Martial Arts History & Influences

[Chris Parker]

Chris Parker - Thanks for your answer. I wasn't sure on that. Any idea how much the Japanese borrowed from Chinese or Korean MA prior to the dates you have given? Not that it matters much, especially in light of a tendancy of many countries (and not just oriental) to show themselves as inventors of good things centuries before others, but just curious. Your point is well taken as to the main weapons on the battlefield. But I always thought unarmed tactics were probably taught at least to battlefiend leaders, as well as foot soldiers, for those times when they might lose a weapon in an opponent or have it struck from their hands.

Hmm. This is probably not the right forum for me to say what I'm about to say, but the question was asked, so I feel obligated to answer it.

I have never seen anything at all that I would class as a native Korean martial art. At all. There aren't any, they are all borrowed from other cultures, with varying degrees of success (Hapkido and Tae Kwon Do being some of the more successful), Each of these borrowed arts gets a degree of "Korean flavour", but that doesn't make them natively Korean arts.

So when it comes to Japanese borrowing from the Koreans? None at all. Very much the other way around, actually. And, I have to say, that is a very sore point with the Koreans, as the reason the Japanese methods are so big (as well as certain Chinese methods) is that the Japanese had a very nasty habit of, when they were bored, sailing over to Korea and occupying it. As this went on over a century or so, the native Korean martial traditions were basically replaced by the Japanese ones. Essentially, Korea suffers badly from a lack of a sense of individual culture, and the cultural response seems to be to explain the similarities with the Korean culture to those around it as "well, they stole that from us". Sadly, that doesn't pass muster.

Japan borrowing from China? Small examples, once we get past the 8th and 9th Century. Up to that point, China was seen as the cradle and shining example of culture, and the Japanese social and court structure was modelled on the Chinese, to the point that the Japanese basically copied the Chinese written language and applied it to their own spoken one. As a result, to this day written Japanese characters tend to have at least two pronunciations, on'yomi (written sound) and kun'yomi (native sound). The kun'yomi pronunciation is the way the Japanese word for that concept is pronounced, with the on'yomi being the way they thought the Chinese pronounced the term. Some good examples are the terms for swords, actually, with this character 刀 (blade, usually used to refer to a knife or sword) being pronounced with kun'yomi as "Katana", and on'yomi as "To"... the Chinese pronunciation is "Dao". Alternately, the character 剣 (sword) is pronounced with a kun'yomi as "Tsurugi", but the more common pronunciation is the on'yomi "Ken". The Chinese is "Jian". Lastly, the character 道 (path, or way) is pronounced "Michi" (kun'yomi) or "Do" (on'yomi), with the Chinese being "Tao". The specific pronunciation depends on the context, so 道 can be pronounced with the kun'yomi of "michi" to refer to a street, or as "do" in a more "way of..." approach, giving Kendo as 剣道, although just on reading it could just as easily be Tsurugi Michi "Street sword".

Once we got into the Heian period, the Japanese culture started to develop away from the Chinese example, although the higher levels of culture still looked to China, including the requirement to be considered refined and educated including the reading of the 5 Chinese Classics (including Sun Tzu's Art of War, the I Ching, and the Tao de Ching). There were other influences as time went on, such as the Akiyama Yoshin lineage of Jujutsu systems originating when a doctor, Akiyama, went to China, and learnt a form of Kenpo (Chuan Fa) there, bringing three techniques (kata - note, though, this is kata in the traditional Japanese form, a two person combative scenario) back with him. These three kata became the foundation of his new system, and this Chinese influence are an indication as to why the Akiyama Yoshin lines feature a higher emphasis on striking than many other systems. The Japanese side comes through in the equally high emphasis on throwing methods.

Chinese martial arts have been a much higher influence on the martial arts of Okinawa than on those of Japan, with many karate systems tracing themselves back to Chinese systems, such as White Crane. This again explains the higher emphasis on striking in karate systems as compared to "typical" jujutsu systems.

When it comes to who would have learnt it, that's a big discussion. I am personally of the opinion that martial arts, as a whole, were not really learnt by the footsoldiers, for a number of reasons. As to giving them unarmed combat training, that would be a waste of time, really. They were given a spear, taught basic thrusts, and sent out. If they lost their spear, they had to get past the spear of their opponent, and the level of unarmed skill required for that takes so long to attain that there's no reason to give it to them. When it comes to generals and commanders getting unarmed training, that's closer to the truth, I feel. But even then, not entirely. Yes, the higher ranks would have been about the only ones with the time and wealth to dedicate themselves to such things (note: that's not necessarily just the very high ranking, really just anyone over the footsoldier level, but that again is depending on era... but we'll get to that), and many unarmed systems seem to be more about teaching strategy and tactics that can then be applied on a battlefield through the medium of unarmed waza (techniques), but the core of learning strategy in Japan has always been sword. Add to that the fact that most systems (Takenouchi Ryu excepted) that had a Jujutsu syllabus before the Tokugawa period (1608 onwards) tended to only have a fairly simple, rudimentary form, it just wasn't given a high emphasis, so there's no reason to believe that it was higher level than anything else, or considered more important, and therefore given to the higher ranks only. In fact, it was considered less important, and was a kinda "if you need it, here you go" addition to most systems. Schools such as Kashima Shinryu gradually gave more and more emphasis to this side of things, embellishing and growing their Jujutsu sysllabus as the school entered peacetime. And Takenouchi Ryu, the first "jujutsu" school, when the syllabus is looked at, has most of their Jujutsu including a range of weaponry as well, typically short swords and daggers.

You then also have to look at the stance of the school itself. Katori Shinto Ryu has a tradition of not refusing entry to anyone willing to abide by their rules, and not affiliating themselves with any political faction throughout it's history, meaning that high ranking samurai, and local farmers (if they could afford the time), along with merchants were all welcome to train in the system. Other arts were what were called Otomo Ryu, inside schools of specific domains, pledged to the lord of the area. The most famous examples are Yagyu Shinkage Ryu and Ono-ha Itto Ryu, both of which were the Otomo Ryu of the Tokugawa Shoguns, supplying sword instructors to the Shogun and their sons. In these instances, it wasn't as easy for others to get in to learn the system. Another well known Otomo Ryu was the Shinto Muso Ryu, who kept to themselves quite well, revealing very little about what they did to outsiders for most of their existance (until the late 19th Century, really). Then you have systems like Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, the school of Musashi Miyamoto (which includes some Jujutsu in the higher levels of it's teachings), where there was no affiliation to an area, and Musashi was known to just up and move on occasion, meaning his students had to follow him if they wished to continue to learn. That negates the idea of high ranking generals and lords training there as well.

