Wow you're a persistent one… Lol
Ha, you have no idea… honestly, I've been rather gentle and subtle so far… well… for me, anyway…
Honestly I got nothing more for you... So, ummm...you win? You know more about... History? Or Tradition? Japanese Martial Arts?
To me this is interesting, but I just don't care that much. Sorry…
Honestly, Matt, I think we got off on the wrong foot, for a few reasons. One being that either I'm not expressing myself properly, or that you're simply not getting what I'm actually asking… this is really a case in point here.
You teach an art that is promoted as "traditional", and "Japanese jujitsu"… but you don't care much about Japanese arts? Or traditional ones? Or history? To the point that you can't even get the relevance, or understand when, or why, you're being asked about them? It's not about knowing more about such aspects… it's that they are integral parts of what Kobukai claims to be. To not have an interest is to not have an interest in your own art… and, honestly, the only thing that leads to is people who similarly don't "care" about such aspects being taken in by frauds, liars, and BS artists. By not caring, you're opening yourself up to such… as well as risking being labeled as one yourself (note: that is not what I'm doing here).
This is where I'm coming from, really. I mean, I can tell you flat out that parts of your lineage are very much fraudulent, and based on the work of people who had no actual background in what they claimed at all. Now, this isn't a comment on yourself, or your instructor (well… not entirely), but it is to show that knowing history and what you're talking about can be vital in these areas.
Since you have done your Google work, you'll know that I am more into the combatives side of martial arts. And providing excellent instruction to my students. I care about my and my students ability to fight, and defend themselves. I also like the sportive side too. Just fun.
Sure, and I haven't had any problem with that, nor have I called any of it into question. I've asked about the history of Kobukai Jujitsu, and I've asked about it's credibility as pertains to being presented as a "traditional" or "Japanese" art. Constantly telling me what your emphasis, or focus is, while all cool, really isn't related to anything I've asked about. Which is why I'm suggesting that you simply haven't understood what I'm asking, or why.
If you want to talk about techniques, training philosophy, strength training, combatives, psychology of Self-Defense... I'm happy to talk.
So, you're happy to talk about some areas, but not about the actual art you're teaching? The one you presented in the video in the OP?
But getting into this... Weird discussion where it seems you're committed to proving me wrong on... Something. Just isn't worth it.
I'm not bent on proving you wrong, Matt… frankly, I don't think you're educated enough in this area to be "wrong"… simply ill-informed. If anything, I'm aiming to get you to look past what you think you know, and embrace a wider understanding… and, while that might seem confronting (or confrontational), it's not intended that way. I do have concerns when you feel that being asked about the background of the art you yourself have come here to discuss makes for a "weird discussion"… but, as I said, I feel this is either because you don't know (the aspects that I'm talking about, what traditional arts are actually like, what a Japanese Jujutsu system is like etc), or because you don't want to admit that the art you study isn't actually either. Because, really, there's no other option here. You started a thread specifically about this system, not everything else you teach at your academy, and I've asked about it only… which seems to have highlighted a range of issues in the background of the system… to the point that you've tried to confuse the issue by bringing in many areas that simply aren't related (what your training approach is, what other arts you teach and train, what your focus is), and going to that old stalwart of a non-argument of "well, what does it matter, what I does works!".
None of that is anything I asked about. If you feel it is, please quote and highlight my question where I asked about such things.
We're just different and don't care about the same things.
Thanks.
It's more than that… it's that we're coming from completely different perspectives and understandings of these things.
That said, I do feel we got off on the wrong foot… it came across to me that you felt I was denigrating your system and your school (and, by extension, yourself), which is not the reality at all… in fact, I've said that it looks like a good, solid school, and that I have no issue with what you're doing, as well as pointing out that it not being traditional, or Japanese ins't a slight at all… all in all, I've made 5 or 6 positive comments about what you do (from what I've seen)… the only thing I've asked about is the history. I would ask you to look back over the thread to confirm that, if you have any doubts.
Me personally, I've trained at Matt's school for a while (not currently) and he's a good guy. He's very passionate about his school, the arts he does, and the quality of his students.
Mike, I've never suggested otherwise.
