Hi Daniel,
Well, you don't train in jigeiko; you participate in it in order to try out the things that you have been training without the pressure of winning or losing. Jigeiko is simply undirected practice. But it is still just practice. Shiai geiko is training for shiai. Essentially a scrimmage.
Yeah, I'd still call that training, though. Just a different form of training.
I don't see very many circumstances where Dancingalone's query (kendo without sparring) could realistically occur. I had mentioned some possibilities in a previous post; unable to afford bogu, medical condition, or some mental block, be it fear, embarrassment, or something else.
As I had said before; people who don't want to or can't spar are generally put off by kendo anyway.
Agreed, but that was kinda the point, really. Without sparring, it's not Kendo.
I disagree. It would be more like showing up at the pool with the swim team, doing all of the drills and exercises, but never wanting to swim laps with the other swimmer.
No, I'd put that as doing the sparring, but not competition.
The reason that I would want to find out is not so that I can get them sparring, but because I'd like to try to help them overcome the obstacle so that they can live a better life, as such obstacles likely affect more than just kendo practice. Getting them sparring is a fringe bennefit.
Yeah, I'd be of the same mind. But I'd still say that if they can't participate in the essential methods of Kendo, then Kendo wouldn't be part of them moving to a better life, at least not in the short term.
The bolded pretty much sums up my opinion. If it takes them twenty years to get up to sparring, or if they die before they get up to sparring, they've still been doing kendo.
If they quit before they get up to sparring, then they were still doing kendo, but didn't get that far.
Well, I don't know if I'd be generous enough to give them 20 years, but essentially, yeah. And it comes down to the school and what the training involves, more than an individual's particular practice at any one moment.
Let's take it back to the original quote itself:
Can you do karate without kata? Can you do kendo without sparring? Can you do aikido without falling?Specific martial arts have immutable parts to them. We can choose to focus on certain aspects to the possible exclusion of the others for periods of time, and that can be a good thing occasionally. However, this can't stand permanently. If you train karate without kata, arguably you're not doing karate. You're doing something else, no matter how much it can resemble karate.
As you can see, Dancingalone was saying that the overall training experience needs to include certain traits, or hallmarks, what he called "immutable parts". The comment was made that you can focus on some (even to the exclusion of those immutable aspects, such as sparring/kata/falling in the examples), but the art, if such things are never part of the training, isn't that art.
Not ZNKR kendo. I'm not sure if there's sparring in Shin kendo, for example.
Hmm, if you mean Shinkendo, then honestly that's rather irrelevant. It's not Shin Kendo (
新剣道 - "New Kendo"), it's Shinken Do (真剣道 - "True Sword Way"), and has no relation to Kendo (ZNKR) at all.
Sure. It made sense before. And it isn't so much that I agree or disagree with you, but that I'm looking at it from a different perspective.
Honestly, Daniel, it's looked like you missed the actual comment that was being made... it hasn't ever been about a single students training in the moment, it's about what the training (overall) is made up of. So while you've had a different perspective, it wasn't really anything to do with the actual comment or point. Which is what I've been trying to clear up.
Glenn, I'm getting rather fed up with this. You're a grown man, and a lawyer no less. Grow up.
Parker Sensei, what about keiko shiai? What does that mean? And it's not that I don't like "fancy foreign words", I just think that we shouldn't be using them if we can avoid it because they serve to exclude others from following the discussion.
Well, take that as evidence I don't use google to get my information from, Glenn. If it was, I would have simply looked up the term I'd forgotten (jigeiko, for the record, supplied by Daniel).
Or it's like taking swimming lessons, and never entering swimming contests. You're still swimming.
No, that's the exact opposite of the point... by not having sparring in the training, it's not Kendo, the same way that not getting in the water, even if you practice the strokes on the ground, is not swimming. Try to keep up.
You just conceded the point of the discussion.
You don't really read any of this, do you? You just look for things to argue. Go back through my posts, starting with Dancingalone's initial comment, and see if I've changed what I've said. My point has consistently been referring to the overall training methods, and I've consistently pointed out the difference between looking at that, and and the way you and Daniel have taken it as referring to the exact moments in time when a student is engaged in something else (that is also part of the training).
Parker Sensei, you tend to get fed up, frustrated and mad a lot, not just at me, but a lot of posters on MT and other forums as well.
Oh, but there's a special place for you, Glenn...
I don't care about the context.
I suggest caring, it makes your arguments have some weight... at the moment, you're sadly lacking in many regards.
Witty.
I'm more concerned with including everyone, or, not excluding someone because they fail to live up to my own arbitrary narrow definition of what is or isn't "doing" whatever martial art.
Glenn, frankly, you're being an idiot. If someone is training in a Kendo school, but what the school teaches isn't Kendo, that's hardly applying an "arbitrary narrow definition".