Finally, you need to look at the surrounding environment, referring to the "human" factor. That means the time and place, culturally speaking. Just saying "Japan" isn't enough, is it a big town, a small village, a fishing village, or made up of farmers? Is it more like Edo (Tokyo), or is it remote? Which Island is it on? As far as time, the period is a huge influence on the development and promotion of the systems. Once we hit the Tokugawa period, many samurai suddenly didn't have much to do (no more wars to keep them occupied - leading to things such as the invasion of the Ryukyu Islands, which was influential on the development of karate), so some took to being police officers (a role formerly taken by ordinary citizens in the area, under the leadership and authority of the samurai and daimyo), others started teaching their martial skills to the public. There was a sudden boom in "commoner's yawara/jujutsu", which was a simplified version designed to be given to the general public. This increased awareness of unarmed combat then forced the more "samurai" systems to deal with a change in the violence that could be encountered in a bar room brawl, so their training adapted as well, similar to the way boxing and MMA have helped shape modern street violence, and modern self defence needing to adapt to handle that. The other influence that time period had on the development and spreading of the jujutsu systems is that, during peacetime, it's safer, and easier to get more creative, so syllabus' tend to grow, becoming more complex, and the unarmed curriculums of many schools did just that. Basically, the more there is to a system, and the more unarmed there is, the more likely it's the result of peacetime development. And this development, with more approaches, more counters, more techniques lead to more students learning longer, which added to the spread of the system outside of the samurai class.

So who learnt these systems depends on who they were, where they were, when we are talking about, and what the system is. Leaders, possibly, footsoldiers, not likely.

With what John has written, I'm not going to go through it, but there are a number of things I'd argue with. Mostly about history and usage of Jujutsu, but it's not important enough to go through here, save one thing. John wrote that "jujutsu is a technique not necessarily a label of a style of techniques, or a system". This I absolutely have to disagree with, Jujutsu is a classification of certain approaches to combat, it is not "a technique", it absolutely is a system and a style of techniques. What that system is, and what that style of technique is changes from system to system, as does the naming convention (referring to them as Taijutsu, Goho, Hade, Wa, Yawara, Yawaragei, Koshi no Mawari, Kogusoku, Kumi Uchi, Judo (150 years before Jigoro Kano used the term for his Kodokan system), Te, Gi, Yoroi Kumi Uchi, Torite, and many more, although all are, broadly speaking, Jujutsu).

 

[Cyriacus]

Hmm. This is probably not the right forum for me to say what I'm about to say, but the question was asked, so I feel obligated to answer it.

I have never seen anything at all that I would class as a native Korean martial art. At all. There aren't any, they are all borrowed from other cultures, with varying degrees of success (Hapkido and Tae Kwon Do being some of the more successful), Each of these borrowed arts gets a degree of "Korean flavour", but that doesn't make them natively Korean arts.

So when it comes to Japanese borrowing from the Koreans? None at all. Very much the other way around, actually. And, I have to say, that is a very sore point with the Koreans, as the reason the Japanese methods are so big (as well as certain Chinese methods) is that the Japanese had a very nasty habit of, when they were bored, sailing over to Korea and occupying it. As this went on over a century or so, the native Korean martial traditions were basically replaced by the Japanese ones. Essentially, Korea suffers badly from a lack of a sense of individual culture, and the cultural response seems to be to explain the similarities with the Korean culture to those around it as "well, they stole that from us". Sadly, that doesn't pass muster.

Japan borrowing from China? Small examples, once we get past the 8th and 9th Century. Up to that point, China was seen as the cradle and shining example of culture, and the Japanese social and court structure was modelled on the Chinese, to the point that the Japanese basically copied the Chinese written language and applied it to their own spoken one. As a result, to this day written Japanese characters tend to have at least two pronunciations, on'yomi (written sound) and kun'yomi (native sound). The kun'yomi pronunciation is the way the Japanese word for that concept is pronounced, with the on'yomi being the way they thought the Chinese pronounced the term. Some good examples are the terms for swords, actually, with this character 刀 (blade, usually used to refer to a knife or sword) being pronounced with kun'yomi as "Katana", and on'yomi as "To"... the Chinese pronunciation is "Dao". Alternately, the character 剣 (sword) is pronounced with a kun'yomi as "Tsurugi", but the more common pronunciation is the on'yomi "Ken". The Chinese is "Jian". Lastly, the character 道 (path, or way) is pronounced "Michi" (kun'yomi) or "Do" (on'yomi), with the Chinese being "Tao". The specific pronunciation depends on the context, so 道 can be pronounced with the kun'yomi of "michi" to refer to a street, or as "do" in a more "way of..." approach, giving Kendo as 剣道, although just on reading it could just as easily be Tsurugi Michi "Street sword".

Once we got into the Heian period, the Japanese culture started to develop away from the Chinese example, although the higher levels of culture still looked to China, including the requirement to be considered refined and educated including the reading of the 5 Chinese Classics (including Sun Tzu's Art of War, the I Ching, and the Tao de Ching). There were other influences as time went on, such as the Akiyama Yoshin lineage of Jujutsu systems originating when a doctor, Akiyama, went to China, and learnt a form of Kenpo (Chuan Fa) there, bringing three techniques (kata - note, though, this is kata in the traditional Japanese form, a two person combative scenario) back with him. These three kata became the foundation of his new system, and this Chinese influence are an indication as to why the Akiyama Yoshin lines feature a higher emphasis on striking than many other systems. The Japanese side comes through in the equally high emphasis on throwing methods.

Chinese martial arts have been a much higher influence on the martial arts of Okinawa than on those of Japan, with many karate systems tracing themselves back to Chinese systems, such as White Crane. This again explains the higher emphasis on striking in karate systems as compared to "typical" jujutsu systems.

When it comes to who would have learnt it, that's a big discussion. I am personally of the opinion that martial arts, as a whole, were not really learnt by the footsoldiers, for a number of reasons. As to giving them unarmed combat training, that would be a waste of time, really. They were given a spear, taught basic thrusts, and sent out. If they lost their spear, they had to get past the spear of their opponent, and the level of unarmed skill required for that takes so long to attain that there's no reason to give it to them. When it comes to generals and commanders getting unarmed training, that's closer to the truth, I feel. But even then, not entirely. Yes, the higher ranks would have been about the only ones with the time and wealth to dedicate themselves to such things (note: that's not necessarily just the very high ranking, really just anyone over the footsoldier level, but that again is depending on era... but we'll get to that), and many unarmed systems seem to be more about teaching strategy and tactics that can then be applied on a battlefield through the medium of unarmed waza (techniques), but the core of learning strategy in Japan has always been sword. Add to that the fact that most systems (Takenouchi Ryu excepted) that had a Jujutsu syllabus before the Tokugawa period (1608 onwards) tended to only have a fairly simple, rudimentary form, it just wasn't given a high emphasis, so there's no reason to believe that it was higher level than anything else, or considered more important, and therefore given to the higher ranks only. In fact, it was considered less important, and was a kinda "if you need it, here you go" addition to most systems. Schools such as Kashima Shinryu gradually gave more and more emphasis to this side of things, embellishing and growing their Jujutsu sysllabus as the school entered peacetime. And Takenouchi Ryu, the first "jujutsu" school, when the syllabus is looked at, has most of their Jujutsu including a range of weaponry as well, typically short swords and daggers.