Given the fact that there is A LOT of BS out there, it's nice to actually see some quality stuff being taught!
Here's where we get into the issues, though… define "BS" being taught… is it just sub-par methodologies, or is it also to do with false claims and misrepresentation? I haven't had any issues with Matt's methodologies… I have, however, questioned the representation and claims of what exactly the art is.
I'm sure Matt doesn't need me running to his defense as his replies were just fine,
That's the thing, Mike, the answers weren't "fine"… they were unrelated to the questions that were being asked.
however, as a friend, I do feel obligated to say something. I'd hate to see him get run off the forum, by people harping on small things such as lineage. He posted that...not sure what more there is to say.
Is lineage a small issue? Really? So, if someone with absolutely no connection to any BJJ system, but instead watched a bit of UFC, and did 6 months of karate, made the claim that they were a Gracie black belt, as they were a good naturally gifted fighter, that'd be fine because they could fight?
Lineage is not a small issue.
BudoSeek Martial Arts Community - The Importance of Paper
As for the arts core being about fighting....I agree with that. All of the other stuff, ie: personal development, etc, is all side bar stuff. It's like saying you train to lose weight. That's a load of crap. Join a gym. Losing weight is a side bar benefit of the actual purpose...to learn how to defend yourself.
Yeah, again, it's an individual thing, and also down to the system itself. Bluntly, the idea that "martial arts are about fighting" is firstly a flawed concept (as, as I've said many times before, "fighting ain't fighting"… there are many different contexts and forms of fighting, and different arts will deal with different approaches and contexts themselves), and secondly, largely said by those who do modern, dominantly eclectic systems, as well as sporting ones. From my perspective, it's an amateur and beginner mindset that's being expressed there.
The other thing I'd point out is that I'm not talking about the persons' reasons for training… that might indeed be "to learn to fight", "self defence", or anything else… I'm talking about the actual arts themselves. And no, at their core, many arts aren't really about "fighting"… that's just how they give you what they're actually about. If you choose to argue that, please explain to me how Kyudo is "about fighting"… explain to me Katori Shinto Ryu's dictate to members not to engage in any type of fighting…
Hang in there Matt. Despite stuff like this, this forum really is a good place.
Mike
I'll second that I hope Matt sticks around… I feel he can add a lot of value in a number of areas. But I do also feel that this isn't a "poor example" of the forum, and what can happen here… I don't feel that anything I've asked is out of line, or inappropriate. But hey, you have my contact details if you want to bring anything up with me privately, here or on FB.
Martial - pertaining to war/combat/struggle. Art - human expression or skill not otherwise designated as a science. People come to various "martial arts" for a variety of reasons but let's not confuse what martial arts are. If someone implies martial arts are anything different than what they are then maybe they're using the wrong choice of words. What Matt here is doing is doing, ie his school is doing, is synthesizing a variety of martial arts in effort to create an effective modern combat system. That sounds like it fits the bill to me.
The question of what Matt's doing isn't an issue… yeah, it really does come across as a modern, Western synthesis of a number of different systems… the question is whether it is what it's presented as ("traditional, deep roots in Japanese Jujutsu" etc).
I have to question anytime someone states matter of factly what is traditional Japanese. My first question is always how much time they've actually lived in Japan and not just read books/watched movies on them.
If you want to question them, the question isn't "how much time has been spent in Japan", it's "how much time has been spent in traditional Japanese arts"… which is a bit different. I know of a number who have been in Japan for years, but not exposed to any real understanding of traditional Japanese arts… and a number who have never been who have a very good understanding of such.
Traditions in Japan last just as long as they do in the US, UK, etc. Ie until someone decides to change them. The "traditional Japanese arts" are just as muddled, cross-bred, and morphed as any "modern" art.
Yeah… I don't think we're talking about the same thing.
One more point, this one for Steve.
Steve, you "disagreed" with my post number 10? Can I ask what exactly you disagreed with? I mean… that post was commenting that Matt didn't actually answer what I was asking… so if you could let me know what exactly you disagreed with, it'd be interesting… I mean, the entire post consisted of my pointing out that my questions weren't answered, and clarifying my take on "traditional"… I really can't see how that can be disagreed with… PM is fine, if you want.