A friendly hello

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

A.R.K.

Guest
Hello and greetings my friends,

A new poster on another site refered me here. Very nice site :) Looking forward to getting to know many of you here and hopefully learning many new things. I am the Soke of Zhao Dai Wei and have been blessed to have an extensive training background. Hopefully I will be able to offer insight and helpful information to fellow posters here as well as receive.

Thank you in advance for the opportunity to share.

With warmest regards,

ZDW
 

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,245
Reaction score
772
Location
Land of the Free
Welcome. :)

Could you tell us a bit about your style?

:asian:
 
OP
M

MartialArtist

Guest
we could always use more insight
 
OP
A

A.R.K.

Guest
If you will simply allow me to cut and paste from my site it will save me a bit of typing .

Zhao Dai Wei/CQDT is an internationally recognized SYSTEM of hand-to-hand, hand-held, edged weapon and firearm tactics and techniques. Traditional Martial Arts and Karate styles are fine for exercise, discipline and conditioning, however, the sport versions of these Arts rely heavily on refined motor skills and flashy Hollywood style maneuvers that take a long time to master but yet would probably never be used successfully in an actual life and death struggle.

Zhao Dai Wei is not a Martial Art Style, it is a SYSTEM based on the medical anatomy and physiology of the human body. It stresses gross motor skills and automatic responses to stress situations.

It comprises strikes, punches and kicks that are specifically designed for close quarters combat. Additionally, ground fighting, grappling, joint locks/manipulation, takedowns, sweeps, escapes, disarms and Dim Mak pressure points are intensely covered by hands on mat time. Weapons drills and tactics are covered in-depth with regards to baton, tonfa, knife and firearms.

Training sessions are intense and focus not on 'point sparring' but winning a confrontation by bringing it to a quick, specific and direct conclusion.

This system is based on the 97/3 rule and training is geared towards confrontations with 3% individuals. Techniques are easily remembered and training is scenerio based.

Zhao Dai Wei has been described as brutal, simple and devastatingly effective.

Zhao Dai Wei has been recognized by the United States of America Martial Arts Dan Registry, the Korean Yudo & Hapkido Association, The World Head of Society, The World Organizer of Martial Arts, The Independant Martial Arts Federation, The Unified Sokeship Association International, World Goshin Kaikan Federation, Martial Arts Association - International, World Agni Kempo Organization, International Combat Martial Arts Unions Assn. and the Agni Kickboxing Organization of Iran.

These techniques have been lawfully used in the performance of official duties to control and/or subdue violent felons and to protect the user and innocent bystanders from bodily harm. They have been used hundreds of times by the author/system founder and students alike.

They have been taught to Military, Law Enforcement, Corrections, Executive Protection Agents as well as private citizens.

The Zhao Dai Wei system is not designed around tournements and point sparring. It is designed for street survival.

For familiarity purposes, and for the student's hard earned recognition a rank structure has been instituted into the system. This is composed of five kyu's [ranks below Black Belt]. In addition, there are ten Dan rankings [Black Belt Degrees], progressing from Shodan to Judan.


After earning my Hachidan in Pangai-noon and my Godan in Shuri-Te I spent the better part of a decade developing the system into what it has become today. I have been very blessed to have many fine Grandmasters assist me both in development as well as international recognition. It has truly been a dream come true for me and something that I one day desire to pass to my son.

Again, wonderful site. I look forward to participating in many discussions. Thank you for your welcome.

ZDW
 
OP
J

Jill666

Guest
I visited your homepage & read your profile- welcome. your experiences should make for interesting reading (informative too).

Enjoy!:asian:
 

Matt Stone

Master of Arts
Joined
Dec 4, 2001
Messages
1,711
Reaction score
30
Location
Fort Lewis, Washington
It is nice to make your acquaintence. I am confused, however.

You said -

Originally posted by Zhao Dai Wei
Traditional Martial Arts and Karate styles are fine for exercise, discipline and conditioning, however, the sport versions of these Arts rely heavily on refined motor skills and flashy Hollywood style maneuvers that take a long time to master but yet would probably never be used successfully in an actual life and death struggle.

Zhao Dai Wei is not a Martial Art Style, it is a SYSTEM based on the medical anatomy and physiology of the human body. It stresses gross motor skills and automatic responses to stress situations.

