Grandmaster?

[pgsmith]

Agreed. I see it in TJMA, with instructors introducing themselves as “Sensei Smith”.

That would be AJMA, for Americanized Japanese Martial Arts. These are people that train in a traditional Japanese martial art, but no longer have a real connection with Japan. This means that they do what they consider correct, rather than what would actually be considered correct if their art was still Japanese. Anyone with a living connection with Japan in their Japanese martial arts knows that a person NEVER introduces themselves by a title such as sensei. In Japan, honorifics are bestowed by other people and never bestowed upon yourself, thus you might introduce someone else as Smith Sensei, but never yourself. Another easy mistake a lot of these same folks make is that the honorific always follows the name, and never precedes it.

 

[skribs]

That would be AJMA, for Americanized Japanese Martial Arts. These are people that train in a traditional Japanese martial art, but no longer have a real connection with Japan. This means that they do what they consider correct, rather than what would actually be considered correct if their art was still Japanese. Anyone with a living connection with Japan in their Japanese martial arts knows that a person NEVER introduces themselves by a title such as sensei. In Japan, honorifics are bestowed by other people and never bestowed upon yourself, thus you might introduce someone else as Smith Sensei, but never yourself. Another easy mistake a lot of these same folks make is that the honorific always follows the name, and never precedes it.

I don't really see how saying "I'm Sensei Smith" makes it AJMA instead of TJMA. I mean, if that's the case, then virtually every martial art is divided based on what country it's being taught in.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I don't really see how saying "I'm Sensei Smith" makes it AJMA instead of TJMA. I mean, if that's the case, then virtually every martial art is divided based on what country it's being taught in.

That’s part of the whole question of what “traditional“ means in this context.

 

[skribs]

That’s part of the whole question of what “traditional“ means in this context.

Personally, I think Traditional refers more to the combat style of the art itself. If I think of something being Americanized, I think of it either being:

• Advertised to be a quick way to learn
• Focus more on Hollywood style fighting than actual combat
• Incorporate a lot of techniques you think more Americans would want, i.e. techniques common to MMA fighting, or punching styles more similar to boxing

I think saying "I'm Sensei Smith" makes sense for an American audience, but if that's all you're changing, the rest is still TJMA.

 

[wab25]

Personally, I think Traditional refers more to the combat style of the art itself. If I think of something being Americanized, I think of it either being:

• Advertised to be a quick way to learn
• Focus more on Hollywood style fighting than actual combat
• Incorporate a lot of techniques you think more Americans would want, i.e. techniques common to MMA fighting, or punching styles more similar to boxing

I think saying "I'm Sensei Smith" makes sense for an American audience, but if that's all you're changing, the rest is still TJMA.

That would not be my definition of Traditional Japanese Martial Arts. If we talk about a Koryu art, its not a quick way to learn, it does not look like Hollywood style fighting and it does not use MMA / Boxing techniques. But, I could also talk about wab-jitsu-do-te... It takes at least 40 years to learn, does not look like Hollywood fighting and does not use MMA / Boxing techniques. It is also decidedly not a Traditional Japanese Martial Art, even if I have my students address me as "Smith Sensei."

In my opinion, a better definition of Traditional Japanese Martial arts is either a koryu system, or system that can trace its roots back to a koryu system and one that trains in the same way as the koryu system it stems from. This leaves the door open for lots of disagreements over how strong the roots are, and how much of the koryu methods are preserved and all kinds of things. But, if you can not even make a claim of this type of relationship, then I don't believe you should try to claim being a Traditional Japanese Martial Art. I would argue that if you can't even make this claim to start with, you are easily not a Traditional Japanese Martial Art. An art claiming to be a grab bag of only the best Japanese named arts, from Japanese systems, is not a claim of being a Traditional Japanese Martial Art.

Thats just my opinion though.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Personally, I think Traditional refers more to the combat style of the art itself. If I think of something being Americanized, I think of it either being:

• Advertised to be a quick way to learn
• Focus more on Hollywood style fighting than actual combat
• Incorporate a lot of techniques you think more Americans would want, i.e. techniques common to MMA fighting, or punching styles more similar to boxing

I think saying "I'm Sensei Smith" makes sense for an American audience, but if that's all you're changing, the rest is still TJMA.

