Martial Arts Extinction

[clfsean]

Then they are being Frankensteined & can not be considered as original. If you have to put things in to fill the gaps, information was lost. What is left is an amalgam & shadow of what it was, not what it is.

That's nor to say it doesn't work ir isn't effective... But be honest about what it is & is not.

Sent from my Thunderbolt on Tapatalk. Excuse the auto-correct spelling errors.

 

[Tswolfman]

But just like any transference of information things change. So does that mean every time we have a new master we have a new art or do we keep the same art but changed. Martial arts change for the time period they are in so even if one is Reconstructed it is still that art just the modern interpretation of it. It doesnt matter if it has a direct lineage or skipping thru time. The name doesn't define the style the participants do. Great example Taekwondo you go to 2 different schools they could be the same or vastly different who is to say which is TKD and which isn't.

 

[Chris Parker]

I don't think that any Martial Arts have gone extinct, since so much information is coming out, many Martial Art pioneers are doing field research and whatnot bringing back ancient fighting systems and modernizing the concepts, reshaping and reforming these old arts.

I'm not really sure what you could mean here... it's incredibly well documented that huge numbers of martial arts have gone extinct.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I don't think that any Martial Arts have gone extinct, since so much information is coming out, many Martial Art pioneers are doing field research and whatnot bringing back ancient fighting systems and modernizing the concepts, reshaping and reforming these old arts.

Which is like saying they are bringing back the same thing but different therefore in other words it is the resurrected art in name only and everything else that made up that are is gone.

 

[mukashimantis]

While I agree that people are trying to bring back forgotten or little used arts, things do get lost through time. There may exist a record of a style, or perhaps a drawing or painting, but that may be all. As an example, the fighting arts of ancient Egypt or Babylon. We know they exist , from wall paintings and ceramics, but little else is known about them. Even if you look at a very broad definition of arts, such as Karate, Jiu Jitsu, etc., you will find that the older they are , the more is lost . How much do we really know about Musashi's sword school? He wrote extensively about strategy, yet I do not think we could say that his style is as complete as when he taught it. How many other arts existed from lesser or unknown masters that we will never see? Did Native American peoples have fighting arts? With no surviving written records, we do not know. The same holds true for art , architecture, medicine.

 

[Langenschwert]

yeah this Italian longsword group. Scholari something... I went to a class one time. They're trying to put it together from a Renaissance era manual/manuscript or two... and then filling in the gaps with "aikido" and "wushu" and other things. It's on their website & directly alludes to the fact they fill in the gaps where they need too.

Hmmm... there are far better arts to use for frog DNA than those for HEMA. At any rate, the key to unlocking these manuals is having a solid reference point, even if it is Aikido. Fundamentals never change. For German longsword and related arts, the best foundation to have is often wrestling (of whatever kind) and classical Japanese martial arts. Also living European stick traditions have a lot to offer some reconstrcutionists, as they are often the remnants of longsword teachings. French baton has much in common with Italian Spadone, for example. Also, the more you know about the source material, the less outside influence you need.

If you have a solid grounding in MA, you can get quite a lot out of the old manuals, certainly enough to reconstruct a martial art. However, it's really a modern martial art based heavily on the ancient writings. And that's OK. What's probably the case is that if you're doing what the manual says, and can get it to work the way it says it's supposed to, then someone probably did it that way in period. There were multiple schools, each with their own take on things. Even in the Liechtenauer tradtion of manuals, there are sometimes significant variances. As long as our modern variances aren't more out of line with each other than the manuals are, I think that's pretty OK.

Now, for rapier, the reconstruction is largely complete, because the techniques never went away. Fully 80% of renaissance rapier was preserved in classical epee. Once they figured that out, it was reasonably smooth sailing. There simply isn't a lot of work left to do. The contentious forum threads you see on Liechtenauer or Fiore (or especially I.33) simply no longer have their counterparts in the rapier world. Too bad I'm no longer a rapierist.

Best regards,

-Mark

 

[Langenschwert]

How much do we really know about Musashi's sword school? He wrote extensively about strategy, yet I do not think we could say that his style is as complete as when he taught it.

Considering HNIR is still extant today, they could probably say quite a bit about it. It seems pretty darn complete to me.

Best regards,

-Mark

 

[Chris Parker]

Even if you look at a very broad definition of arts, such as Karate, Jiu Jitsu, etc., you will find that the older they are , the more is lost.

You may find it hard to back that up, you know... especially when it comes to the Japanese systems. But, for the record, jujutsu isn't what has become extinct in some forms, but specific Ryu of jujutsu are. There's quite a distinction there...

How much do we really know about Musashi's sword school? He wrote extensively about strategy, yet I do not think we could say that his style is as complete as when he taught it.

Really bad choice of system there, you know... really bad. And you'll find a number of posters here who can answer it quite emphatically on that point.