You then also have to look at the stance of the school itself. Katori Shinto Ryu has a tradition of not refusing entry to anyone willing to abide by their rules, and not affiliating themselves with any political faction throughout it's history, meaning that high ranking samurai, and local farmers (if they could afford the time), along with merchants were all welcome to train in the system. Other arts were what were called Otomo Ryu, inside schools of specific domains, pledged to the lord of the area. The most famous examples are Yagyu Shinkage Ryu and Ono-ha Itto Ryu, both of which were the Otomo Ryu of the Tokugawa Shoguns, supplying sword instructors to the Shogun and their sons. In these instances, it wasn't as easy for others to get in to learn the system. Another well known Otomo Ryu was the Shinto Muso Ryu, who kept to themselves quite well, revealing very little about what they did to outsiders for most of their existance (until the late 19th Century, really). Then you have systems like Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, the school of Musashi Miyamoto (which includes some Jujutsu in the higher levels of it's teachings), where there was no affiliation to an area, and Musashi was known to just up and move on occasion, meaning his students had to follow him if they wished to continue to learn. That negates the idea of high ranking generals and lords training there as well.

Finally, you need to look at the surrounding environment, referring to the "human" factor. That means the time and place, culturally speaking. Just saying "Japan" isn't enough, is it a big town, a small village, a fishing village, or made up of farmers? Is it more like Edo (Tokyo), or is it remote? Which Island is it on? As far as time, the period is a huge influence on the development and promotion of the systems. Once we hit the Tokugawa period, many samurai suddenly didn't have much to do (no more wars to keep them occupied - leading to things such as the invasion of the Ryukyu Islands, which was influential on the development of karate), so some took to being police officers (a role formerly taken by ordinary citizens in the area, under the leadership and authority of the samurai and daimyo), others started teaching their martial skills to the public. There was a sudden boom in "commoner's yawara/jujutsu", which was a simplified version designed to be given to the general public. This increased awareness of unarmed combat then forced the more "samurai" systems to deal with a change in the violence that could be encountered in a bar room brawl, so their training adapted as well, similar to the way boxing and MMA have helped shape modern street violence, and modern self defence needing to adapt to handle that. The other influence that time period had on the development and spreading of the jujutsu systems is that, during peacetime, it's safer, and easier to get more creative, so syllabus' tend to grow, becoming more complex, and the unarmed curriculums of many schools did just that. Basically, the more there is to a system, and the more unarmed there is, the more likely it's the result of peacetime development. And this development, with more approaches, more counters, more techniques lead to more students learning longer, which added to the spread of the system outside of the samurai class.

So who learnt these systems depends on who they were, where they were, when we are talking about, and what the system is. Leaders, possibly, footsoldiers, not likely.

With what John has written, I'm not going to go through it, but there are a number of things I'd argue with. Mostly about history and usage of Jujutsu, but it's not important enough to go through here, save one thing. John wrote that "jujutsu is a technique not necessarily a label of a style of techniques, or a system". This I absolutely have to disagree with, Jujutsu is a classification of certain approaches to combat, it is not "a technique", it absolutely is a system and a style of techniques. What that system is, and what that style of technique is changes from system to system, as does the naming convention (referring to them as Taijutsu, Goho, Hade, Wa, Yawara, Yawaragei, Koshi no Mawari, Kogusoku, Kumi Uchi, Judo (150 years before Jigoro Kano used the term for his Kodokan system), Te, Gi, Yoroi Kumi Uchi, Torite, and many more, although all are, broadly speaking, Jujutsu).

Ill speak especially of the Blue Text.
I believe this to be Correct.

My Understanding, is that Tae Kwon-Do, like Kickboxing, and a couple of other Styles; Is a Derivative of Karate.
And My Understanding, is that the Reasoning is that Karate Works. But its Applications and Specifics are extremely subjective.
Furthermore, the Intention goes a long way.

Some Karate are Grappling Heavy, some have next to None.
Some Tae Kwon-Do is Kick Heavy, others are more Hand Focused.
Some Hapkido put on WTF like Gear and Competition Spar, others do not.
Some Aikido do Competitions, most do not.

Its all different Flavors, and Interpritations.

And as such, I think that Tae Kwon-Do, at least as Im Learning it, is an All-Encompassing Archetype of Karate, altered to suit its Purpose at the Time, which was Militaristic.
Again, as Im Learning it. Not as all Forms are.
Some Forms of Tae Kwon-Do are Sport Themed.
Others are somewere inbetween.
Much in the same way, some Karate is built for Military use.
Others nowadays are mostly Sport.
Judo has the same thing. Martial and Sport.
It wouldnt surprise Me if Hapkido ran a similar Dynamic.

Im not stuck in the belief that Korea founded its own Cultures in this - Maybe it did, maybe it didnt.
But whats Pertinent, is what they did with what they took.
The USA is made of so many Cultures from its founding its really not funny. But they take those Influences and Foundations, and adapt them to suit a Purpose.
Kung Fu is another great Example.
Northern Kung Fu.
Southern Kung Fu.
Wushu.
Its all Interpretations of one or more Foundations to meet a different Result.

And furthermore on Topic; Jujutsu is a Methodology. A Foundation.
A Foundation upon which a Form is Placed.
Much in the same way, Karate is a Foundation.
Kenpo was made on that Foundation.
Kickboxing was made on that Foundation.
Taekwondo is a Foundation.
Every Form of Taekwondo is based on that very Foundation, but what is Built on those Foundations is different.
Jujutsu is a Foundation also.
Upon which various Forms of the same Name, sometimes with different Spelling are Born.
Kung Fu is a Foundation. Now, My Kung Fu Knowledge is rusty here, but if Im not mistaken;
Wing Chun is based on that Foundation.
Northern Mantis is based on that Foundation.
Sanshou is based on that Foundation.
Yet they are all different.