It comprises strikes, punches and kicks that are specifically designed for close quarters combat. Additionally, ground fighting, grappling, joint locks/manipulation, takedowns, sweeps, escapes, disarms and Dim Mak pressure points are intensely covered by hands on mat time. Weapons drills and tactics are covered in-depth with regards to baton, tonfa, knife and firearms.

Then you say -

After earning my Hachidan in Pangai-noon and my Godan in Shuri-Te I spent the better part of a decade developing the system into what it has become today.

So your training and background are in traditional systems, the same systems you claim are no good for "real" combat.

I'm confused. :confused:

Additionally, and I don't mean to nitpick overly much, you have people listed as holding Japanese titled ranks in non-Japanese arts; numbered titles for belt ranks are misused (i.e. "shichidan," the incorrect form for 7th degree); and one of the instructors subordinate to you is the founder of an organization that recognizes your "soke" title (another ambiguous term). Finally, what does "Ph.D MA " mean?

Please enlighten me. I mean no animosity from this, I just have some personal difficulties with the lack of continuity and the apparent widespread application of "artisitic license" in the use of foreign language terminology (a pet peeve of mine).

Gambarimasu.
:asian:
 
OP
C

chufeng

Guest
Zhao,

Are you acquaited with Soke Castro?

:asian:
chufeng
 
OP
R

RyuShiKan

Guest
Just a few questions:

First: What is shuri te? I know some people include certain systems in the Shuri Te linage but I have never heard of it reffered to as an art all its own.........Mainly because it isnt.

Second: 8th dan in Pangai-noon..who did you study with and who issued your 8th dan?


Third: Your use of the Japanese word Soke :rolleyes: is inaccurate. Quite frankly I find every westerner that uses the term Soke :rolleyes: to be a joke.
Read the following and it will give you a better understanding of the word and its usage and you will also see how ridiculous it is for you to use it.

Just in case you wanted to know what the word Soke really means........
Soke:
Historical Incarnations of a Title and its Entitlements
by William M. Bodiford
Who or what is a soke? If Internet websites can be believed, in the English-speaking world the Japanese word soke has become a title for individuals who claim to be "great grandmasters" or "founders" of martial arts.1 Surprisingly, however, the term is not explained in recent English-language dictionaries of martial arts directed toward general readers, nor in the more authoritative books about Japanese martial culture.2 Apparently this very obscurity provides commercial advantage when it is invoked in a competitive marketplace crowded with instructors who promote themselves not just as high-ranking black belts, but as masters or even grandmasters. This English-language usage stands in stark contrast to the connotations of the word soke in Japan where, if it is used at all, it strongly implies loyalty to existing schools, deference to ancestral authority, and conservative adherence to traditional forms. Despite what many seem to believe in the West, as a Japanese word soke has never meant "founder," nor does it mean "grandmaster."


Confusion over the word soke, however, is not confined to people who lack Japanese-language skills; it exists in Japan as well. These misunderstandings arise because in premodern and modern Japan the term represents different (yet related) meanings and connotations depending on the diverse contexts in which it appears. We can distinguish several different patterns of usage associated with the term soke throughout Japanese history.3 For this reason, when describing soke in English (or, rather, when arguing about its meaning) it is useful first to chronicle the many ways that this word has been used in the historical record. Then one can better evaluate the ways that this term has been conceptualized by modern writers and applied (or misapplied) in contemporary situations.

Soke originated as a Chinese word (Mandarin zongjia) with strong familial and religious connotations. Etymologically it is written with glyphs indicating a family that performs ancestor rites. In Chinese texts it designates either the members of a household belonging to the same clan or the main lineage within an extended clan, the head of which was responsible for maintaining the ancestral temple on behalf of the entire clan organization. In Japanese texts as well, soke always implied a familial relationship replete with filial duties. Japanese use of this word was not limited to consanguineous contexts, though, since many kinds of social relationships were organized around pseudo-familial models. Religious societies, commercial enterprises, and teaching organizations all employed familial vocabulary and observed rites of familial etiquette. In these contexts, the term soke often implied exclusivity and commercial privilege, with less emphasis on formal religious duties.

