Do vs. Jutsu

[puunui]

Many years ago, I was reading an article written in the early 50's in an American paper about the Korean Fighting Art of Taekwondo. Much is vague now but I remember the article speaking of how devastating American troops found the art to be. Didn't mention anything about sport.

Couldn't have been an article written in the early 50s in an american newspaper because the name taekwondo wasn't used until after April 11, 1955 (mid fifties) and the first American student did not begin training until 1956, in Korea. If you still have the article, I would like to see it, because it certainly would be the first mention of taekwondo in the english language, if it were as you say, published in the early 1950s.

How about Iado or Haedong Kumdo, neither of which are a sport oriented? Their sport aspect is covered by Kendo, yet they retain the "Do". As for Aikido, I don't practice the art, nor have any knowledge of the intent of its origins other than I heard it was the hand technique taught to Samurai for self defense. Whether that's true or not I have no idea, so I'll let someone learned in Aikido enlighten me as to the origins of Aikido. How about Hapkido? Philosophical alsothen?

Iaido is not an art that is used for "self defense" but rather for self discovery, which is an expansion of the concept or philosophy that underlined the creation of arts like judo or kendo, which were also for self discovery and not self defense. I suppose you could use iaido for self defense, but I do not believe that is its purpose, at that is what my friend who does iaido says about it. I don't know much about haedong kumdo, other than it is a modern creation. as far as I know, it used live swords and not jookdo and therefore it probably a misleading name, confusing to actual kendo or kumdo. Aikido, which was the first martial art that I studied when I was a kid, was not hand technique taught to samurai for self defense. As for Hapkido, it is an art of self defense, but also one that is focused on self discovery and self knowledge. Having said that, I think that the name is misused, at least with respect to the original intent and purpose as used in Japan. I think hapkisool is a more fitting name for what we hapkidoin do.

As for the Olympic charter, I am familiar to what it says, but there is no correlation between that charter and the mention of "Do". That statement was written for and encompasses the spirit of the Olympics for every participant of every sport. Taekwondo as an art expands far beyond the Olympics as a sport.

Of course it does not mention "do" specifically, since it is written in english. It does state what the definition of sport is, a philosophy of life, a way of life. A more accurate statement would be to say that your definition of sport is much narrower than what the actual meaning is, at least with respect to taekwondo and the olympic movement.

Let me ask you this way then. What is the difference between jujitsu and judo in your mind? How about the difference between kenjutsu and kendo?

 

[Cyriacus]

All I have to say is, How is Iaido Applied?
Because it is not in Meditation.
It never was.

 

[puunui]

All I have to say is, How is Iaido Applied?
Because it is not in Meditation.
It never was.

I don't know what you are asking. Can you rephrase?

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Let me ask you this way then. What is the difference between jujitsu and judo in your mind? How about the difference between kenjutsu and kendo?

Many years ago on Martial Warrior, we had this very same discussion i.e. Jutsu vs. Do. One of our senior members (Dan rank, not post-wise) named Alex offered this reply in that topic. A lot of seniors on the board (high Dan rank) felt it was the best post in the thread. I'll offer it for the discussion;

Firstly- the notion that a koryu cannot use dan/kyu grades is absurd. Daito-ryu uses them nowadays (in concert with their old license system), and I don't think you'll hear anyone (credible) claim that they're somehow "less classical" because of it. I wonder how someone could likewise state that Daito-ryu would lose any claim to its (mightily impressive) heritage by adopting it.

The distinction between "do" and "jutsu" was practically non-existant until after WW2. Prior to this, and especially prior to the Meiji period, they were used with virtual interchangeability, and sometimes omitted altogether. This is particularly true of the iai schools, virtually none of which identified themselves as anything other than "iai" ("Itto-ryu iai", "Muso Jikiden Eishin-ryu iai", etc.).

Many schools didn't even use titles to describe which methods they taught- Araki-ryu being a good example. One went to learn the subject the way that school taught it- whatever weapons or methods they happened to teach.

The distinction came with polarization. The martial arts became polarized after the Meiji period. Those schools that adopted "do" where they had previously (or in previous incarnations) used "jutsu", did so to dissociate themselves from the defunct and unpopular samurai- not to mention, to avoid government-ordered oblivion. When the "return to traditionalism" hit Japan in the 1920s and 1930s, some schools became ardently "jutsu" in order to affect the aforementioned "return". The distinction is an artificial and semantic one, which has lasted for a sufficient number of decades to become "gospel".