Kenpo karate is not an exception. But thank you Parker Sensei, I will use your quote above when you bring up exceptions to the general rule type points I bring up in the future.
Yes it is, Glenn. And again, if you're going to use that quote (go ahead, by the way), make sure you look to the context. I use exceptions to go against specific comments that are applied as hard and fast rules, so I accept that they exist. In fact, I accepted Chow's Kenpo Karate as an exception, and agreed that the hard and fast rule of "no kata" wouldn't apply there... so I don't really see how you're taking any of this as showing any inconsistencies in my comments.
Not "all". I do believe you engage in at least some actual physical practice and training so there is that. But you obviously rely on google and youtube much more than I do, that is clear, much more than others as well.
No, Glenn, what is clear and displayed is that I have a greater tendency to find supporting material, or demonstrative material for my arguments, not that that is where I source them from. But I've told you that before, and you responded like a despondent child being told that they're wrong.
As you would say, "you completely missed the point on that one". I don't care about your mentoring duties. I brought up the fact that you teach others how to embed their posts with youtube links as further evidence of your familiarity with, and use of, youtube.
No, Glenn, that shows my familiarity with the software of the forum here. The only thing you need to know about you-tube software is where the URL is so you can copy it.
it goes to my earlier comment that you probably have watched more youtube video of Ueshiba Sensei than I have. You wanted to know I could possibly know that, without having a video camera in your house. So that is my explanation. Now you ask what does this really have to do with anything. I am just "showing my work", like you requested.
Yeah, I probably have. Not that that means that's where my information comes from, Glenn. This isn't you showing your work, it's you making accusations which have no real evidence. One more time, you have the option of apologising, or not. But stop it. The next one gets reported.
Thank you Parker Sensei. More rebuttal quotes for me to use when you bring out your "there is no evidence" for this or that when responding to one of my posts. Forgive me if I quote the above in response to you.
Good luck keeping it in context, Glenn. And I note you didn't answer one of the questions in there? Hmm.
Here's one from the post you just wrote:
How do you gain employment as a lawyer with your lack of ability to discern an argument, Glenn? That quote is not relevant to the context I asked for, nor does it fit with the request for citation. You commented that I argue by saying "there is no evidence", in response to me pointing out that your argument was "seriously flawed". In fact, you said "You do it all the time with your "there is no evidence" argument". I asked for a citation of when I'd given a flawed argument by saying that there was a lack of evidence to support a statement, and you come back with a quote from myself about my own situation, and how your lack of knowledge of what I'm doing lends itself to your flawed take on things? Firstly, if we take this as a courtroom setting, I'm providing a statement on myself, which would be considered first-hand information, and can be taken as evidence. It's being presented to counter claims made on circumstantial evidence, not first hand, second hand, even third hand. Assumptions based on circumstantial evidence.
Seriously, if this is any indication of your skills as a lawyer, I'm not sure you chose the right profession. Politician, I could see.
That's your opinion. No problem.
Where would you draw the line, Glenn? Is someone a Kendo practitioner when they've paid membership? When they've got a uniform? When they've attained their first rank?
Or is it when they've taken a beginners course?
Or a trial class?
Or called to ask about it?
My point is that there is a point, a moment when you go from not being a practitioner to someone who is a practitioner. Now, that can change from system to system (I know of some systems where you're not considered an actual practitioner/member until first dan, for instance), and school to school, but there is a distinction between practitioners and non. I'm putting forth that there is that distinction, and I really don't see how that can be argued against, so honestly, I'd say no, not opinion there. Observation.
If you do say so yourself.
Yeah, that's opinion. And I do say so myself.
Then according to dancingalone's teachers (from Okinawa) as well as Chung Do Kwan founder GM LEE Won Kuk (who studied in Japan), you didn't do karate. According to them, no makiwara, no karate.
And if I was training in those systems, they'd be right. Kinda the point, Glenn.
You quit it. And you really don't like people knowing what you do, do you Parker Sensei? Again, it isn't a big secret, in spite of your denials to the contrary.
You made an accusation, you were corrected, and you have continued to bring it up in a number of other threads, making the same accusation over and over. I'm correcting you when you do, and I'm getting sick of it. But as long as you keep making baseless accusations, I'll keep correcting you, and, as I said, the next time I'm reporting you for it. So the person who would need to stop is you. Grow up and stop acting like a child whose been told to sit in the corner.
Correction. You set up the narrow definition and when people don't measure up to your narrow definition, in your opinion, they end up "excluding themselves", again in your opinion.
Believe me, son, I'm hardly using "narrow" definitions here, nor am I looking for people to measure up to anything. In fact, it's pretty simple, if they're training in karate, then they're training in karate. But for it to be karate, it needs to be karate. Same with Kendo, same with Aikido, and so on and so forth.
Parker Sensei, if you wish me to address you by your screenname, then you should at least have the courtesy to address me by mine.