I can't really agree with the second. That's more "commercialized" (the use of that word with the negative connotation) than "Americanized". And the third would apply to any group - include things they're interested in or that fit their usage.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

That would not be my definition of Traditional Japanese Martial Arts. If we talk about a Koryu art, its not a quick way to learn, it does not look like Hollywood style fighting and it does not use MMA / Boxing techniques. But, I could also talk about wab-jitsu-do-te... It takes at least 40 years to learn, does not look like Hollywood fighting and does not use MMA / Boxing techniques. It is also decidedly not a Traditional Japanese Martial Art, even if I have my students address me as "Smith Sensei."

In my opinion, a better definition of Traditional Japanese Martial arts is either a koryu system, or system that can trace its roots back to a koryu system and one that trains in the same way as the koryu system it stems from. This leaves the door open for lots of disagreements over how strong the roots are, and how much of the koryu methods are preserved and all kinds of things. But, if you can not even make a claim of this type of relationship, then I don't believe you should try to claim being a Traditional Japanese Martial Art. I would argue that if you can't even make this claim to start with, you are easily not a Traditional Japanese Martial Art. An art claiming to be a grab bag of only the best Japanese named arts, from Japanese systems, is not a claim of being a Traditional Japanese Martial Art.

Thats just my opinion though.

And I think most koryu folks would agree. Even if we accepted Daito-ryu as koryu (which we probably shouldn't, but let's do so for this one sentence), NGA doesn't train very closely to the way Daito-ryu traditionally (see, there's that word again) did. So NGA wouldn't be "traditional" for most Koryu folks. But most NGA practitioners consider it a fairly traditional art, I'd think. It's all about the frame of reference, which makes it really hard to discuss "traditional" arts, unless the person starting the discussion clarifies what that word is being used for in that context.

 

[wab25]

And I think most koryu folks would agree. Even if we accepted Daito-ryu as koryu (which we probably shouldn't, but let's do so for this one sentence), NGA doesn't train very closely to the way Daito-ryu traditionally (see, there's that word again) did. So NGA wouldn't be "traditional" for most Koryu folks. But most NGA practitioners consider it a fairly traditional art, I'd think. It's all about the frame of reference, which makes it really hard to discuss "traditional" arts, unless the person starting the discussion clarifies what that word is being used for in that context.

I agree with you. The point I was trying to make was that an art could easily satisfy the 3 points given, and be no where near a "Traditional" art. Those points don't help define what a traditional art is. The "discussions" about these arts you mention (and others) and whether they are traditional or not, is around their claims to a clear lineage and connection to koryu arts, at least somewhere in their history. I was not trying to open a "discussion" about which arts are or are not "traditional." I was trying to point out that those "discussions" are based around the connections and the history of the art and people in the art. Those "discussions" are not based around how easy the art is to learn, whether the moves look like Hollywood fight scenes or whether the moves are popularly used in MMA.

Basically, if you want to call something "traditional" then the history of those traditions would be the determining factor, as to whether or not it was "traditional." Having a Christmas tree in December is "traditional" not because it takes years to learn how to do it... but because of the history of people doing it, and passing that technique down to each new generation.

 

[skribs]

I agree with you. The point I was trying to make was that an art could easily satisfy the 3 points given, and be no where near a "Traditional" art. Those points don't help define what a traditional art is. The "discussions" about these arts you mention (and others) and whether they are traditional or not, is around their claims to a clear lineage and connection to koryu arts, at least somewhere in their history. I was not trying to open a "discussion" about which arts are or are not "traditional." I was trying to point out that those "discussions" are based around the connections and the history of the art and people in the art. Those "discussions" are not based around how easy the art is to learn, whether the moves look like Hollywood fight scenes or whether the moves are popularly used in MMA.

Basically, if you want to call something "traditional" then the history of those traditions would be the determining factor, as to whether or not it was "traditional." Having a Christmas tree in December is "traditional" not because it takes years to learn how to do it... but because of the history of people doing it, and passing that technique down to each new generation.

I am saying that's what happens to take a TMA and make it more Americanized. Not that those are general rules of thumb for what a TMA is.

 

[oftheherd1]

Personally, I think Traditional refers more to the combat style of the art itself. If I think of something being Americanized, I think of it either being:

• Advertised to be a quick way to learn
• Focus more on Hollywood style fighting than actual combat
• Incorporate a lot of techniques you think more Americans would want, i.e. techniques common to MMA fighting, or punching styles more similar to boxing

I think saying "I'm Sensei Smith" makes sense for an American audience, but if that's all you're changing, the rest is still TJMA.