For most of early Japanese history the privileges of power, wealth, and civilization were controlled exclusively by the court, the aristocrats, and the Buddhist clergy, all three of which reinforced one another in mutual dependence. As Buddhist clerics developed their combined exoteric-esoteric (ken-mitsu) form of tantra, they gave rise to a shared "culture of secret transmission" (Stone, 97-152). In other words, Buddhist pedagogical systems in which tantric rituals were taught via oral initiations (kuden) available only to members of exclusive master-disciple lineages became the normative teaching method across elite society (Nishiyama 1982b, 146-147). Within this culture, the arts of civilization prized most by wealthy nobles became the exclusive property of certain families. For example, the Nijo and Reizei branches of the aristocratic Fujiwara family each taught and maintained control over mutually exclusive systems of initiation into the mysteries of Japanese poetics (waka). Lower down on the economic ladder, designated merchant families exercised exclusive commercial control over the production and distribution of certain types of manufactured goods used by aristocrats, such as extravagant ceramics (for example, raku ware; Nishiyama 1982b, 51). Those families maintained their hereditary monopolies through the protection and patronage of local nobles or of the court.

These families operated much like corporate entities in which many affiliated kinship groups functioned in unison. Among the members of the united kinship groups only the individual successor--usually the oldest son--of the current family head received full initiation into the secrets of the family craft. Even if proper male progeny did not exist, economic necessity demanded that the main family line always continue since hereditary authority rested with that family alone. Whenever required, therefore, another male from one of the affiliated groups would be brought in and designated as heir to succeed the head of the family. The heir, whether related by blood or adopted, was responsible for maintaining the unity of the corporate families, maintaining their commercial monopoly, and maintaining their good relations with their patrons. Most of all he was responsible for preserving the secret texts, special tools, and knowledge of the oral initiations that constituted his family's exclusive lore. The legitimate possessors of that exclusive lore, both the main family itself as a multi-generational entity, and the individual current head of the family were called the soke. Use of this term was extremely limited, however, until after the establishment of the Tokugawa peace in 1603 provided the conditions for the development of new, more elaborate systems of familial privilege throughout the land.

During the Tokugawa period (1603-1868) of Japanese history, especially during the eighteenth century, many new types of artistic and cultural activities came under the domination of families that exercised proprietary authority over the performance of those arts and endeavors by others. These new familial lineages, which essentially operated as commercial guilds, referred to themselves as soke. The leading expert on this subject is a Japanese scholar named Nishiyama Matsunosuke. Early in his career, Nishiyama wrote two seminal studies of soke families and the ways they exercised their authority during this period of Japanese history: Iemoto monogatari (Iemoto Stories, 1956; reprinted as Nishiyama 1982a) and Iemoto no kenkyu (Researches in the Iemoto System, 1960; reprinted as Nishiyama 1982b).4 Although Nishiyama settled on the term iemoto, in the Tokugawa-period texts he studied the words iemoto and soke were used interchangeably, without any distinction in meaning (Nishiyama 1982b, 15). Both words were used to refer to the main lineage that asserted proprietary authority over a commercial guild or to refer to the person who had attained full initiation as the current legitimate head of that lineage.

Nishiyama cites several factors that contributed to the development of familial lineages (i.e., soke) as commercial guilds. The Tokugawa regime placed governmental authority in the hands of an upper echelon of warrior families who maintained their positions of power through assertions of hereditary privilege and attempts to enforce rigid codes of social distinctions. These new warrior elites readily accepted similar assertions of familial authority over the codification and teaching of artistic endeavors (Nishiyama 1982b, 91-92). Moreover, the warrior rulers patronized many new performative arts and forms of amusement that had developed independently from and, thus, outside the control of the old aristocratic families. It was the teachers of these new amusements--arts such as tea ceremony (chanoyu), flower arranging (ikebana), chess (shogi), Noh theater, verse (haikai), special forms of music and dance, and so forth--that most quickly asserted familial control over their teaching and over their performance by others (Nishiyama 1982b, 135-140). Finally, the long period of peace produced many unemployed former warriors (ronin) who could seek employment as junior instructors in these guilds; at the same time, the end of incessant warfare promoted the economic prosperity that enabled townsmen and rural landowners to amass surplus wealth that they could spend as pupils of these arts.