So yes, while there is a small distinction (in the koryu sense, anyway) between "do" and "jutsu", it is just that- a small difference. Over time, the difference becomes even less significant, as life asserts itself and the various aspects of budo blend together in the practicioner and become indistinguishable from one another. Those who make a major difference out of it, need to spend less time analyzing names and words, and more time living budo.

Leave it to an academic to speak in broad declaratives about such a complex, nuanced, and rich subject. IHS's refrain of "This is koryu, this is gendai, and never the 'twain shall meet" is the opinion of folks who fail to realize that history does not pause while the reader concludes one chapter and begins the next. It's the opinion of people who, rather than having twenty or thirty years of experience, have one year of experience twenty or thirty times over.

Nowadays, you'll note that many of the seasoned practicioners omit it altogether- "aiki" instead of aikido or aikijujutsu, "iai" instead of iaido or iaijutsu, "naginata" instead of naginata-do or naginata-jutsu, and so on.

This is, to my mind, a very healthy "return to traditionalism"- it harkens back to when the real practicioners didn't give a crap about artificial distinctions, because their practice served more than a single purpose. It wasn't just technical (or "jutsu"), it wasn't just about enlightenment (or "do"). It was an all-consuming, life-affirming, all-encompassing practice which supported and nourished their bodies, minds, and spirits. It was their work, their sport, their duty, their spirituality, everything, all wrapped up into one package.

It harkens back to when budo was real life, rather than a hobby or an academic pursuit (i.e. "hoplology").

So, while the IHS folks are busy contemplating which method produces "more superior" people, I'll be at the dojo, living and breathing the practice of bu(do or jutsu).

 

[Cyriacus]

I don't know what you are asking. Can you rephrase?

Iaido is not used for Self Defense - It was designed to Kill, and it gave You all the usual Philosophy along the way. If You were to carry a Sword in Modern Times, it would be Self Defense and then some.
Much like Judo and Kendo. Compare their Intention when They were Designed, to how Theyre used nowadays.
Judo does Ippon Kumite, and Kendo is practicing the fine art of Killing Your Opponent with a Sword using various methods.

Is Eskrima Self Defense? Is Kali Self Defense?

 

[Chris Parker]

Iaido is not used for Self Defense - It was designed to Kill, and it gave You all the usual Philosophy along the way.

Just for the record, Iai was, in many systems cases, considered the "self defence" curriculum. It dealt with a sudden, unannounced attack, and how you respond to it, as opposed to duels or battle itself.

Kendo is practicing the fine art of Killing Your Opponent with a Sword using various methods.

Er, no. Not really. Not at all. And that is said with all due respect to Kendo and it's practitioners, but, uh, nope. Not at all.

 

[Cyriacus]

Just for the record, Iai was, in many systems cases, considered the "self defence" curriculum. It dealt with a sudden, unannounced attack, and how you respond to it, as opposed to duels or battle itself.



Er, no. Not really. Not at all. And that is said with all due respect to Kendo and it's practitioners, but, uh, nope. Not at all.

To the First - Thats more or less My Point. In Modern SD, We dont carry Swords. Therefore it isnt SD. But it was designed to that end.

To the Second, Youre slashing each other, right? The Swords may be Wooden, but Im sure that wasnt always the case.
Im curious to learn more, however. I know plenty about Kendo in its usage, but not so much about Kendo itself.

 

[Sukerkin]

Beat me to it, Chris . I was just going to say that, yes, Iai is intended for self-defence in a variety of non-battlefield conditions ... but it provides that defence by the swiftest, least fuss, method of rendering your attacker dead .

 

[Chris Parker]

To the First - Thats more or less My Point. In Modern SD, We dont carry Swords. Therefore it isnt SD. But it was designed to that end.

Yeah, I was more countering the idea that it never was self defence. There's no argument that it's not a modern form of self defence, but that doesn't take away from what it was actually designed for... despite what Glenn's Iaido friend believes.

To the Second, Youre slashing each other, right? The Swords may be Wooden, but Im sure that wasnt always the case.
Im curious to learn more, however. I know plenty about Kendo in its usage, but not so much about Kendo itself.

