Hey all since I Ju-Jitsu guy I thought I would post my physical training logs here hope they help. Questions are always welcome.
2/3/20 kettlebell workout – Ryan Minney
2/3/20 kettlebell workout – Ryan Minney
Training Log
- Thread starter minn8325
- Start date
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Hi Ryan,
Slightly unrelated, but what system of jujutsu do you study? I didn't see anything much about it on the blog, save for a mention of osoto gari being trained at one class.
Slightly unrelated, but what system of jujutsu do you study? I didn't see anything much about it on the blog, save for a mention of osoto gari being trained at one class.
- Thread Starter
- #3
Seiei Kan, I do well with ashi-waza, for my throws. My style tends to lean more forward ude Garami and Shime-waza techniques from high top mount.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Cool, thanks for that. So it's a modern, Western school, rather than any Japanese form, from what I can see based around a karate system founded by Don Madden in conjunction with a Swedish jujutsu practitioner named Bo Kimly from the late 80's or early 90's.
- Thread Starter
- #5
I am honestly not 100% sure on the history, We have traditional Japanese bow in and out. Don and Heather are Great, To rank we have to know all the Japanese vocabulary along with demonstrating proper technique.
The ranking system is pretty thorough gives the player a chance to develop natural style
we have lots of tournaments with full Randori and Grappling only options.
I enjoy it a lot
The ranking system is pretty thorough gives the player a chance to develop natural style
we have lots of tournaments with full Randori and Grappling only options.
I enjoy it a lot
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
That's okay. As mentioned, it's a modern, Western art, based more in karate with some modern "jujutsu" (realistically some basic judo more than anything else) brought in.
To be honest, that means little. For one thing, "bowing" is fairly ubiquitous to most of Asia, and many Western arts incorporate such trappings in order to imply such Asian connections.... in a way, it's the assumed image, more than anything else.
That means more!
Again, common enough in pseudo-Japanese arts.
Now that is where things get a bit intriguing. Honestly, without seeing what you mean by "the ranking system" (dan-i? Menkyo? Shogo?), or what is entailed in the syllabus, it's not easy to comment on, but the idea that it's giving "players" a chance to develop "(their) natural style" certainly implies a fair bit.
If I was to make a guess, I would probably suggest that you're employing a dan-i ranking system (kyu and dan grades, typically symbolised by coloured belts, and potentially subdivisions shown by stripes or similar), with each rank made up of individual techniques (two hand strikes, two kicks, three locks, four throws etc), with potentially "self defence combinations" coming in in mid-kyu level? This is what I would consider "typical" in modern arts... considering the karate background, potentially with solo "karate-style" kata as well, depending on the development of the art.
If that sounds familiar, then we are not talking about a Japanese jujutsu system... which is not a bad thing at all. Just an observation of what it actually is.
Cool. Again, not a common thing in actual Japanese arts, for the record... but quite common in modern Western ones.
And that is the most important thing of all!
At the end of the day, it's about you getting value out of what you're doing, and enjoying it... it doesn't matter if it's Japanese, pseudo-Japanese, Western, modern, old, or anything else. My only reason for pursuing this line of discussion is that you've posted this in the Japanese Martial Arts section, so it might be of value for you to realise that what you're doing is only, at most, partially related to Japanese arts.
- Thread Starter
- #7
The ranking system is belt based white, yellow, blue, green, purple, brown, black, red
we don’t do katas, typically each rank has an assortment of Atemi, Nage, and Katame waza. We have to basically show them in a controlled scenario(uke/tori), then in randori where we are live fighting and given the techniques we need to get to and execute. Lastly we have to know Japanese pronunciation of all technique.
if you can do it all you rank
we don’t do katas, typically each rank has an assortment of Atemi, Nage, and Katame waza. We have to basically show them in a controlled scenario(uke/tori), then in randori where we are live fighting and given the techniques we need to get to and execute. Lastly we have to know Japanese pronunciation of all technique.
if you can do it all you rank
Chris tends to insist on very rigid categorization when it comes to terms like "Japanese" or "traditional". Other people allow for more fuzzy boundaries. I think either way is fine as long as you understand the actual history that you are talking about.
It might be helpful to use the analogy of a family.