The existence of a network of junior instructors (i.e., natori) who taught in the name of the soke is a crucial feature that distinguished Tokugawa-period soke families from their earlier counterparts (Nishiyama 1982b, 106). During the Tokugawa period, instruction in the special skills associated with a particular artistic endeavor was marketed through networks of branch instructors who paid royalties and license fees to the soke and who were organized into a pyramid-like hierarchical structure with the soke on top. The soke asserted absolute authority over the branch instructors and indirect authority over their students by controlling what, how, and when subjects could be taught and by restricting access to the most advanced lore, to which the soke alone was privy. Nishiyama labeled the social structures associated with this type of exclusive familial control and networks of branch instructors the iemoto system (iemoto seido). He saw it as a unique feature of Japanese feudalism that exerted a strong influence over the development of many traditional Japanese arts even until modern times (Nishiyama 1982b, 20-21).

These Tokugawa-period artistic lineages can be likened to commercial guilds because they earned money from every single person who participated in their particular school's craft or art throughout the entire country. Nishiyama (1982b, 16) neatly summarizes the commercial rights (kenri) of these familial guilds as follows:

1. Rights regarding the techniques (waza) of the art, such as the right to keep it secret, the right to control how and when it is performed, and rights over the repertoire of its curriculum and its choreography (kata).

2. Rights over instructors (kyoju), over initiation rituals and documents (soden), and over the awarding of diplomas and licenses (menkyo).

3. The right to punish (chobatsu) and to expel (hamon) students.

4. The right to control uses of costumes, of stage names or artistic pseudonyms, and so forth.

5. The right to control facilities and special equipment or tools used in the art.

6. Exclusive rights to the monetary income and social status resulting from the preceding five items.

For almost every art or amusement patronized by the ruling elite, there existed only a limited number of these familial guilds, each one of which enforced the above rights over anyone who practiced that art throughout the entire kingdom.5 No one could legally perform a play, a song, a musical piece, or practice any other art in public without either joining the soke's school or paying fees for temporary permission (ichinichi soden). Enforcement of these exclusive rights enabled soke families to control huge populations of students across all strata of society. Nishiyama argues that from the middle of the eighteenth century these guilds provided a government-regulated medium for the distribution of cultural knowledge within which people assigned to different social classes (samurai of various ranks, townsmen, merchants, priests, wealthy farmers, rural warriors, etc.) could interact with one another on a near-equal footing (Nishiyama 1982b, 531; 1997, 204-208).

Nishiyama's research demonstrates that the near-monopoly control over the teaching of peaceful arts exercised by Tokugawa-period soke effectively prevented the proliferation of rival schools. In short, where soke existed, there were no new schools. The very creation of new schools repudiated any notion of soke authority (Nishiyama 1982b, 135-137). Seen in this light, it is obvious that the word soke in premodern Japanese documents could never be translated into English as "founder." The notion of "founder" is even less appropriate in modern Japan.

After 1868, when Japan became organized as a modern state, the government formally recognized the legal rights of soke (a.k.a. iemoto) families to control the copyright of all musical scores, theatrical plays, textbooks, and artistic works produced by members of their guilds (Nishiyama 1982b, 16). In this way, the terms soke and iemoto acquired legal definitions as designations for the modern representatives of the limited number of families who could provide historical documentation that they had controlled these kinds of commercial guilds during the Tokugawa period. To maintain their copyrights, the leaders of these families had to register with the government as legal entities. At the same time that they acquired copyrights, they lost their previous ability to restrict the teaching or performance of their arts by people from outside their guild. They became just one school or performance group among many. While they can restrict unauthorized use of their own name and their own historical resources, they have no legal power to inhibit competition. Today, as long as there is no copyright infringement, anyone can write new instructional guides to tea ceremony or any other traditional art. Anyone is free to devise new methods for practicing them.

Use of the term soke (or iemoto) in martial contexts is even more complex. Before 1868, soke families that were organized into the kinds of commercial guilds described above never controlled instruction in martial arts. This is the reason so many different lineages (ryuha) of martial arts existed in premodern Japan. The contrast between teaching organizations devoted to peaceful arts (such as tea ceremony, flower arranging, and so forth) and those concerned with martial arts could not be more stark. Instruction in any of the peaceful arts was available only from a small number of familial lineages, each one of which organized itself into a commercial guild with a network of affiliated branch instructors available throughout the land. On the other hand, there existed hundreds of different martial art lineages, the vast majority of which were confined to a single location.6 While many martial lineages were consanguineous (i.e., handed down from father to son), many others were not.