Honestly, Im just interested to here your View on this Idealogy, of most Martial Arts being Built upon a Foundation, which may be the Result of a Previous Foundation.
One might say for example, that BJJ is a Foundation that can be Built upon for MMA. Yet BJJ is based on the JJ Foundation. Yet they are still very different. If that makes any sense.

 

[Chris Parker]

Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean by "foundation" here, honestly. If you mean that they all came from somewhere else, and that can be traced similar to the biblical cliche of "such and such begat so and so, so and so begat whatsaname, whatsaname begat whosit, whosit begat thingamebob etc", then that only applies in some things, and not all of them. For example, your Kung Fu ideas are not like that at all, many of the systems are completely unrelated. Wing Chun, for example, comes from the nun Ng Mui who was at the Shaolin Temple, and fled the destruction of it, took a young disciple named Wing Chun, and developed the system for her. So it has a connection to Shaolin forms, but not to other Kung Fu systems.

Honestly, if you're saying that the foundation is the base, and the various systems (interpretations of that art, say, karate as a base, with Shotokan, Goju, Wado, Naha-te, Shorin, etc coming from this universal "karate" base), then no. In pretty much every case you cite, that's rather inaccurate, most especially when it comes to jujutsu and kung fu.

When it comes to things like BJJ, it's sometimes said that BJJ stands for "basically just judo"... not built on jujutsu, but an interpretation of judo itself (just given a "Brazilian flavour", as it were). It's the same with the Korean arts, TKD, TSD etc are basically forms of karate with a Korean flavour, Kumdo is Kendo, Yudo is Judo, Hapkido is basically Daito Ryu/Aikido with some combination of TKD-style aspects, depending on the line itself, and so on. They are not 'built on a foundation', so much as 'given a Korean flavour'.

 

[Cyriacus]

Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean by "foundation" here, honestly. If you mean that they all came from somewhere else, and that can be traced similar to the biblical cliche of "such and such begat so and so, so and so begat whatsaname, whatsaname begat whosit, whosit begat thingamebob etc", then that only applies in some things, and not all of them. For example, your Kung Fu ideas are not like that at all, many of the systems are completely unrelated. Wing Chun, for example, comes from the nun Ng Mui who was at the Shaolin Temple, and fled the destruction of it, took a young disciple named Wing Chun, and developed the system for her. So it has a connection to Shaolin forms, but not to other Kung Fu systems.

Yeah, My Kung Fu Knowledge is rusty.
By Foundation, I literally mean Foundation. Like, a House is a Foundation, then the Building upon it.

Honestly, if you're saying that the foundation is the base, and the various systems (interpretations of that art, say, karate as a base, with Shotokan, Goju, Wado, Naha-te, Shorin, etc coming from this universal "karate" base), then no. In pretty much every case you cite, that's rather inaccurate, most especially when it comes to jujutsu and kung fu.

*Reads On*

When it comes to things like BJJ, it's sometimes said that BJJ stands for "basically just judo"... not built on jujutsu, but an interpretation of judo itself (just given a "Brazilian flavour", as it were). It's the same with the Korean arts, TKD, TSD etc are basically forms of karate with a Korean flavour, Kumdo is Kendo, Yudo is Judo, Hapkido is basically Daito Ryu/Aikido with some combination of TKD-style aspects, depending on the line itself, and so on. They are not 'built on a foundation', so much as 'given a Korean flavour'.

Could a Foundation for TKD then not be Karate? (> Meaning Leading To) Karate > TKD > Various Forms of TKD.

Logics, would do well to expand.
Push and Pull with the Hands, whilst keeping the Shoulders Squared, would be My First Example.
Ive seen this in some Chinese Arts as well, but most prolifically in Karate. Could it not be said then, that that is a part of the Foundation of Karate, like the Forward Stance? And thusly that the Majority of these such things make up Karate as a Foundation, which would make TKD the Structure Built upon that Foundation?

EDIT: And thusly, different Forms of Karate being different Interpritations, Alterations, Refinements, (Whatever a Word for Includes some things but not Others would be); And therefore be Forms of Karate build upon the Foundation of Karate?

 

[JohnEdward]

With what John has written, I'm not going to go through it, but there are a number of things I'd argue with. Mostly about history and usage of Jujutsu, but it's not important enough to go through here, save one thing. John wrote that "jujutsu is a technique not necessarily a label of a style of techniques, or a system". This I absolutely have to disagree with, Jujutsu is a classification of certain approaches to combat, it is not "a technique", it absolutely is a system and a style of techniques. What that system is, and what that style of technique is changes from system to system, as does the naming convention (referring to them as Taijutsu, Goho, Hade, Wa, Yawara, Yawaragei, Koshi no Mawari, Kogusoku, Kumi Uchi, Judo (150 years before Jigoro Kano used the term for his Kodokan system), Te, Gi, Yoroi Kumi Uchi, Torite, and many more, although all are, broadly speaking, Jujutsu).

I am not an expert on Japanese martial arts history, like most people who practice martial arts here and in Japan. I don't have a vocation to do so, I don't speak or read the language. My interest lies in the mechanics and application, as well as the preservation of my jujutsu skills. Therefore, I don't lay things out in a designed architecture for the process of argumentation. I am not trying to historically prove an argument. I think sometimes people mis-read that. This is one of those sometimes.

When I said, "jujutsu is a technique not necessarily a label of a style of techniques, or a system" that was in a context of making jujutsu*synonymous with joint lock. And not the dictionary defination. Yes, I wrote it a bit clumsily, because I assuming from the context people would understand I wrote.

*The term "jujutsu" used as is same manner as the English usage of the word wrestling: He used wrestling to win the fight and he goes to a wrestling class. He used jujutsu to win the fight and his goes to a wrestling class. So when we speak or use the word jujutsu it is accepted to be a general term, and not necessarily used as a label or a style of techniques denoting or identify a particular group, collection, system of joint manipulation techniques or grappling. Thus, I making the term jujutsu synonymous with the word "joint lock."

It also is my understanding from the experts in Japanese martial art history, the term jujutsu was akin to the way we use the word grappling as an action then later as an umbrella term that covers allot of different grappling disciplines. Similarly, the word wrestling first was synonymous with grappling then later a term that refers to a disciple of different styles and techniques termed as wrestling. Which the term wrestling is still used to mean grappling. The term jujutsu refers to and is synonymous to grappling or a style of, or specific identifiable techniques, or a system of various techniques.

As you can see, I mean jujutsu as joint lock in this context of the thread that your concern comes from. That it is true that a joint lock is a joint lock is a joint lock, though there are different approaches and philosophies to joint locks. That is what I was getting at, and not making a historical statement.