Actually, I can agree with that. A language has the option/right to express itself as it best understands what it wants to say. When teaching US citizens, my GM used English for counting as often as not, and certainly used English to identify techniques, usually by class (such as arm block #1) and number. His desire was to teach Hapkido, not Korean. But the Hapkido he taught was afik traditional, depending of course on your definition of traditional for a relatively young art.

 

[skribs]

Actually, I can agree with that. A language has the option/right to express itself as it best understands what it wants to say. When teaching US citizens, my GM used English for counting as often as not, and certainly used English to identify techniques, usually by class (such as arm block #1) and number. His desire was to teach Hapkido, not Korean.

We count in English in our school if there's a new student. And often the kids who haven't learned Korean yet will count in English when we have them count 1-by-1 during stretching. We also love hearing other languages. We've had Japanese, Chinese, Spanish, French, German, Russian (and a Ukrainian dialect of it) , Arabic, Hebrew, Cambodian, Tagalog, Vietnamese, and Klingon.

The last one was me.

 

[oftheherd1]

We count in English in our school if there's a new student. And often the kids who haven't learned Korean yet will count in English when we have them count 1-by-1 during stretching. We also love hearing other languages. We've had Japanese, Chinese, Spanish, French, German, Russian (and a Ukrainian dialect of it) , Arabic, Hebrew, Cambodian, Tagalog, Vietnamese, and Klingon.

The last one was me.

Were you required to check your disrupter at the door? (Sorry couldn't resist )

 

[hoshin1600]

this is a great thread... from now on i will be requiring all new students to call me Master John or Sensei John.
then i will sit back and see how long it takes them to figure out that my names not John.

 

[JR 137]

To throw another wrench into this whole title, Americanized, Japanese, etc. mix...

People say “that’s not how it’s done in Japan” “Japanese people don’t say that” etc. Funny thing is a lot of actual Japanese karate instructors do a lot of the things I’ve heard discussed as not being done. Tadashi Nakamura was born and raised in Japan. He was sent to the US by Mas Oyama when he was in his mid-late 20s. He assigns specific titles to specific ranks rather than everyone being “sensei.” He refers to and calls my teacher “Shuseki Shihan Don” another teacher at my school “Jun Shihan Scott” etc. Kyokushin does more or less the same. So do others.

Saying a certain culture/ethnicity does and doesn’t do any specific thing is just flat out incorrect. Saying something like “no Japanese person does that” is wrong. That would be no different than saying “no American does this” or “every American does that.”

Sure, some things are far more common than others, but saying everyone in a specific culture does or doesn’t do something is painting with a brush that’s far too broad.

 

[JR 137]

That would be AJMA, for Americanized Japanese Martial Arts. These are people that train in a traditional Japanese martial art, but no longer have a real connection with Japan. This means that they do what they consider correct, rather than what would actually be considered correct if their art was still Japanese. Anyone with a living connection with Japan in their Japanese martial arts knows that a person NEVER introduces themselves by a title such as sensei. In Japan, honorifics are bestowed by other people and never bestowed upon yourself, thus you might introduce someone else as Smith Sensei, but never yourself. Another easy mistake a lot of these same folks make is that the honorific always follows the name, and never precedes it.

Like I said in my previous post, you’re painting with an awfully broad brush here.

Shokei Matsui, head of Kyokushinkaikan IKO1 in Tokyo, Japan. And many others within the organization...

Kancho & Committee Member | IKO Kyokushinkaikan

Shigeru Oyama of World Oyama karate and Mitsugu Sakai (owner and CI of this dojo)...
Instructors

 

[pgsmith]

I think saying "I'm Sensei Smith" makes sense for an American audience, but if that's all you're changing, the rest is still TJMA.

While I agree that "traditional" is totally open to interpretation, I disagree that something should call itself traditional while ignoring the traditions which it supposedly uses.

He assigns specific titles to specific ranks rather than everyone being “sensei.” He refers to and calls my teacher “Shuseki Shihan Don” another teacher at my school “Jun Shihan Scott” etc. Kyokushin does more or less the same. So do others.

This does not disagree with what I pointed out earlier, it simply delves deeper into Japanese society than most people, whether they study a Japanese martial art or not, are interested in. Shuseki Shihan and Jun Shihan are earned ranks and specific titles. It is akin to having someone refer to you as "Dr. JR" because you've earned a PhD. Still though, he is referring to others in this manner. It's considered rude and presumptuous to refer to yourself by honorifics. I would be willing to bet money that you've never heard him refer to himself as Shihan Nakamura.

