific position with specific footwork and angle. This is directly related to the first bojutsu kata in Gyokko Ryu that uses all the things that is practiced in this specific variation of koku that is part of the transmission. They are connected on all levels, they are the same. So every detail is important. Its hard to explain in words what has to be shown in person
I understand this principle, it just makes no sense whatsoever from a mechanical perspective Taking an example from my own training, I am 6'2" and 220lbs...admittedly it should be 210 when I am in peak condition, but lets leave that for another chat .....so there is no way I am able to mimic the body mechanics of a 5'4", 130lbs Chinese Wing Chun Sifu However, what I CAN do is adhere to the same principles and concepts he does in his techniques in my own practice. Thus it is the same, but different If I tried to copy him exactly it would look like a bag of crap "The way that can be told is not the eternal way" and all that.... That's why I asked for a clarification on the term "carbon copy", because at face value it is sub-optimal to learn this way and has long since been shown to be so
I'm in complete agreement with you in principle, but you must be able to look at some people move and know straight off the bat who taught them, no matter how dissimilar their body and attitude is to the teacher.
This might help a bit. https://classicbudoka.wordpress.com/2012/02/17/50-shu-ha-ri-the-markers-along-the-path/ It's probably worth noting at what point this copying takes place.
I'm not sure this clears things up. I think dunc would agree that every detail is important. What I think he's asking is, what if you learned every detail from a small group of knowledgeable teachers rather than just from one?
Vunak, Erik Paulson, Rick Young, Burton Richardson, Marc Denny, Yori Nakamura, Ron Ballicki - all Inosanto Looking at each one individually you would not be able to tell unless you "knew"