 

[Tez3]

I'm not big into the history of martial arts, I can't speak eloquently on masters, styles etc etc but I used to train Wado Ryu until the club closed down, I went to Tang Soo Do because that was available. The TSD books go on about how it's an ancient Korean art but the reason I progressed so quickly through the ranks of it is because it was so similiar to Wado (and Shotokan) it's patterns are virtually the same as those in Wado and Shotokan with some of the more difficult bits taken out and the addition of a random kick now and again, even the names of the patterns/hyungs are distinctly simliar to the Japanese.
Tang Soo Do is a direct copy of Wado Ryu/Shotokan karate, not an ancient Korean style. Now where those karate styles come from I'll leave you guys to argue!

 

[JohnEdward]

Tez3 you make a good point. If am reading you correctly, it's my Americanism that could be the flaw, and take full responsibility for that. I don't think you need to be a walking wikipedia to tell you the connections (nothing wrong with being a walking wikipedia or a.k.a. an history nerd). But your experience and observations of similarities are valid and sufficient for most purposes most of us have in martial arts. If someone cares to pursue the historical background that is great. But, I think the problem with great historical pursuit leads to finding out history is subjected to interpretation sprinkled with some fact. Then the arguments pursue over whose interpretation will dominate and be held up as what "really" happened or what "really" was. A King of the Hill game.

I generalize that all the striking arts of China, Japan, and Korea are related. That they all are related to the fighting systems of India. So that when I go to any of these arts there will be similarities. For grappling arts I look at it the same connections, but credit China and not India for the point of origin of influence. That way again if I go to a Korean or Chinese grappling art I can expect to find similarities. I think, for me, beyond that, because an area of argumentation over research. An area, argumentation of deep history, is not my expertise.

 

[Jenna]

OK listen up! I would like to settle any confusion some of you seem to be having. MY art was the VVFMA - the Very Very First Martial Art. Wikipedia my ****. I know this for a proper fact because it was channelled to me through my spirit guide. He was the very very first martial artist nomadic of the Indus Valley region some 5000 years ago - contextually, that was before there were even televisions, ok? Or probably even words. They probably just had pictures. And spirit guides in training. Anyway, without wanting to sound as if I am PONTIFICATING or anything, all of your other so-called martial arts have been borne of mine. So like just shut up about them ok?

Even if some of yous are NOT interested in the history or lineage of your art, please, have a bit of respect, yes? When you next execute a technique, I want you to reference it against JRJ (JennaRyuJutsu) for that was the very very inception of what you call martial art these days, though 5000 years ago it was probably called something else. Probably in another language and stuff. Or maybe it was a painting on a wall. In a cave. Basically I do not want any of you all to be practicing your art in isolation.

That would be like having an egg for breakfast without meditating on the chicken! Pffft..

I mean, why would you want to perform your Karate kata without referencing the VVFMA that started it all, 5000 years ago: JRJ? That would be like just totally odd. When you are locked down in a rear naked choke, pause awhile before you tap out or pass out and consider where it all began, in the Bronze Age Indus Valley. To do otherwise would be to NOT appreciate martial arts as a whole. And that would be disrespectful. OK?

 

[JohnEdward]

:whip:Yes...Ma'am.

 

[chinto]

the history of your art does have a real effect on it. just look at the ready stances for say Aikido, and Okinawan Karate. also look at the preferred outcome of an altercation that is traditionally called for. in aikido you stand in tenkan and offer a target. ( this is a some what aggressive stance compared to the ready stance of karate.) In Okinawan karate you stand in hachigi stance, a very in-aggressive looking stance. why? because a fight when karate was being developed was normally to the death. you may be facing a pirate or a satsuma samurai. Either was not going to let you live, and provably not your family or even village depending on the circumstances. Aikido was developed in the 20th century. does this mean you can not find ways to kill with it? no, but the desired outcome is usually considered to be non lethal, and just as efficient. I would submit that while both will do some blending, a lot of taisabaki, and locks and throws as well as blows, karate looks to end it quicker and more permanently then aikido because of history. ( I study both arts by the way. ) so yes history matters. some have more influence from some sources then others. The influences are important, as is where and when. look into the linage and history of your art, you may learn some very valuable things that way.

 

[Mark Lynn]

I do believe t is important to know the history of the martial arts or at least the art you are studying to a degree. I don't think it matters how far back in the past you can trace your art, unless you are concerned with keeping it pure for historical purposes. But I do think it helps to gain a deeper understanding of your art if you know it's recent history, or it's general history in the last 50-100years. Lets face it most of the main/most common martial arts that we know of today are really between 50-150 years old. Old Karate in Okinawa dates back about 100+ years, karate in Japan what 90 years or so, karate in England and America 60+ years maybe. TKD is what 60-70 years old, 60 years in America and so on. Judo in America is what 100 years and England is about the same.

I know there are older arts and I'm speaking in general terms, but the point is they are relatively young and there are first or second generation students who are still around who can give in site into the principles or the art, intentions of the founders of the systems, in site into training methods, provide historical context behind the techniques of the art and so on. I believe this is important.

Take Aikido for example: Ueshiba sensei studies aikijutsu and then creates his own system that was his expression of his religious beliefs. With a goal to help people feel better about themselves and with others. I believe it is important to know and understand the history because I believe it sheds light on why they do techniques they way they do. Likewise if a system deviates from those techniques or teachings (still teaching Aikido but not pure Ueshiba Aikido), it is helpful to know why what are the reasons the founder or creator of the sub system teach differently than the "pure" system.

Take Wado ryu, it is important (to a degree) how and why it was founded and why Otsuka split from Shotokan. Because it impacts why they do what they do and the differences between the styles.

Take Tae Kwon Do: If you look at it's history you need not go back hundreds/thousands of years but rather 60-70 to the 1940s-50s to see that it does have Japanese karate as it's roots. Tracing the lineage back I think helps explain why, as Tez3 brought out, his Japanese (Wado) katas were very similar to his Tang Soo Do forms, or why whole sections of the ITF forms appear to be lifted and rearranged out of the Japanese Shotokan katas. However looking into it's history in the 1970's shows why things yet again changed to the new walking type patterns and the Olympic style TKD.

If you study applications of your kata moves (bunkai) then knowing when and how or what context the katas were made does make a difference. Take the TKD ITF forms if movements from Shotokan katas where lifted and altered to give it a "Korean" heritage than this would impact the applications of the katas. But if you look at how long the founder of the ITF or the original Kwans (schools) studied karate in Japan then you have to wonder "Did they ever study the applications to begin with" and for that matter did the instructors/students in the universities of Japan in the 30s-50s study the applications like the Okinawans did and did they pass it on to the Koreans? Who knows?

In closing how your system was founded, how it was taught, your instructors goals and their methodologies in teaching and so on all relate to how you study or how you teach your current art. In the years to come the way you do things will be history and your students students students will be wondering how you did things and why.