Nishiyama (1982b, 273-278) identifies several reasons why martial art lineages never developed into iemoto (a.k.a. soke) systems. Prior to the establishment of the Tokugawa peace, rapid acquisition of military prowess constituted the sine qua non of any system of martial instruction. An instructor who withheld instruction in the most advanced techniques as a family secret, as was the norm among soke who taught peaceful arts, could not have attracted students. For this reason, during the sixteenth century, military students usually attained full initiation rather quickly, after which they were free to teach all that they had learned to their own students. If anyone issued diplomas, they did so on their own authority, without having to pay license fees to any larger organization. After the Tokugawa regime imposed peace on the land, both older and new schools of martial instruction became more structured, more secretive, and developed more complex and time-consuming curriculums. Students who received diplomas no longer necessarily acquired independent rights to issue diplomas themselves.7 The ruling authorities also actively prevented any warrior groups or martial schools from developing organizational bonds across domain boundaries.8 Moreover, the rulers of each individual domain preferred to patronize only their own local martial systems, which could be kept under their own local control. Finally, in an age of peace it became practically impossible for any one martial lineage or group of lineages to demonstrate decisively their superiority over their rivals. Innovative teachers could (and did) devise new methods of martial training and establish new schools without having to risk lives to demonstrate their combat effectiveness.

Osano Jun (187-192) argues that the first martial art in Japan to adopt a true soke system was the Kodokan School of judo. Osano could be right. The Kodokan set the standards not just for members within one training hall in one location, but for all participants in judo throughout the nation. The Kodokan defined the art; it controlled licensing and instruction; and it established branch schools with instructors who maintained permanent affiliation with the headquarters. If the Kodokan does not recognize something as being "judo," then it is not judo. Therefore, there is no such thing as a new style of judo. All of these elements constitute essential characteristics of traditional soke organizations in Tokugawa-period Japan. In actual practice, however, no one ever refers to the Kodokan, or its current head, as the soke of judo.9 The term seems out of place with judo's emphasis on modernity. Having analyzing the term soke in this way, Osano also criticizes the present-day use of the soke label by some Japanese teachers who represent traditional martial art lineages (i.e., koryu). Osano asserts that such usage not only is incorrect but also reveals an ignorance of traditional Japanese culture.

Osano's strict historical understanding is probably too strict. He overlooks the legal and social changes in the status of soke that occurred after 1868. After Japan began to modernize, social critics denounced soke organizations as a disagreeable legacy of a feudal system based on hereditary privilege, which stifled innovation and restricted knowledge for the financial benefit of undeserving family heads who no longer possessed the skills of their ancestors (Nishiyama 1982c, 263-273). Soke organizations saw their networks of branch instructors wither as interest in traditional arts declined and former students broke away to found rival schools.10 Soon many traditional soke disappeared, especially in arts based on direct competition among participants such as Japanese chess (shogi) and in less well-known forms of dance and song. As more and more of these intangible cultural legacies disappeared, modern Japanese gradually developed a new appreciation for the soke families who had managed to preserve their own family traditions and teach them to new generations. Without the determination and persistence of the heirs of these families, direct knowledge of many traditional Japanese arts would have been lost.

Today one could argue that the historical differences between the heirs of Tokugawa-period family lineages which operated as commercial guilds (with the natori system) and the heirs of localized teaching lineages such as those associated with martial traditions are less significant than their modern similarities. In both cases the current successors remain the only legitimate sources for traditional forms of instruction in the arts of that lineage. In both cases the current successors have assumed responsibility for preserving the historical texts, special tools, unique skills, and specific lore that have been handed down within their own particular lineage. In both cases the current successors distinguish their traditional teachings from newly founded rivals by pointing out how their teachings remain faithful to the goals and forms taught by previous generations. Based on these similarities, many modern writers use the terms iemoto or soke as designations for the legitimate heir to any established main lineage. Used in reference to present-day representatives of traditional martial art lineages, therefore, the soke label properly denotes their roles as successors to and preservers of a particular historical and cultural legacy. It should not be interpreted as implying identification with a commercial network (as criticized by Osano) nor as being equivalent to "grandmaster" or "founder" (as mistakenly assumed by casual observers), and might best be translated simply as "head" or "headmaster."