 

[itto_seki]

Ellis Amdur's "Koryu" actually cites a story of a Naginata ryuha becoming extinct because the the Soke thought that her successor didn't have a suitable character. Martial arts in general tends to be a novelty, especially in Asian countries. Many schoolkids in Japan would rather kick a soccer ball or swing a bat instead of pick up a shinai!

 

[puunui]

With so many martial arts out there (thousands?)
has anybody ever heard of a style going extinct?

I guess it depends on how you define a martial art. You and I learn from the same teacher. You take it one way, I another. Neither does what our teacher did, at least not exactly. Would that be an extinction of our teacher's method? I think things become obsolete, fall into disuse, evolve into something else, etc. I also think lineages or branches may die off. There are styles that attempt to keep things exactly the way things were in the past, but I think even with that approach, there will be differences, due to people being different. I don't know if you have seen this taiwanese boy cover whitney houston's song I will always love you or not. He does a pretty good job, but as close as it gets, but there are small differences, which over time I think would get magnified, over successive generations.

 

[geezer]

Really bad choice of system there, you know... really bad. And you'll find a number of posters here who can answer it quite emphatically on that point.

Chris, I'd like to hear more of your opinions on this. From what little I remember of reading Go Rin No Sho (Sp?) and a couple of biographies on Musashi and his Niten Ichi Ryu (sp?) many years ago, I would seriously doubt that what is practiced today in his name would really bear much resemblance to how Musashi actually fought. Society has changed too much, and today's swordsmen don't actually apply their arts in life and death challenges. That makes a huge, qualitative difference in a martial art. Also, if I remember correctly, Musashi himself was largely self taught, and had a pronounced disdain for many of the formalized and ritualistic ryu of swordsmanship emerging in his own time. Seriously, would he even recognize any form of Kenjutsu taught today as descending directly from him? Perhaps, but somehow I doubt it. Even when you speak of the most ancient and traditional arts with long, unbroken lineages, such as Katori Shinto Ryu, the question must be asked. Would Iizasa Ienao still recognize his art in Katori Shinto Ryu as practiced today... a formalized ritual practiced in a world where there can be no true challenges? I remain dubious, but am willing to be corrected, as this is not a topic I have studied.

BTW, I'm not just picking on bushido. Actually, I would apply the same argument to any martial art that is more than a couple of generations removed from direct application, including the arts I enjoy practicing (even the Escrima I study hasn't been used to kill in battle since the WWII period and few of that generation are still with us). Just because we come from a well established lineage doesn't mean we can apply our skills in the same way as our martial forbears. In that regard, many martial arts are somewhat "extinct" even though they remain widely practiced. Or, what Xue said (about Taijiquan).

 

[itto_seki]

Chris, I'd like to hear more of your opinions on this. From what little I remember of reading Go Rin No Sho (Sp?) and a couple of biographies on Musashi and his Niten Ichi Ryu (sp?) many years ago, I would seriously doubt that what is practiced today in his name would really bear much resemblance to how Musashi actually fought. Society has changed too much, and today's swordsmen don't actually apply their arts in life and death challenges. That makes a huge, qualitative difference in a martial art. Also, if I remember correctly, Musashi himself was largely self taught, and had a pronounced disdain for many of the formalized and ritualistic ryu of swordsmanship emerging in his own time. Seriously, would he even recognize any form of Kenjutsu taught today as descending directly from him? Perhaps, but somehow I doubt it. Even when you speak of the most ancient and traditional arts with long, unbroken lineages, such as Katori Shinto Ryu, the question must be asked. Would Iizasa Ienao still recognize his art in Katori Shinto Ryu as practiced today... a formalized ritual practiced in a world where there can be no true challenges? I remain dubious, but am willing to be corrected, as this is not a topic I have studied. BTW, I'm not just picking on bushido. Actually, I would apply the same argument to any martial art that is more than a couple of generations removed from direct application, including the arts I enjoy practicing (even the Escrima I study hasn't been used to kill in battle since the WWII period and few of that generation are still with us). Just because we come from a well established lineage doesn't mean we can apply our skills in the same way as our martial forbears. In that regard, many martial arts are somewhat "extinct" even though they remain widely practiced. Or, what Xue said (about Taijiquan).