 

[mook jong man]

Wing Chun is thought to be about three hundred years old , it was founded by the Abbess Ng Mui.
She was already well versed in several Kung Fu systems , but she felt that they relied too much on brute strength.
So she streamlined much of the existing knowledge and eliminated any wasted motions and formulated the Wing Chun martial art.

Wing Chun is unique amongst Chinese Kung Fu in it's method of generating power and overcoming force , it is not based on the movement of animals but based on natural scientific laws and anatomical principles applied to the human body.

It is not concerned with lion dancing , religion , rituals or any other cultural aspects the only thing it is concerned with is fighting .

While it is not one of the most beautiful of the Chinese Kung Fu systems , it is one of the most practical.

 

[Cyriacus]

OK listen up! I would like to settle any confusion some of you seem to be having. MY art was the VVFMA - the Very Very First Martial Art. Wikipedia my ****. I know this for a proper fact because it was channelled to me through my spirit guide. He was the very very first martial artist nomadic of the Indus Valley region some 5000 years ago - contextually, that was before there were even televisions, ok? Or probably even words. They probably just had pictures. And spirit guides in training. Anyway, without wanting to sound as if I am PONTIFICATING or anything, all of your other so-called martial arts have been borne of mine. So like just shut up about them ok?

Even if some of yous are NOT interested in the history or lineage of your art, please, have a bit of respect, yes? When you next execute a technique, I want you to reference it against JRJ (JennaRyuJutsu) for that was the very very inception of what you call martial art these days, though 5000 years ago it was probably called something else. Probably in another language and stuff. Or maybe it was a painting on a wall. In a cave. Basically I do not want any of you all to be practicing your art in isolation.

That would be like having an egg for breakfast without meditating on the chicken! Pffft..

I mean, why would you want to perform your Karate kata without referencing the VVFMA that started it all, 5000 years ago: JRJ? That would be like just totally odd. When you are locked down in a rear naked choke, pause awhile before you tap out or pass out and consider where it all began, in the Bronze Age Indus Valley. To do otherwise would be to NOT appreciate martial arts as a whole. And that would be disrespectful. OK?

Lay off the LSD.



In all Seriousness, I see what youre saying.
People place too much Importance on these things.
It can be interesting to know the Dynamics however.

Actually, dont lay off the LSD.
I still smile softly whenever I do an Axe Kick.
Bloody Sumerians.

 

[Tez3]

The history of your art only has an effect when it is the history of your art and not a lie. It's clear to me that TSD isn't two thousand years old and is not exactly the same now as it was then as stated in the book I have. I would suggest that the TSD hyungs are similiar to the Wado katas rather than the other way around and this is because the Wado katas are similiar to the Shotokan ones. TSD did not come first and I'm afraid it has very little influence on me, Wado Ryu certainly does however.

 

[Chris Parker]

Right. Those of you that know me might realise that I never actually start any threads, and have a tendancy not to be the one asking questions, and this thread was started with my answering a question in another thread. As a result, I'm not really sure what it's meant to be about.... but we'll see what we can come up with here.

Yeah, My Kung Fu Knowledge is rusty.
By Foundation, I literally mean Foundation. Like, a House is a Foundation, then the Building upon it.

Hmm. In a real way, then, no. It just doesn't work that way.

Could a Foundation for TKD then not be Karate? (> Meaning Leading To) Karate > TKD > Various Forms of TKD.

No, that's too general. "Karate" includes a wide range of systems, ranging from very Chinese systems (most from White Crane, which was the source for the Bubishi, from memory) to some very Okinawan approaches (hard, straight lines, very powerful striking methods, and short, to the point approaches), to modern Japanese and sporting approaches. Add to that the detail that TKD wasn't built on a foundation of karate (Shotokan, primarily), it was a copy of it with a few things, mainly more kicks, added in. It wasn't a "leading to" situation, it was a "copying that" situation.

When it comes to arts coming from other arts, it's never so general as "jujutsu gives judo, aikijutsu gives aikido, kenjutsu gives kendo", as so many books and websites like to simplify. It's a matter of "Tenjin Shinyo Ryu and Kito Ryu Jujutsu gave rise to Judo (Kodokan), with influence from Fusen Ryu and some others, Daito Ryu Aikijutsu gave rise to Aikido, with influence from Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, Kukishin Ryu, and others, Ono-ha Itto Ryu Kenjutsu gave rise to Kendo, with influence from Yagyu Shinkage Ryu and others". And in none of those cases was it a matter of copying, it was an actual development of a new system, distinct and separate from the source school(s).

Logics, would do well to expand.
Push and Pull with the Hands, whilst keeping the Shoulders Squared, would be My First Example.
Ive seen this in some Chinese Arts as well, but most prolifically in Karate. Could it not be said then, that that is a part of the Foundation of Karate, like the Forward Stance? And thusly that the Majority of these such things make up Karate as a Foundation, which would make TKD the Structure Built upon that Foundation?

EDIT: And thusly, different Forms of Karate being different Interpritations, Alterations, Refinements, (Whatever a Word for Includes some things but not Others would be); And therefore be Forms of Karate build upon the Foundation of Karate?

No, that's a fundamental physical expression of most forms of karate, not a foundation for it. Remember, a classification of a type of martial art is, in most cases, a rough guide at best. And there is rarely any universality within that. For example, show a modern, sporting Karate system a video of Goju Ryu's Sanchin Kata, and they'll say "what on earth is that? What's with all the weird breathing and stuff?", whereas you show the same thing to a Chinese practitioner, and they'll say "oh, internal martial arts, very nice!" That doesn't stop the modern sporting system being karate, nor does it make the Goju practitioner a Chinese internal martial artist (although the connection is certainly there).

Then again, if you show them both something like this, they'll both recognise it as Karate (maybe the particular form will be different, the stances that Higoanna Sensei shows are much shorter than, say, Shotokans, but the basic acknowledgement will be there).

And, once more, you show them something like this, and they may say it's karate, or they may say it's not, it's jujutsu:

Wado Ryu is rather odd amongst karate systems, in that it draws from Shotokan as well as Otsuka Sensei's licencing in Shindo Yoshin Ryu Jujutsu, and is sometimes considered more a branch of Shindo Yoshin Ryu than a form of karate... but both classifications actually apply.

I am not an expert on Japanese martial arts history, like most people who practice martial arts here and in Japan. I don't have a vocation to do so, I don't speak or read the language. My interest lies in the mechanics and application, as well as the preservation of my jujutsu skills. Therefore, I don't lay things out in a designed architecture for the process of argumentation. I am not trying to historically prove an argument. I think sometimes people mis-read that. This is one of those sometimes.