Consider, for example, the case of Kashima-Shinryu (see Friday, Legacies of the Sword). In his books and articles, Seki Humitake, the current head of and nineteenth-generation successor to the Kashima- Shinryu lineage, uses the label soke as a designation for the Kunii family. He uses this term as a way of honoring the role the Kunii family played in preserving Kashima-Shinryu traditions. Down to the time of Seki's teacher, Kunii Zen'ya (1894-1966), Kashima-Shinryu forms of martial lore had been passed down consanguineously within the Kunii family from father to son from one generation to the next. Seki's modern use of the label soke simply acknowledges that legacy.11 In the writings of Kunii Zen'ya and in the traditional scrolls preserved within the Kunii family, however, the word soke cannot be found. Kunii Zen'ya never referred to himself or to his family as the soke of Kashima-Shinryu. He simply signed his name. In writing out copies of his family's old scrolls (these copies would be handed out as diplomas), though, he usually would add the words "Kunii-ke soden" before the title of each scroll. For example, if he copied an old scroll titled "Kenjutsu mokuroku" he would give it the title "Kunii-ke soden kenjutsu mokuroku." In this example, the original title simply means "fencing curriculum" while the longer version means "the fencing curriculum transmitted within the Kunii family." Used to represent this sense of "transmitted within a family," the term soke seems perfectly reasonable. It merely implies that the lore associated with this curriculum was taught exclusively within the Kunii familial lineage.

In concluding, it is difficult to condone the use of obscure Japanese terminology to describe American social practices for which perfectly acceptable English words already exist. One must struggle to imagine how any non-Japanese could call himself a "soke" in English except as a joke. At the same time it is also difficult to regard this term with any special reverence or to become overly troubled by its misuse among self-proclaimed "grandmasters" and "founders." During the Tokugawa period the word soke designated a commercial system of hereditary privilege that took advantage of the ignorance of ordinary people for financial gain. Perhaps teachers of commercial martial art schools in America who adopt the title soke for themselves are more historically accurate in their usage than they themselves realize.
 
OP
J

Jas0n

Guest
Originally posted by Zhao Dai Wei
Hello and greetings my friends,

A new poster on another site refered me here. Very nice site :) Looking forward to getting to know many of you here and hopefully learning many new things. I am the Soke of Zhao Dai Wei and have been blessed to have an extensive training background. Hopefully I will be able to offer insight and helpful information to fellow posters here as well as receive.

Thank you in advance for the opportunity to share.

With warmest regards,

ZDW
Dave? If so this is glock!9
Good to see ya!:D
 

Aegis

Purple Belt
Joined
Sep 11, 2002
Messages
389
Reaction score
22
Location
West Midlands, UK
Most of the technique pictures on that site come straight out of traditional martial arts, which you claim don't work. How exactly is this style different?

Also (don't know if it's been pointed out yet, but...) Zhao Dai Wei doesn't exactly sound Japanese, yet you use Japanese words like Soke and Judan freely...
 

tshadowchaser

Sr. Grandmaster
MT Mentor
Founding Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 29, 2001
Messages
13,460
Reaction score
733
Location
Athol, Ma. USA
I'll say welcome to our site. I hope you injoy your stay here.
AS you have already noticed many of our members ask whats on their mind and voice their opions openly.
This we do encourage provideing that it stays in the respectful area.
Please answere some of the points that have been brought up. I for one want to here your replys.

Tshadowchaser:asian:
 

Matt Stone

Master of Arts
Joined
Dec 4, 2001
Messages
1,711
Reaction score
30
Location
Fort Lewis, Washington
Just to qualify my stance here...

I have absolutely no personal qualms against a person for what art they study or how they study it. When I was younger, I was highly critical of people for practicing certain arts or training in certain ways. Age and experience have taught me to be a bit more mellow in my judgements of people.