Imagine a Japanese gentleman living in Kyoto in 1890, we'll call him Akira Yamamoto. Mr. Yamamoto has four sons, each of whom goes a different direction in life.
Son A stays at home, inherits the family business and raises his own family, doing his best to pass on the traditional values he learned from his father. His descendants mostly do the same.
Son B moves to Tokyo and embraces the rising tide of modernization and westernization. His descendants continues to live in Japan, but many of them learn English, immerse themselves in Western culture, and go to University in England or the U.S.. Some of them marry foreigners and have children. One of them adopts an orphan from China.
Son C emigrates to Brazil, but once there he marries a Japanese wife (another émigré). He and his wife raise their children speaking Japanese at home, pass on many of their family traditions, and when the children are grown, they pressure them to find spouses who are ethnically Japanese. As the generations pass, fewer of the children learn to speak Japanese fluently, many of the family traditions are forgotten or evolve over time, and some of the family end up marrying partners with no Japanese background. However even 130 years later many of the family members take pride in their Japanese heritage and whatever remains of their family traditions.
Son D emigrates to the U.S., becomes a citizen, and marries an American wife. He does his best to assimilate into the local culture and raise his children as American, but given the racist aspects of that culture he and his children are still regarded as Japanese. Fifty years later some of his grandchildren are forced into concentration camps in California during WWII due to their Japanese heritage. Seventy years after that, the family has spread in many directions. Members of some branches have married other ethnic Japanese while others have not. Some identify as "Japanese-American", others just as "American." Some retain vestiges of family traditions dating back to the 1900s, some do not. Almost none of them speak Japanese at all, let alone fluently. Yet still, most of the current generation have the experience of someone asking them "Where are you from?" "Malibu." "No, I mean originally, where are you from?"
So here we have four branches of the Yamamoto family, spread across the globe over the course of 130 years. Now the question - of all the individuals in these different lines of the family - who is "true Japanese"?
Is it only the individuals with official Japanese citizenship?
Is it only the individuals who have an unbroken line of "pure" Japanese genetic heritage (no adoptees or non-Japanese parents)?
Is it only those individuals who have retained the culture and language?
Is it only those individuals who have a connection to Japan and self-identify as Japanese?
Is it only those who individuals who are regarded by others as Japanese (such as the tens of thousands of U.S. citizens sent to concentration camps in WWII)?
You can argue over definitions, but my ultimate point is that martial art traditions spread and evolve and cross-pollinate in much the way families do.
Your art (Seiei Kan) was developed by a Swede and an American based on their background in Judo (a Japanese art, created in Japan) and Karate (a family of arts, developed in Okinawa based on Chinese roots, which then spread to Japan, Korea, and the rest of the world, undergoing transformations large and small as it travelled). Does that make it a Japanese art (based on the original source material and the use of some Japanese terminology)? A Swedish-American art (based on the nationalities of the founders)? An American art (based on the fact that Madden and Kimly were working together in the U.S. when they created it)? A Japanese-American art (based on the source material and the founders)? An international art (based on the fact that the Judo and Karate learned by Madden and Kimly had probably picked up various local influences in the generations before they were exposed to the arts and they probably added ideas and influences of their own)?
I don't really care what you call it. But understanding the history of the art can give you some insights into why it works the way it does and is taught the way it is.
isshinryuronin
Master of Arts
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2019
- Messages
- 1,914
- Reaction score
- 2,091
You're right - those kind of terms do tend to get fuzzy and I agree it's important to learn the historical evolution to really understand what that end product you're practicing really is. Sometimes, realizing what that product is may be a let down; that it's a mere shadow of its component parts or of what it once was. Other times, it may be a "Wow!", discovering there is more to the art than you knew.
IMO, the problem of synthesized, combined, or "invented" styles is that, many times, crucial elements are lost during the mix - edited out or neglected due to lack of understanding. In other words, the sum is not necessarily greater than its parts. It takes a lot of experience, skill and insight to effectively combine separate elements into a single entity. It has been done, but rarely. It is more common, I think, that most of these kind of synthesized styles are just a way for someone to claim their own style and be its "master."
Not saying this is the case for the OP - from other's comments, it seems to have some cred. But for the most part, I would take such styles with a grain of salt, pending careful examination.