You are correct though in that attempting to say "always" and "never" is way too broad of a brush, and for that I apologize. I should have said "usually", or "almost always" as there are "almost always" exceptions to any rule.

 

[pgsmith]

Like I said in my previous post, you’re painting with an awfully broad brush here.

Shokei Matsui, head of Kyokushinkaikan IKO1 in Tokyo, Japan. And many others within the organization...

Kancho & Committee Member | IKO Kyokushinkaikan

Shigeru Oyama of World Oyama karate and Mitsugu Sakai (owner and CI of this dojo)...

Also, don't make the mistake of thinking that what you find on the internet is indicative of what would actually be used in person. Internet web sites, articles, and Wikipedia pages are "usually" written by a third person.

 

[skribs]

this is a great thread... from now on i will be requiring all new students to call me Master John or Sensei John.
then i will sit back and see how long it takes them to figure out that my names not John.

While I agree that "traditional" is totally open to interpretation, I disagree that something should call itself traditional while ignoring the traditions which it supposedly uses.



This does not disagree with what I pointed out earlier, it simply delves deeper into Japanese society than most people, whether they study a Japanese martial art or not, are interested in. Shuseki Shihan and Jun Shihan are earned ranks and specific titles. It is akin to having someone refer to you as "Dr. JR" because you've earned a PhD. Still though, he is referring to others in this manner. It's considered rude and presumptuous to refer to yourself by honorifics. I would be willing to bet money that you've never heard him refer to himself as Shihan Nakamura.

You are correct though in that attempting to say "always" and "never" is way too broad of a brush, and for that I apologize. I should have said "usually", or "almost always" as there are "almost always" exceptions to any rule.

If the martial art aspect is the same, but some of the words are different, I don't see it as breaking from the traditional training. How authentic a recreation of the experience are you expecting? Should I pay my class tuition with the currency of Japan in that era?

 

[JR 137]

While I agree that "traditional" is totally open to interpretation, I disagree that something should call itself traditional while ignoring the traditions which it supposedly uses.



This does not disagree with what I pointed out earlier, it simply delves deeper into Japanese society than most people, whether they study a Japanese martial art or not, are interested in. Shuseki Shihan and Jun Shihan are earned ranks and specific titles. It is akin to having someone refer to you as "Dr. JR" because you've earned a PhD. Still though, he is referring to others in this manner. It's considered rude and presumptuous to refer to yourself by honorifics. I would be willing to bet money that you've never heard him refer to himself as Shihan Nakamura.

You are correct though in that attempting to say "always" and "never" is way too broad of a brush, and for that I apologize. I should have said "usually", or "almost always" as there are "almost always" exceptions to any rule.

Is “Kaicho” an honorific?

The World Seido Karate Organization in New York City

First video, approximately 30 seconds in. And shortly thereafter with his son, “Nidaime” (second in line/vice chairman).

My point actually wasn’t introducing themselves with a title, it was more so the order - Sensei Joe vs Joe Sensei. And just an overall post to the general public.

Everyone I’ve met in Seido has introduced themselves by their name, not their title, for what it’s worth.

 

[pgsmith]

Is “Kaicho” an honorific?

The World Seido Karate Organization in New York City

First video, approximately 30 seconds in. And shortly thereafter with his son, “Nidaime” (second in line/vice chairman).

My point actually wasn’t introducing themselves with a title, it was more so the order - Sensei Joe vs Joe Sensei. And just an overall post to the general public.

Everyone I’ve met in Seido has introduced themselves by their name, not their title, for what it’s worth.

Kaicho means President or Chairman. It is the acknowledged head of an organization.

I get what you're saying, it just doesn't change my original thoughts on it. The videos you are referring to here are narrated by some obviously American fellow, and we've no idea who wrote the text for him to narrate.

This conversation has made me think way back to an early job as Hotel maintenance. The hotel manager spoke fluent Spanish, so he could talk with the maintenance and housekeeping folks as they were all Mexican (El Paso, Texas). However, he spoke Spanish with a very strong and definite Minnesota accent. The staff used to ask him random questions just so they could listen to him talk. He was totally understandable, it just sounded pretty weird. That's the same sort of feeling I get.

If the martial art aspect is the same, but some of the words are different, I don't see it as breaking from the traditional training. How authentic a recreation of the experience are you expecting? Should I pay my class tuition with the currency of Japan in that era?

Nope, but I think you should make some more ridiculous assertions to get it all out of your system.

So how do you judge if the martial art aspects are the same and it's only the words that have changed? Not saying they aren't as I've no way of knowing, just asking.