Complete martial arts?

[Chris Parker]

Hey Mike,

So this still reads to me that there is little room for change. Ex: If techique #1 has the moves going a then b then c then d, that a student couldn't perform them as c,b,a,d? Still doing all the moves, just a different order.

Er, no. Not in Koryu, not at all. That would deny what the kata is in the first place, really, it can't be changed like that. The differences between instructors is more in subtleties of timing and angling, expression of spirit, and so forth. Not easy to explain, really, more easy to see. Of course, you really need to know what you are looking at....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6275742558608078525# This clip shows members of the Sugino Dojo and the Otake Dojo demonstrating the same kata. While it is definitely the same system, and the same kata, the two senior teachers expression of what they feel is (was) important, the expression of it changes.

This I can agree 100% with. Again, as I said, it all comes down to 'does the change make sense'? For example...I'm 5'10. Lets say I'm working with a person who is 5'3. The tech. we're doing requires me to do an elbow to the persons ribs. Well, unless I change my stance, body posture, etc., I probably wont hit the ribs, so instead, I change the target to the head. Makes sense. Now, if I totally re-wrote the tech, taking out the elbow, replacing it with something else, yeah, I better be able to justify why the change is better than that elbow. When I teach that tech, I tell people where the shot is supposed to go...but, I also tell them to take into consideration height, weight, the fact that the person probably isnt going to stand like a statue while I blast away.

I look at some of the empty hand kata that we have, talk to different teachers, and some of the things really leave me scratching my head, wondering, "Ummm...what the hell is this??"

Yeah, I know what you mean about scratching your head.... I, personally, don't really like not knowing "why". So whenever I get to a technique/posture/some other aspect, and it doesn't seem to make sense, I stop and figure it out. Until I know why it's done a certain way, I don't feel right changing it (practical application of the principles and lessons of the techniques, such as changing a target from an unavailable one to an available one aside). And most often once I discover/realise what the real reason is, I find that it doesn't need, or often warrant changing.

Points taken, however, whether or not it works/worked for my teacher, my teachers teacher, or 10 other people, what I need to know, is whether or not it works for me. I do understand that some people do like to keep tradition, etc., but IMO, and again, this is just my opinion, but I feel that it is important to stay with time times. That may not be the popular view, and thats fine.

Ah, but that depends on why you are training. You were asking about Koryu approaches, so that logic has no place in a Koryu discussion. Of course, not everyone trains in a system for the reasons that a Koryu practitioner does, and that is the crux of things here, I feel.

For the best understanding of the Koryu attitude, check out this thread from MAP, most importantly the article quoted by Steve Delaney (Kogusoku), post 18. http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?p=34182919#post34182919 Sums it up perfectly.

See above. That should address this part as well.

And, from this side, see above. Hopefully it should give some insight into why "a punch is a punch" is really beside the point of Koryu. Happy reading!

Here is Princeton's definition of "complete"

come or bring to a finish or an end; "He finished the dishes"; "She completed the requirements for her Master's Degree"; "The fastest runner finished the race in just over 2 hours; others finished in over 4 hours"
having every necessary or normal part or component or step; "a complete meal"; "a complete wardrobe"; "a complete set of the Britannica"; "a complete set of china"; "a complete defeat"; "a complete accounting"
bring to a whole, with all the necessary parts or elements; "A child would complete the family"
perfect and complete in every respect; having all necessary qualities; "a complete gentleman"; "consummate happiness"; "a consummate performance"
dispatch: complete or carry out; "discharge one's duties"
accomplished: highly skilled; "an accomplished pianist"; "a complete musician"
arrant(a): without qualification; used informally as (often pejorative) intensifiers; "an arrant fool"; "a complete coward"; "a consummate fool"; "a double-dyed villain"; "gross negligence"; "a perfect idiot"; "pure folly"; "what a sodding mess"; "stark staring mad"; "a thoroughgoing villain ...
write all the required information onto a form; "fill out this questionnaire, please!"; "make out a form"
having come or been brought to a conclusion; "the harvesting was complete"; "the affair is over, ended, finished"; "the abruptly terminated interview"
based on this definition of complete I doubt that a complete martial art is possible.

Really? I'd say that there are a number of definitions there that suit martial arts as "complete". In bold above....