When I said, "jujutsu is a technique not necessarily a label of a style of techniques, or a system" that was in a context of making jujutsu*synonymous with joint lock. And not the dictionary defination. Yes, I wrote it a bit clumsily, because I assuming from the context people would understand I wrote.

*The term "jujutsu" used as is same manner as the English usage of the word wrestling: He used wrestling to win the fight and he goes to a wrestling class. He used jujutsu to win the fight and his goes to a wrestling class. So when we speak or use the word jujutsu it is accepted to be a general term, and not necessarily used as a label or a style of techniques denoting or identify a particular group, collection, system of joint manipulation techniques or grappling. Thus, I making the term jujutsu synonymous with the word "joint lock."

It also is my understanding from the experts in Japanese martial art history, the term jujutsu was akin to the way we use the word grappling as an action then later as an umbrella term that covers allot of different grappling disciplines. Similarly, the word wrestling first was synonymous with grappling then later a term that refers to a disciple of different styles and techniques termed as wrestling. Which the term wrestling is still used to mean grappling. The term jujutsu refers to and is synonymous to grappling or a style of, or specific identifiable techniques, or a system of various techniques.

As you can see, I mean jujutsu as joint lock in this context of the thread that your concern comes from. That it is true that a joint lock is a joint lock is a joint lock, though there are different approaches and philosophies to joint locks. That is what I was getting at, and not making a historical statement.

The problem is, John, that jujutsu is NOT synonymous with joint locking, which is what I was saying. Jujutsu is a classification, and a pretty broad one at that, which can include joint locking, but doesn't necessarily have to, or have any real emphasis on that skill set. In a lot of armour based systems (such as Yagyu Shingan Ryu) it isn't really emphasised at all, with a preference for striking to weak parts of the armour, and throwing techniques. They have some joint locking, but would rather dump someone on their head. Then again, an art such as Asayama Ichiden Ryu has almost no striking, very little throwing, and relies almost exclusively on three joint locks.. but they refer to their art as "Taijutsu", not "Jujutsu", so does that take it out of the equation? The Takagi lines (Takagi Yoshin Ryu, Hontai Yoshin Ryu, Hontai Takagi Yoshin Ryu etc) feature about an even split between throwing and joint locks, with a pretty good emphasis on chokes as well, so what does that make their use of the term Jujutsu (or Jutaijutsu in one line) synonymous with?

As for jujutsu being used akin to the term grappling, kind of, but not quite the way you're meaning here. It was really more used as a term for unarmed combat, whether sporting in nature, or otherwise. The reason the term refers more to grappling actions is that it developed from a usage where striking was of limited effectiveness. If the types of clothing and armour worn in Japan were closer to those worn in China, "Jujutsu" would probably have been translated as "boxing".

The thing with the term Jujutsu is that it is both a specialised, and a generalised term. As a specialised term, it refers to a specific syllabus and range of techniques within a martial arts curriculum, and the term is used as that school sees fit (no two schools actually mean the same thing when they use the term "Jujutsu".... and most don't even use that term!), whereas when used as a general term, it takes on the meaning of unarmed fighting. And that's about it. Interestingly, though, when used as a specialised term in some schools, it refers to the use of small weapons, rather than unarmed...

So, er, no, to all of that.

I'm not big into the history of martial arts, I can't speak eloquently on masters, styles etc etc but I used to train Wado Ryu until the club closed down, I went to Tang Soo Do because that was available. The TSD books go on about how it's an ancient Korean art but the reason I progressed so quickly through the ranks of it is because it was so similiar to Wado (and Shotokan) it's patterns are virtually the same as those in Wado and Shotokan with some of the more difficult bits taken out and the addition of a random kick now and again, even the names of the patterns/hyungs are distinctly simliar to the Japanese.
Tang Soo Do is a direct copy of Wado Ryu/Shotokan karate, not an ancient Korean style. Now where those karate styles come from I'll leave you guys to argue!

Yep, this is basically the way it goes down, sad to say. I've had people tell me that the reason the Korean swords look pretty much the same as Japanese ones is that the Japanese copied the Koreans (?).... and the evidence for that would be where?

One of the worst out there is Greg Parks, who goes under the name Choson Ninja, who has spent the last few years trying to convince people that Ninjutsu is really Korean, and, somehow, getting people to believe him!

Tez3 you make a good point. If am reading you correctly, it's my Americanism that could be the flaw, and take full responsibility for that. I don't think you need to be a walking wikipedia to tell you the connections (nothing wrong with being a walking wikipedia or a.k.a. an history nerd). But your experience and observations of similarities are valid and sufficient for most purposes most of us have in martial arts. If someone cares to pursue the historical background that is great. But, I think the problem with great historical pursuit leads to finding out history is subjected to interpretation sprinkled with some fact. Then the arguments pursue over whose interpretation will dominate and be held up as what "really" happened or what "really" was. A King of the Hill game.

I generalize that all the striking arts of China, Japan, and Korea are related. That they all are related to the fighting systems of India. So that when I go to any of these arts there will be similarities. For grappling arts I look at it the same connections, but credit China and not India for the point of origin of influence. That way again if I go to a Korean or Chinese grappling art I can expect to find similarities. I think, for me, beyond that, because an area of argumentation over research. An area, argumentation of deep history, is not my expertise.

Thing is, though, it's not connections between Wado and Tang Soo Do, it's a straight copy. Add to that the "history" put forth by the TSD system completely fails to hold any water. It's like doing a cover of the Beatles "Hey Jude", then saying that your great grandfather actually wrote it in 1856....

Oh, and I'd suggest not generalising that all the striking arts of China, Japan, and Korea are related, because they're not. Nor are they all related to the systems of India. Such generalisations don't help discussion or conversation, as they are blatantly wrong.

The history of your art only has an effect when it is the history of your art and not a lie. It's clear to me that TSD isn't two thousand years old and is not exactly the same now as it was then as stated in the book I have. I would suggest that the TSD hyungs are similiar to the Wado katas rather than the other way around and this is because the Wado katas are similiar to the Shotokan ones. TSD did not come first and I'm afraid it has very little influence on me, Wado Ryu certainly does however.

By having some understanding of what effects the history would have on a system (what methods would be preferred, what stances would be expected, what the social conventions would be, what weaponry would be around, what the common attacks would be like), you can usually get past such obvious fallacies. There are some that require a more practiced eye, such as a group out of Brazil referring to themselves as "Ogawa Ryu", and trying to pass themselves off as a Koryu. They actually fooled a number of Koryu practitioners for a while (there were comments about distancing and so forth not being what would be expected from a Koryu... and yes, it is different to other, modern systems), but not enough to really make people doubt it. It was only when some more research into the entire system was done that it came to light that these guys were basically stealing the kata from a range of Koryu (Katori Shinto Ryu, Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, Yagyu Shingan Ryu, Takenouchi Ryu, and others), and passing it off as their system, while getting some basic things wrong in each of them. That actually took a little while to get to, though.