I'm sorry, but there are a few things that need to be pointed out in your argument. Musashi wasn't self taught, his father Shinmen Munisai more than likely provided his son with basic martial knowledge. Even Musashi's adopted son, Miyamoto Iori says on his father's monument that Musashi adapted his art from the jutte art that was taught to him by his father. Secondly, Musashi criticized the Katori and Kashima's schools concepts of hyoho, or strategy. He really doesn't directly attack their techniques. Lastly, Gorin no sho was meant for the eyes of one student and one student alone, it's completely by accident that we have copies of it today. That being said, members of the ryuha (Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu) can read the Gorin no Sho and have a higher chance of understanding the instructions that Musashi Sensei left behind. I think this is a good example of the school's preservation. Another example is an ongoing mantra that holds dear within the ryu, "Without Adaptation". Case in point: http://www.hyoho.com/embo.html

 

[Chris Parker]

Chris, I'd like to hear more of your opinions on this. From what little I remember of reading Go Rin No Sho (Sp?) and a couple of biographies on Musashi and his Niten Ichi Ryu (sp?) many years ago, I would seriously doubt that what is practiced today in his name would really bear much resemblance to how Musashi actually fought. Society has changed too much, and today's swordsmen don't actually apply their arts in life and death challenges. That makes a huge, qualitative difference in a martial art. Also, if I remember correctly, Musashi himself was largely self taught, and had a pronounced disdain for many of the formalized and ritualistic ryu of swordsmanship emerging in his own time. Seriously, would he even recognize any form of Kenjutsu taught today as descending directly from him? Perhaps, but somehow I doubt it. Even when you speak of the most ancient and traditional arts with long, unbroken lineages, such as Katori Shinto Ryu, the question must be asked. Would Iizasa Ienao still recognize his art in Katori Shinto Ryu as practiced today... a formalized ritual practiced in a world where there can be no true challenges? I remain dubious, but am willing to be corrected, as this is not a topic I have studied.

BTW, I'm not just picking on bushido. Actually, I would apply the same argument to any martial art that is more than a couple of generations removed from direct application, including the arts I enjoy practicing (even the Escrima I study hasn't been used to kill in battle since the WWII period and few of that generation are still with us). Just because we come from a well established lineage doesn't mean we can apply our skills in the same way as our martial forbears. In that regard, many martial arts are somewhat "extinct" even though they remain widely practiced. Or, what Xue said (about Taijiquan).

Expect a PM from me, my friend... but be ready to be corrected!

Itto_seki covered things from a HNIR perspective pretty well (I might phrase things a little differently, for example how the Gorin no Sho became public, which, although it wasn't Musashi's intent wasn't really an "accident"... it was more to do with people going behind his back, in a way), so there's little to add to that, but I will address a few things to do with the mentality of Koryu systems, in particular HNIR and TSKSR, as you've brought them up.

As Itto_seki said, there is the concept of "Without adaptation" associated with Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu. That is carved into a bokken, which is said to have been made by Musashi himself, and is passed down from Soke to Soke as one of the symbols of authority, which is then referred to as the "Jisso Enman" bokuto (Jisso Enman means "without adaptation). This is considered the final instruction passed from Musashi to his heirs, that the art should be passed down without adaptation. As such, yes, Musashi should certainly recognise his art, even after the centuries.

With Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, again, there is the concept of not wanting to alter the art. In this case, the teachings are said to have been directly transmitted from Heaven (Tenshinsho Den), so to change them is to say you know better than Heaven. It just isn't done. While there has been some loss to some material, the basic art is just not changed to that degree. So again, yes, Iizasa Choisai Ienao would recognise what he taught.

Here's the thing, though. The idea of these arts no longer being tested by combative exposure is actually beside the point. Provided the system is continued properly, there are internal methods used to maintain constistency, and provided those are followed, the system remains effective (as per it's intentions... which is an important detail....).

 

[Zenjael]

I practice a style of Bagua called shishi baguazhang, and it has been thought to be extinct, so I was informed for over a 100 years. There are many styles which have gone extinct, but there are quite a few I imagine are held to be extinct, and there are still a practitioner or two who is handing down the training, master to student, though one at a time, and as quietly as possible. This is how I learned my art, and my master from his before him. We go far back as well, and keep the history well guarded. Past the 5th master back, for example, it gets murky as to where the art really developed, stylistically for the branch I practice.

When my master passed four years ago, as far as I know, I am the last practitioner of the style. How does one verify that? They can't really, and it can be annoying, but you work with what you get.

There are lots of claims to learning 'secretive' styles with little evidence, but I think this stems from assigning what almost feels like a value system to the arts. I feel that martial arts are expression of thought through physical means, and as such, each style is like a language in being representative of thought- and of a certain kind of thought. Some forms of logic work better in certain situations, and likewise, so too do certain arts, though none are superior.

I was not the only student my sifu trained, I am merely the only one he trained after WW2, and that he knew of no surviving students. When you become the successor of anything, you find yourself, I think, seeking students who are of quality. It would pain me to teach shishi bagua to a 9 year old who quit 3 months later, when she was just dipping her toe in. I would not teach it to a person like that, and I do not believe my master would either. It is not that the art is kept from people, it is that it is reserved until ready to be expanded. I think of Wing Chun, which was passed quietly through several families for many decades before several key figures, across two generations were able to expand it to its reknown today, and even foster subsequent evolutionary, new styles.