 

[MJS]

Hey Mike,



Er, no. Not in Koryu, not at all. That would deny what the kata is in the first place, really, it can't be changed like that. The differences between instructors is more in subtleties of timing and angling, expression of spirit, and so forth. Not easy to explain, really, more easy to see. Of course, you really need to know what you are looking at....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6275742558608078525# This clip shows members of the Sugino Dojo and the Otake Dojo demonstrating the same kata. While it is definitely the same system, and the same kata, the two senior teachers expression of what they feel is (was) important, the expression of it changes.

Can't watch the clip at the moment, but I will. Anyways, it seems to me, and I may still be wrong here, but it seems that there is no room then for any change whatsoever. Do any of these techs. take into consideration that the other person may do something that will break the pattern of the tech (kata)?

Yeah, I know what you mean about scratching your head.... I, personally, don't really like not knowing "why". So whenever I get to a technique/posture/some other aspect, and it doesn't seem to make sense, I stop and figure it out. Until I know why it's done a certain way, I don't feel right changing it (practical application of the principles and lessons of the techniques, such as changing a target from an unavailable one to an available one aside). And most often once I discover/realise what the real reason is, I find that it doesn't need, or often warrant changing.

Makes sense.

Ah, but that depends on why you are training. You were asking about Koryu approaches, so that logic has no place in a Koryu discussion. Of course, not everyone trains in a system for the reasons that a Koryu practitioner does, and that is the crux of things here, I feel.

For the best understanding of the Koryu attitude, check out this thread from MAP, most importantly the article quoted by Steve Delaney (Kogusoku), post 18. http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?p=34182919#post34182919 Sums it up perfectly.



And, from this side, see above. Hopefully it should give some insight into why "a punch is a punch" is really beside the point of Koryu. Happy reading!

Yes, that was an interesting read.





Really? I'd say that there are a number of definitions there that suit martial arts as "complete". In bold above....[/quote]

 

[Chris Parker]

Can't watch the clip at the moment, but I will. Anyways, it seems to me, and I may still be wrong here, but it seems that there is no room then for any change whatsoever. Do any of these techs. take into consideration that the other person may do something that will break the pattern of the tech (kata)?

Well, change, no. Expression, on the other hand, can be widely varied.... if you know what you're looking for. Think of it the same way you would a Karate kata, the sequence remains the same, but two different people will perform it slightly differently. That's really the way it is here as well.

The thing to realise with the Koryu is (as the article stated) whoever is teaching the Ryu is responsible for it being transmitted correctly and fully, and that means no changing things around because "you like it better that way", or even "it makes more sense to me that way". Otake Sensei from the Katori Shinto Ryu was involved with a BBC documentary series (and accompanying book) many years ago, and in it he spoke about why his Ryu trains exclusively with kata. Amongst his reasons were that the Katori Shinto Ryu believe that their kata are directly transmitted from Heaven (Tenshinsho Den literally means "correct and true Heavenly transmissions, and refers to the way the school is being passed down, rather than being a true part of the name. That is simply Katori Shinto Ryu, or at certain points in it's history, Katori Ryu). As a result, they feel that their kata contain all possible applications and possibilities that may be encountered, and if it isn't contained in their syllabus, then it isn't worth knowing. He also states that, being transmitted directly from Heaven in the form of a vision by the founder of the Ryu, why would you study a mundane, human-developed movement when you have divine knowledge to study?

Now, the Katori Shinto Ryu is really one end of the spectrum when it comes to Koryu, others have been known to change seemingly with each generation (in terms of syllabus, structure, and sometimes even the techniques themselves, by adding new ones, dropping old ones, or changing the way they are performed). But the system must always stay true to itself (internally congruent), and that is not achieved by simply deciding that because ground-fighting is the flavour of the week, that the Owari Kan Ryu school of Sojutsu (spear fighting) will now add BJJ-style ground work to their teachings. This may help anyone who still wonders why the Bujinkan aren't classified as Koryu understand why, although some of the Ryu themselves certainly are.

The most important thing there, though, is that the changes, if they occur, come from the top, so to speak, not from anywhere beneath that. And the changes have to be universally adopted by the entire Ryu, certainly not left up to individuals within the structure, other than the Soke/Iemoto/Shihanke/whichever term the Ryu in question uses.