Kendo teaches you to hit (not cut) with bamboo replicas of swords to targets that are not actually open against an armoured opponent, to move in ways that would be less possible and far less advisable with real swords, and more. The only part that deals in using a sword is the Kendo no Kata, and many practitioners don't like to train that, only doing it for gradings when required. In fact, Seitei Iai (the modern form of Iai) was largely developed to give Kendoka an idea of what using a sword is actually like.

 

[Jenna]

To answer the OP question: Do.

 

[Cyriacus]

Yeah, I was more countering the idea that it never was self defence. There's no argument that it's not a modern form of self defence, but that doesn't take away from what it was actually designed for... despite what Glenn's Iaido friend believes.



Kendo teaches you to hit (not cut) with bamboo replicas of swords to targets that are not actually open against an armoured opponent, to move in ways that would be less possible and far less advisable with real swords, and more. The only part that deals in using a sword is the Kendo no Kata, and many practitioners don't like to train that, only doing it for gradings when required. In fact, Seitei Iai (the modern form of Iai) was largely developed to give Kendoka an idea of what using a sword is actually like.

*nods

Upon some closer inspection, You seem to be quite correct. Armed with that knowledge, it becomes incredibly obvious that while it would probably be okay, it doesnt take very much into account as to the actual usage of a Sword. And Armour is another important consideration. Much Obliged

 

[Cyriacus]

Oh, also, it seems I missed a question.
So:
Judo: More about Throws.
Jujitsu (Or is it jujutsu?): Has Strikes in it and more Wrestling.

I consider Judo to be better for being more Specialized. JJ is fine as well, but tends to offer too many tools, I feel.
Judo has a smaller Arsenal, but a rightly inclusive one, and it gets pretty good at using it.

 

[Chris Parker]

Oh, also, it seems I missed a question.
So:
Judo: More about Throws.
Jujitsu (Or is it jujutsu?): Has Strikes in it and more Wrestling.

I consider Judo to be better for being more Specialized. JJ is fine as well, but tends to offer too many tools, I feel.
Judo has a smaller Arsenal, but a rightly inclusive one, and it gets pretty good at using it.

Oh boy. Wow. Uh, again, not necessarily. It depends entirely on the system you're discussing. Judo is throwing heavy, but so are some Jujutsu systems. Other ones are more focused on joint locks. Striking is rarely a heavy feature in Japanese Jujutsu systems, although there are some that do have such a focus.

As to the "larger or smaller arsenal", well, exactly what is contained depends on the system itself... there are some with smaller curriculums, similar to modern Judo, then there are highly complex ones as well. Such generalisations really can't be made, honestly.

 

[Cyriacus]

Oh boy. Wow. Uh, again, not necessarily. It depends entirely on the system you're discussing. Judo is throwing heavy, but so are some Jujutsu systems. Other ones are more focused on joint locks. Striking is rarely a heavy feature in Japanese Jujutsu systems, although there are some that do have such a focus.

As to the "larger or smaller arsenal", well, exactly what is contained depends on the system itself... there are some with smaller curriculums, similar to modern Judo, then there are highly complex ones as well. Such generalisations really can't be made, honestly.

Well, this is just an signal of how little ive read into JJ. I know enough to get by, but much like Kendo, whilst I know of JJ in use, I know little of JJ itself. I know more than i probably need to about Judo however.
I shall take this under advisement, Good Sir.

 

[punisher73]

Modern Judo for many schools trains only the sport aspects of the art and may or may not pass on the original system. By that, I mean they may train the throws and groundwork but don't pass on the Judo Katas or the pressure points or strikes that were also a part of it.

Here is a link to an old book by Irving Hancock called "Kano Jiu-Jitsu" from the early 1900's. I have heard that it was labeled as Kano's Judo, but I have also read other people state that it was just from JJ in general. Either way, look at the stuff listed and see if ANY of this is praticed in most Judo schools now.
http://judoinfo.com/books/kuatsu.pdf

I think that "jutsu" and "do" don't have different techniques etc. just that a "do" art usually places emphasis on character development first and self-defense second.

 

[Cyriacus]

Modern Judo for many schools trains only the sport aspects of the art and may or may not pass on the original system. By that, I mean they may train the throws and groundwork but don't pass on the Judo Katas or the pressure points or strikes that were also a part of it.