 

[Cyriacus]

Right. Those of you that know me might realise that I never actually start any threads, and have a tendancy not to be the one asking questions, and this thread was started with my answering a question in another thread. As a result, I'm not really sure what it's meant to be about.... but we'll see what we can come up with here.



Hmm. In a real way, then, no. It just doesn't work that way.



No, that's too general. "Karate" includes a wide range of systems, ranging from very Chinese systems (most from White Crane, which was the source for the Bubishi, from memory) to some very Okinawan approaches (hard, straight lines, very powerful striking methods, and short, to the point approaches), to modern Japanese and sporting approaches. Add to that the detail that TKD wasn't built on a foundation of karate (Shotokan, primarily), it was a copy of it with a few things, mainly more kicks, added in. It wasn't a "leading to" situation, it was a "copying that" situation.

When it comes to arts coming from other arts, it's never so general as "jujutsu gives judo, aikijutsu gives aikido, kenjutsu gives kendo", as so many books and websites like to simplify. It's a matter of "Tenjin Shinyo Ryu and Kito Ryu Jujutsu gave rise to Judo (Kodokan), with influence from Fusen Ryu and some others, Daito Ryu Aikijutsu gave rise to Aikido, with influence from Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, Kukishin Ryu, and others, Ono-ha Itto Ryu Kenjutsu gave rise to Kendo, with influence from Yagyu Shinkage Ryu and others". And in none of those cases was it a matter of copying, it was an actual development of a new system, distinct and separate from the source school(s).

Now THAT, is Enlightening.

No, that's a fundamental physical expression of most forms of karate, not a foundation for it. Remember, a classification of a type of martial art is, in most cases, a rough guide at best. And there is rarely any universality within that. For example, show a modern, sporting Karate system a video of Goju Ryu's Sanchin Kata, and they'll say "what on earth is that? What's with all the weird breathing and stuff?", whereas you show the same thing to a Chinese practitioner, and they'll say "oh, internal martial arts, very nice!" That doesn't stop the modern sporting system being karate, nor does it make the Goju practitioner a Chinese internal martial artist (although the connection is certainly there).

Then again, if you show them both something like this, they'll both recognise it as Karate (maybe the particular form will be different, the stances that Higoanna Sensei shows are much shorter than, say, Shotokans, but the basic acknowledgement will be there).

And, once more, you show them something like this, and they may say it's karate, or they may say it's not, it's jujutsu:

Wado Ryu is rather odd amongst karate systems, in that it draws from Shotokan as well as Otsuka Sensei's licencing in Shindo Yoshin Ryu Jujutsu, and is sometimes considered more a branch of Shindo Yoshin Ryu than a form of karate... but both classifications actually apply.

I understand what Youre saying - I Enjoyed this Conversation.

 

[Jenna]

the history of your art does have a real effect on it. just look at the ready stances for say Aikido, and Okinawan Karate. also look at the preferred outcome of an altercation that is traditionally called for. in aikido you stand in tenkan and offer a target. ( this is a some what aggressive stance compared to the ready stance of karate.) In Okinawan karate you stand in hachigi stance, a very in-aggressive looking stance. why? because a fight when karate was being developed was normally to the death. you may be facing a pirate or a satsuma samurai. Either was not going to let you live, and provably not your family or even village depending on the circumstances. Aikido was developed in the 20th century. does this mean you can not find ways to kill with it? no, but the desired outcome is usually considered to be non lethal, and just as efficient. I would submit that while both will do some blending, a lot of taisabaki, and locks and throws as well as blows, karate looks to end it quicker and more permanently then aikido because of history. ( I study both arts by the way. ) so yes history matters. some have more influence from some sources then others. The influences are important, as is where and when. look into the linage and history of your art, you may learn some very valuable things that way.

I would not argue one bit that the historical influences are important to how the art is formulated NOW.

I just think that knowing of your art's antecedents is not relevant to how you practice it right now. If you are interested in the history of your art then that is fine. Otherwise, you can happily practice your art in a vacuum of no other arts having come before yours (or being sister arts to yours) and it will not impact one bit upon the effectiveness of your art.

I also do not understand which valuable things you can learn (aside from satisfying your interest in history) that will assist your art and how you practice it NOW. Perhaps I am overlooking something?

 

[Champ-Pain]

I would not argue one bit that the historical influences are important to how the art is formulated NOW.

I just think that knowing of your art's antecedents is not relevant to how you practice it right now. If you are interested in the history of your art then that is fine. Otherwise, you can happily practice your art in a vacuum of no other arts having come before yours (or being sister arts to yours) and it will not impact one bit upon the effectiveness of your art.

I also do not understand which valuable things you can learn (aside from satisfying your interest in history) that will assist your art and how you practice it NOW. Perhaps I am overlooking something?

I couldn't agree more. I love the way you think, lately.

 

[Chris Parker]

I would not argue one bit that the historical influences are important to how the art is formulated NOW.

I just think that knowing of your art's antecedents is not relevant to how you practice it right now. If you are interested in the history of your art then that is fine. Otherwise, you can happily practice your art in a vacuum of no other arts having come before yours (or being sister arts to yours) and it will not impact one bit upon the effectiveness of your art.

I also do not understand which valuable things you can learn (aside from satisfying your interest in history) that will assist your art and how you practice it NOW. Perhaps I am overlooking something?

Ah, my dear J, you are. But only when it comes to certain arts. In Koryu, for instance, it's a vital aspect. And when it comes to understanding where something comes from, surely it's better to understand the why, which in many cases comes from the "when" and "who" as much as the "how", otherwise you cannot understand how things may change, or need to adapt when things like the "when" and "who" change around you.

 

[Jenna]

Ah, my dear J, you are. But only when it comes to certain arts. In Koryu, for instance, it's a vital aspect. And when it comes to understanding where something comes from, surely it's better to understand the why, which in many cases comes from the "when" and "who" as much as the "how", otherwise you cannot understand how things may change, or need to adapt when things like the "when" and "who" change around you.

For what reason do we need to understand the wherefores of the art? The art is a complete and integral system. If it is not then it is not a proper art and should be so named.

I could both utilise and disseminate my art without ANY reference whatsoever to the history which occurred prior to when the art was formed as a single entity. I am not denying influences. I just do not believe there is any need to reference them other than for curiosity's sake. No?