Chris Parker
Grandmaster
Cool, basically what I was figuring. The lack of kata is an issue (from the perspective of being a Japanese art), but we'll cover that as we go. To be absolutely clear, though, it's not an issue with your system, just a major indication as to the categorisation of it.
Ah, there's a big question... there are a number of factors that have to be taken into account, but the first is that, well, the art has to be Japanese. It has to be founded in Japan, ideally be based in Japan (or very recently transported out of the country), and has to maintain it's Japanese "character". Exactly what that is can lead to a lot of deep questions... let's use Tony's post as a jumping off point to see what we can find.
Hmm.... to be completely transparent, I wouldn't say that I "insist on very rigid categorisation", more that I would tend to apply accurate descriptions... there's really no "fuzzy boundary" that can be applied, as it's quite a binary status... either an art is Japanese, or it's not. To be clear, I'm not saying that "either it's got some Japanese heritage, or has some Japanese ancestry, or the founder is ethnically Japanese", or anything else.... I'm saying the art itself is Japanese. And, in that case, it either is, or it isn't.
I get what you're attempting, but would disagree with the application of the analogy here... I'll see if I can explain as we go. The major aspect, though, is that this is looking purely at ethnicity of the individuals, which, although is certainly a part of it, is far from the entirety.
Okay.
Here's the issue with this analogy already... it's not about the people, it's about the "family business" in this instance.
Yeah... look, to be honest, this is a strawman argument. It's really quite removed from the actual concept itself, which is the cultural, structural, and pedagogical make-up of a Japanese martial art. In each of these cases, the continuance of a Japanese tradition (with each branch/son) isn't dependent on the geographical location, although a new tradition in each country would make for a different conversation, nor is it necessarily dependent on the ethnicity of the personages involved (although, again, the influence can be quite major).
Again, irrelevant.
Considering the conversation is on the traits and categorisation of an art, then again, this is rather irrelevant... I mean, I get your aim, but it's not really an accurate way to look at this situation.
Sure. But we're not talking about "spreading, evolving, or cross-pollination"... we're talking about new arts being created... in this case separate and removed from the cultural soil of Japan.
There's a lot to unpack there... such as the particular make-up of Seiei Kan, and the relative aspects of both karate and the art that Bo Kimly taught (for the record, I can't find anything suggesting that he trained in Judo... in fact, there's no indication of the system of "jujutsu" he trained in at all... he's listed as a "7th Dan", but only in the generic "jujutsu", not in a particular school... and his photos don't look much like anything other than the semi-proliferated modern mix of basic judo and karate in a Western "jujutsu" system)... as well as the idea of if such methods remain as Japanese arts after undergoing transformations when transplanted to another culture. On that topic, in this case related to koryu, but applicable to the entire concept, here's an article from Dave Lowry on this very concept: Introduction: A Coconut Palm in Missouri
No.
Trappings are one thing, but the reality is that a Japanese art is of Japanese origin... not just geographically, but culturally. And this is devoid of that very cultural grounding.
The latter, honestly. It is an art created in the US, and based in the martial culture of the US, using the mechanics and trappings of Japanese arts.
I honestly wouldn't even go that far. An American art influenced (on a technical level) by some Japanese systems... but quite removed from them.
Hmm... you could possibly argue that from the Swedish heritage of Bo's training... but I wouldn't give it that description based on anything Japanese.
I can understand that. But having clarity in definitions can help with discussions, and avoid any number of issues we have when people think they're studying one thing, but are actually doing something else. I'm sure you remember many conversations where people think they're training in something, but have no real experience... and the confusion (and injury) that can occur when such people realise that they aren't doing what they think they are...
This is true. And what I'm aiming for in terms of clarification here. The problem is that, when such lines are considered "fuzzy", we end up with people confused about what exactly they're doing... and passing down the idea that what they're doing is one thing that it's not.
Again, I'd argue that it's far less "fuzzy"... the "fuzziness" comes in when the line is blurred by persons who either don't understand what makes something what it is, whether through lack of knowledge and understanding, or lack of care, or deliberately mislabel what they're doing to their students and audience. That, of course, doesn't change the reality... no matter how many people think something is a Japanese art, or how much a system describes itself as such, if it isn't one, it isn't one. Very binary.