No, I'm asking you to refer to me by my actual name, Glenn, not a false Japanese honorific that I've never used in my life, nor do I intend to ever use, as a way of getting under my skin. I use your real name to show that I'm talking directly to you, person to person. After all, it was you that invited me to investigate who you were and find your actual name in a rather misguided argument about koryu.
What I love about dealing with lawyers is the well crafted arguments that they present, stimulating the intellect, challenging perceptions and ideals, and leading to growth on both sides. Well, most of the time...
If you say so. I will say that I have "socialized" with many seniors, in the form of lessons, in an effort to build relationships with those seniors and teachers. It's the way knowledge is passed on, through social interaction. This is a different sort of learning, than say, reading webpages and watching youtube videos. I will say that the thing I notice about your postings on various subjects is that it seems very impersonal. You can go on and on about this or that in a sort of cold academic fashion, but a lot of times it does not translate as coming from personal training or experience. I and I believe others would enjoy your posts more if you did interject yourself a little more, instead of it reading like it came from a dry historical webpage.
Good god, Glenn, you mean your information has come to you the
exact same way I described the way I've gotten mine!
Let's take Hontai Yoshin Ryu as an example. The majority of my information in that Ryu comes from attending seminars with the Head Instructor in Melbourne, having long conversations with him, training and discussing with one of his students, and training in related lines. This is then topped up with reading material. In fact, if you were to look over my posting history, you'd find that, for probably 90% of the systems I talk about, I either have experience in them, or I have friends who teach or train in them. And that list is pretty damn long... and that's where my information comes from.
My postings being impersonal is more to do with my style of writing, which comes from the position of our organisation against the larger Ninjutsu organisations. I try to keep things to facts as much as possible, and objective observation. Your posting seems to be more about boasting about your name-dropping, with little of real value behind them. Personally, I'd prefer to post something with more information, which can be verified easily, than just talk about other people and try to leech off their achievements.
You drop the matter Parker Sensei. Again, people are entitled to their opinions. You obviously liberally exercise this when you give opinions about me and everyone else out there. Funny how when it is directed towards you, you get all upset. Do as I say, not as I do seems to be your motto, Parker Sensei.
Frankly, Glenn, I see no support for your comment here. With regards to yourself, I have not proffered any opinion other than some hypothetical ones earlier in this thread, any other opinions that I have offered for other members have only been on what has been presented at the time. You have not offered any opinion of myself, you have made accusations. You have not been able to back them up, you have not retracted them, and you have continued to repeat them. Again, it is up to you to stop.
Yep... and the same one just after it.
I'll go look up your posts where you said those things. Or maybe your situation has changed since then. If so, good for you. In my opinion, you need a good teacher to guide you.
You really have no idea what my guidance is like in these areas, Glenn. In my opinion, you need to realize when you're talking out of your depth. But that doesn't seem to be your style.
With ancestry comes the culture attached to that ancestry. mastercole for example is of scottish ancestry, and he has a much better understanding of scottish culture and ways than I do, mainly because it is part of how he was raised.
Again, Glenn, you're being an idiot. Your comments (both here and previously) about Japanese heritage in regard to learning or training in Koryu are so out of whack with reality that it's laughable. All it tells me is that you don't have a clue about anything you're talking about. But, for the record, there are quite a number of people who will argue with you, quite vehemently in many cases (such as Ellis Amdur, Meik Skoss, Dianne Skoss, Steve Delaney, Scott Halls, Phil Relnick, Pascal Krieger, Wayne Muramoto [yep, he's going to argue that Japanese ancestry wasn't really a boon for him as well], Ron Beaubien, Rennis Butchner, Russ Ebert, and many, many, many others who are far more informed than you are in every regard here).
You didn't deny it either, and you still don't. And in my business, failure to answer a request for admission means that the request is deemed to be admitted. I'll give you credit though, at least you try not to lie, like some other people would, at least in this situation, so there is hope. If you had visited Japan, for example, no doubt you would have made mention of that in your posts. It is a much different experience to read about Musashi's wooden sword and view it on a webpage than it is to actually travel to Japan and see it for yourself. You kind of remind me of the movie Good Will Hunting, where you can tell us all about the Sistine Chapel, when it was built, and all of that, but you don't know what it smells like.
Frankly Glenn, I don't see the point in providing you with any answers with the way you ask for them.
Ok, so no teaching licenses either. 30 years and only a Ninjutsu 3rd Dan to show for it. That says a lot.
Only in it's context will it say anything, Glenn. And you don't get that context, despite it being explained to you before.
Don't need to be Parker Sensei.
And yet you try...
I don't know about that, since you were the one who conceded the point of this whole discussion, at least to daniel.
Glenn, go back and re-read it, then try again. But drop the false honorifics and accusations, if you had an argument they'd make you look petty, without one they make you look desperate.