I imagine, like language, there are some which are on the verge of true extinction. And I imagine many of the last practitioner of anything have found themself wondering between whether they really are the last one, and its implications, or if they are just separated from the others like them. It's a difficult fjord for most to cross I believe.

In the end, every art is its own, and the practitioner. One could argue every style is extinct, and no true standard really exists anymore. Every style changes with each generation. No matter how many safeties are placed in an orginization to mitigate this. I think of kendo, and its modern rigidness, and how in the 30s and 40s and 50s it gradually lost the throws and its kicks. Of how Tae Kwon Do arguable didn't exist until this century (TKD <3). I imagine when I teach shishi, it will be different, in grades, than what my master taught me. But I am not him, and don't believe I ever will.

I ramble, but my point is this- an art is an art for the value it holds in what it can communicate across divisions. I have found no art perfectly capable of that, yet.

 

[Xue Sheng]

What is the origin of shishi baguazhang?

 

[Zenjael]

It was recognized in about 1850 as being different than Yin style, though elements were retained. As far as I know, there is no founder save what you can find in the standard mythos of Baguazhang. A daoist practitioner merged circle walking with already existant techniques. One could ask where the origin of Xing Yi hails outside of geography, and the answer will most likely be the same.

I wish I could point to a master and say, this is who created it, but for all I know my teacher may have created the style himself, and given it a fake background. All I have is him to point to, and the most origin story I have is that we grew out of daoist principles applied to Northern style martial arts. From that, one could argue bagua is ancient, though it was only recognized in the 19th century as distinct from others.

Again, there is much conjecture. I'll give a simple answer; I have information that was given, guesses of my own, and ultimately I do not know.

But I do know the style is effective, and is not unfinished, so it must have had an origin somewhere. I would guess it's as rare if not moreso than three sister's form of internal arts.

 

[Xue Sheng]

It was recognized in about 1850 as being different than Yin style, though elements were retained. As far as I know, there is no founder save what you can find in the standard mythos of Baguazhang. A daoist practitioner merged circle walking with already existant techniques. One could ask where the origin of Xing Yi hails outside of geography, and the answer will most likely be the same.

I wish I could point to a master and say, this is who created it, but for all I know my teacher may have created the style himself, and given it a fake background. All I have is him to point to, and the most origin story I have is that we grew out of daoist principles applied to Northern style martial arts. From that, one could argue bagua is ancient, though it was only recognized in the 19th century as distinct from others.

Again, there is much conjecture. I'll give a simple answer; I have information that was given, guesses of my own, and ultimately I do not know.

But I do know the style is effective, and is not unfinished, so it must have had an origin somewhere. I would guess it's as rare if not moreso than three sister's form of internal arts.

Thats cool, kind of like Yin Yang Baguazhang (aka Bapanzhang)

 

[Instructor]

Perhaps we should add a third category: Coelacanth i.e. arts that were thought to be extinct but still exist with a small following.

 

[clfsean]

It was recognized in about 1850 as being different than Yin style, though elements were retained. As far as I know, there is no founder save what you can find in the standard mythos of Baguazhang. A daoist practitioner merged circle walking with already existant techniques. One could ask where the origin of Xing Yi hails outside of geography, and the answer will most likely be the same.

Well that pretty wild & wicked especially since Yin Fu wasn't born until 1840 & didn't meet Dong Haichuan until 1864-ish.

I wish I could point to a master and say, this is who created it, but for all I know my teacher may have created the style himself, and given it a fake background. All I have is him to point to, and the most origin story I have is that we grew out of daoist principles applied to Northern style martial arts. From that, one could argue bagua is ancient, though it was only recognized in the 19th century as distinct from others.

Hmmm....

Again, there is much conjecture. I'll give a simple answer; I have information that was given, guesses of my own, and ultimately I do not know.

Best thing I've heard so far.

But I do know the style is effective, and is not unfinished, so it must have had an origin somewhere. I would guess it's as rare if not moreso than three sister's form of internal arts.

Everything has an origin. Veracity of the origin though is always circumspect.

 

[Zenjael]

Well that pretty wild & wicked especially since Yin Fu wasn't born until 1840 & didn't meet Dong Haichuan until 1864-ish.

From what I've read thus far it seems there have been up to as many as 6 people taught circle walking by daoist priests either in passing, or through extended learning and initiation. Which is the real one? Are any?

As I said, it wasn't until around 1850 when shishi baguazhang became recognized as distinct, and as I also said, it shares elements with Yin style though is different. If there is a distinct origin to bagua, it came about long ago when people harmonized martial arts with daoist meditation techniques. I wouldn't be surprised, when people finally did recognize the style, that it can become confusing which styles originated when, definitively, in relation to others.

Quite a few modern styles are really from the same tree of the art, with few being altogether different, but still bagua. Shishi is like that.