However, having had experiences with people of questionable background and training (not that I am implying ZDW is of that particular cut of cloth), I have found one of the hallmarks of such people is their picking and choosing of terms, titles, etc., from multiple languages, as well as their membership in incredible numbers of organizations (oftentimes, such membership appears on the surface to be a mutually beneficial situation, since person A belongs to person B's group that grants person A some rank or title, and person B belongs to person A's group that does likewise). And almost universally, with the exception of one person (Don Angier), the title soke is a harbinger of questionability.

I have no personal agenda towards ZDW, just the same standard I apply to myself and everyone else - if you make a claim to something, simply be able to explain it. Whether your explanation is sufficient is another topic entirely.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

P.S. Should anyone wish to call me out on the same issues, I will gladly post my entire training background with every single skeleton I can find. Just want to make sure folks know where I stand.
:asian:
 
OP
M

Master of Blades

Guest
:rofl: He just got here! You guys crack me up! :rofl:

Anyway, welcome and I hope you enjoy your stay lol Incase you hadnt already noticed were always up for a little heated "discussion" :D

Have fun :asian:
 
OP
J

Jas0n

Guest
Originally posted by Master of Blades
:rofl: He just got here! You guys crack me up! :rofl:

Anyway, welcome and I hope you enjoy your stay lol Incase you hadnt already noticed were always up for a little heated "discussion" :D

Have fun :asian:
I dont think he will feel so welcome....I certinaly wouldnt and am starting to wonder If I am even welcome....Geezzzz
 
OP
M

Master of Blades

Guest
Originally posted by Jas0n
I dont think he will feel so welcome....I certinaly wouldnt and am starting to wonder If I am even welcome....Geezzzz

Awwwwwwwww...........You see what you guys did! You upset the little guy!!!! :eek: *hugs*


And I think I speak for everyone when I say EVERYONE is welcome.........even if you feel that no-one likes you then stick around and soon you will grow on everyone. Worked for me :D


And thats a manly *hugs* before anyone brings anything up :shrug:


:asian:
 

Blindside

Grandmaster
Founding Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2001
Messages
5,175
Reaction score
849
Location
Kennewick, WA
I dont think he will feel so welcome....I certinaly wouldnt and am starting to wonder If I am even welcome....Geezzzz

Hi Jas0n,

It isn't that your friend isn't welcome, but essentially by the titles he is claiming he has designated himself as something of an authority in the martial arts world. What we are doing is the same thing that happens if you submitted a paper for peer review in a scientific journal. People will ask for your qualifications, previous publications, etc. While it may appear that your friend has done that, the problem is that few martial arts institutions are truly credible for the organization of new systems. Instead many represent groups of relatively unqualified people who have "created their own style" and jumped themself up in rank to "grandmaster" or "soke." Now these groups essentially try to justify their existence by making "councils" to grade the founders of other "new" arts. Several of the qualifications that ZDW posted raised red flags with those of us who know how the phony soke boards work. That is why there are so many people questioning him. Anyone coming onto a board with such a title should expect criticism, and should be able to back-up their lineage and sytem philosophy to a T.

On the other hand, you Jas0n came on this board and essentially said "hi, I'm a newbie" and you have received nothing but welcome. I guess another analogy would be to go onto a gun forum and say "Hi I'm Lamont, I invented this new caliber bullet that is better than anything on the market today." You would expect several outraged responses from those who can't even settle the differences between 9mm and .45 acp. You would also get "who the hell are you..." responses. The questions so far are very polite "who the hell are yous"....

Just to clarify why ZDW is drawing so much (polite) flak.

Lamont
 

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,245
Reaction score
772
Location
Land of the Free
Doesn't GM. Hatsumi use 'soke' too? or is my memory faulty again? If so, is his usage within the info in the lengthy post above?


Guys, give the man some slack...sheesh....valid points, but he's made 2 posts and already gotten multiple folks jumping down his throat. Valid points were made, but ya gotta let folks come up for air before you pound them into submission.

The title says 'friendly discussion'...can mean debate, even arguement, but the key word is friendly.

Lets keep that in mind, k?

Danke.
:asian:
 
OP
R

RyuShiKan

Guest
Originally posted by Jay Bell
RyuShiKan,

What about Don Angier Soke of the Yanagi ryu ? :D

Very legit...and a Westerner.

Sorry, never heard of him.

Who is he?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top