Here is a link to an old book by Irving Hancock called "Kano Jiu-Jitsu" from the early 1900's. I have heard that it was labeled as Kano's Judo, but I have also read other people state that it was just from JJ in general. Either way, look at the stuff listed and see if ANY of this is praticed in most Judo schools now.
http://judoinfo.com/books/kuatsu.pdf

I think that "jutsu" and "do" don't have different techniques etc. just that a "do" art usually places emphasis on character development first and self-defense second.

Thats quite unusual, the Book.
Curious, though.

And I suppose I focused on Judo, because even in its Sport Form, does it really spend more time developing Character than it does practicing Takedowns and Throws?
In any case, I know Judo has Striking and whatnot, but the Original System is barely if at all going to be present. It will have changed, for better or worse.

 

[Gemini]

Couldn't have been an article written in the early 50s in an american newspaper because the name taekwondo wasn't used until after April 11, 1955 (mid fifties) and the first American student did not begin training until 1956, in Korea.

Could have been '55 instead of '54. Regardless, that has nothing to do with the point I was making. Also, it had nothing to do with American students, it was American military. As I said it was a long time ago. I'm sorry I don't have the article. I wish I did.

Let me ask you this way then. What is the difference between jujitsu and judo in your mind? How about the difference between kenjutsu and kendo?

I'm the first to admit I'm out of my element here, but I'm enjoying reading posts from those more knowledgeable on the subject and learning a few things. While I see the discussion shift between priorities of self defense and philosophy, I don't see anyone supporting "Do" as a reference for sport.

 

[puunui]

Yeah, I was more countering the idea that it never was self defence. There's no argument that it's not a modern form of self defence, but that doesn't take away from what it was actually designed for... despite what Glenn's Iaido friend believes.

I think we (my iaido friend, you and I) agree more than we disagree. I'm too lazy to call him up to confirm it though.

What do you see as the differences between Do and Jutsu arts, if any? I don't think you really addressed that.

 

[puunui]

Many years ago on Martial Warrior, we had this very same discussion i.e. Jutsu vs. Do. One of our senior members (Dan rank, not post-wise) named Alex offered this reply in that topic. A lot of seniors on the board (high Dan rank) felt it was the best post in the thread. I'll offer it for the discussion;

Gee, the best post on the board.... Don't know what to say about that. Anyway, let's see if I can respond before I have to go racing off.

Firstly- the notion that a koryu cannot use dan/kyu grades is absurd. Daito-ryu uses them nowadays (in concert with their old license system), and I don't think you'll hear anyone (credible) claim that they're somehow "less classical" because of it. I wonder how someone could likewise state that Daito-ryu would lose any claim to its (mightily impressive) heritage by adopting it.

Never said that Daito Ryu or koryu cannot use dan ranks. They can do whatever they want. I would say that if they do adopt such things, that it is a new innovation and not something passed down for hundreds of years, like the techniques are or were.

The distinction between "do" and "jutsu" was practically non-existant until after WW2. Prior to this, and especially prior to the Meiji period, they were used with virtual interchangeability, and sometimes omitted altogether.

Really, when was the first documented use of the term karatedo prior to the meiji restoration? I'd like to see that.

This is particularly true of the iai schools, virtually none of which identified themselves as anything other than "iai" ("Itto-ryu iai", "Muso Jikiden Eishin-ryu iai", etc.).

Not in hawaii, where the art is identified as shinkage naginata jitsu. http://www.hawaiinaginata.org/

Many schools didn't even use titles to describe which methods they taught- Araki-ryu being a good example. One went to learn the subject the way that school taught it- whatever weapons or methods they happened to teach.

But the arts that do use it post meiji restoration are for the most part self discovery focused arts, as opposed to the above art. Kong Soo Do especially as the term was used in Korea during the 1950s was a name used because Dr. YON Kwai Byeong wanted to be associated with Karatedo on mainland Japan, for tournament purposes. When the name issue was raised in 1961, his main point was that the art should be called Kong Soo Do, so it could easily be a part of the internationalization of karatedo and its future as a sport. to that end, he started taking teams from Korea to for exchange matches, in preparation for when karate tournaments did go international, like it is today.

The distinction came with polarization. The martial arts became polarized after the Meiji period. Those schools that adopted "do" where they had previously (or in previous incarnations) used "jutsu", did so to dissociate themselves from the defunct and unpopular samurai- not to mention, to avoid government-ordered oblivion. When the "return to traditionalism" hit Japan in the 1920s and 1930s, some schools became ardently "jutsu" in order to affect the aforementioned "return". The distinction is an artificial and semantic one, which has lasted for a sufficient number of decades to become "gospel".

And part of that polarization was in the form of a competitive or tournament orientation, as opposed to battlefield weapons, tactics and strategies. No one believed that they would be taking a kendo bamboo shinai into war for example.

So yes, while there is a small distinction (in the koryu sense, anyway) between "do" and "jutsu", it is just that- a small difference. Over time, the difference becomes even less significant, as life asserts itself and the various aspects of budo blend together in the practicioner and become indistinguishable from one another. Those who make a major difference out of it, need to spend less time analyzing names and words, and more time living budo.

I agree. This discussion came about because Kong Soo Do stated that Taekwondo practitioners who concentrate on "sport" should at least identify themselves as such, no doubt to separate them from the "real" taekwondoin who are concentrating on self defense. But if people spent more time analyzing names, words and history, then things wouldn't blend together and they wouldn't become indistinguishable from one another, to the point where those who never did such study now claim that those who use the Do suffix are not entitled to use that anymore.

Leave it to an academic to speak in broad declaratives about such a complex, nuanced, and rich subject. IHS's refrain of "This is koryu, this is gendai, and never the 'twain shall meet" is the opinion of folks who fail to realize that history does not pause while the reader concludes one chapter and begins the next. It's the opinion of people who, rather than having twenty or thirty years of experience, have one year of experience twenty or thirty times over.

I don't believe I said this is gendai this is koryu, and never the twain shall meet. I think people train in the martial arts, specifically taekwondo, for lots of reasons, all of which is valid. And I do not believe that those to train for competition should be separated from those who train for other reasons, which is what Kong Soo Do is advocating, because that would be a case of "This is koryu, this is gendai, and never the 'twain shall meet"

Nowadays, you'll note that many of the seasoned practicioners omit it altogether- "aiki" instead of aikido or aikijujutsu, "iai" instead of iaido or iaijutsu, "naginata" instead of naginata-do or naginata-jutsu, and so on.

Not in hawaii. I don't think I have ever heard of someone calling is simply "aiki". I have heard of aikido, aikijutsu and aikibudo though. I have heard of iai, iaido and iaijustu, and here in hawaii, they call it naginata jutsu.

This is, to my mind, a very healthy "return to traditionalism"- it harkens back to when the real practicioners didn't give a crap about artificial distinctions, because their practice served more than a single purpose. It wasn't just technical (or "jutsu"), it wasn't just about enlightenment (or "do"). It was an all-consuming, life-affirming, all-encompassing practice which supported and nourished their bodies, minds, and spirits. It was their work, their sport, their duty, their spirituality, everything, all wrapped up into one package.

When was that?

It harkens back to when budo was real life, rather than a hobby or an academic pursuit (i.e. "hoplology"). So, while the IHS folks are busy contemplating which method produces "more superior" people, I'll be at the dojo, living and breathing the practice of bu(do or jutsu).

I don't know which one produces "superior people". I do know that there is no need for taekwondo competitors to designate themselves in any special way like kong soo do wants, which was the original topic of discussion.

 

[puunui]

Could have been '55 instead of '54. Regardless, that has nothing to do with the point I was making. Also, it had nothing to do with American students, it was American military. As I said it was a long time ago. I'm sorry I don't have the article. I wish I did.

Was it in stars and stripes? The first military student, Dale Drullilard, was stationed in Korea in the army I believe, started learning tang soo do moo duk kwan in 1956, and was awarded his 1st dan in 1957. One of his instructors was GM LEE Moo Yong, who was USTU President in the 1980's.

I'm the first to admit I'm out of my element here, but I'm enjoying reading posts from those more knowledgeable on the subject and learning a few things. While I see the discussion shift between priorities of self defense and philosophy, I don't see anyone supporting "Do" as a reference for sport.

I think that is because you do not wish to see it. Which is fine. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.