In the late 80's the Grammy's finally introduced a "Hard Rock/Heavy Metal" category for their awards. Bands up for the award included Metallica (the odds-on favourites to win), Anthrax, Bon Jovi... and Jethro Tull. Now, Jethro Tull are best known for their flute-playing lead singer, and the song "Aqualung", and would be best described as a "prog-rock" band... but the Grammy board didn't know how to class them, and there were distorted guitars, so.... Jethro Tull, a decidedly non-Hard Rock or Heavy Metal band won the first Grammy in the category. When Metallica won the following year, after the huge outcry from the metal community to the Grammy's, Lars Ulrich (drummer for Metallica) thanked Jethro Tull for "not putting out an album this year"... it got laughs. Why? Because the the entire audience, including all nominated bands (including Jethro Tull) knew that Tull were not a Hard Rock/Heavy Metal band... no matter what the "industry awards" thought.
Absolutely. It's even harder when trying to synthesise arts from different cultural origins and approaches, especially when attempted in yet another cultural environment.
To be clear, I have no issue whatsoever with Seiei Kan itself... just with the categorisation of it as a "Japanese" art. Of course, I don't think that Ryan had any ill-intention, and was simply putting forth the art as he knows it to be from his instructors... and, for all I know, they may even consider what they do "Japanese", based on the mechanics and terminology... the problem is, those are just the packaging... the real "heart" is something else.
So, what makes something a Japanese art? As mentioned, it firstly has to come from Japan, and ideally still be based there. The senior membership should also be Japanese (there are some exceptions, but it's a good rule to go by), including the leadership. But most importantly, it has to have a Japanese culture to it. But what does that mean? Well, a Japanese art will have a number of intrinsic traits, such as the concept of wabi-sabi, an emphasis on kata-geiko (training through the practice of kata.... for classical arts, especially jujutsu ones, this is not the same as karate-style solo kata, it must be noted), typically there will be a focus on grappling (locks, chokes, pins, throws) over striking or kicking, competitive methods will be relatively rare (Judo is actually one of the great exceptions, for a number of reasons... not saying that classical arts don't have a form of randori, but it's far less of a feature, and almost non-existent in most weaponry systems). Most older arts come from a perspective of combat, with even more modern iterations leaning on such older teachings. But, at the end of the day, the fact that there is a "hip throw", or "osoto gari" doesn't make it Japanese... it just means the words used are... and that it may borrow from some of the technical approaches.
There's a lot more, but it's often hidden within the "feeling" of the arts themselves... it's almost like a famous quote on pornography.... it's not something that's easy to define, but you know it when you see it.
To end, I'm going to put up a couple of videos... some of which are Japanese jujutsu arts, some are Western, and it'll be interesting to see who can tell which is which (not you, Tony, you'll know just by the names, ha!).
On a slightly Japanese point, do you think that as martial artists we could get the general public to start bowing to each other as they do in Japan? Not to such strict etiquette but to replace the handshake and the horrible 'elbow bumps' in these Covid ridden times?
Interesting thread though but watch for the 'dislike' of my post. (no, not by anyone here)
Interesting thread though but watch for the 'dislike' of my post. (no, not by anyone here)
Sounds good. Doesn't seem likely unfortunately.. the only benefit I've found to being comfortable bowing has been in court. I too find the whole 'elbow bump' thing to be awkward and silly. We've waved at each other for centuries, wouldn't that also suffice, if keeping distance is priority?
jobo
Grandmaster
+
how do you know Jethro Tull, are not a hard rock band ?
its not like there is actually definition of what isnt and isnt
I'll start bringing it in here! Get the trend going!
I often prayerfully bow to people who are very near and dear to me though already haha, or someone says something that really hits me deep in the heart.
I don't now about the general public, but I do slight bows all the time, just out of reflex.
A while back, I introduced myself to a patient in the ED, and she bowed. I chuckled, she got embarrassed.
She started to apologize, saying that's how they're expected to greet black belts in her school. I asked a few questions about her art, and told her there was no reason to apologize or be embarrassed, because technically she'd greeted me appropriately.
We have a lot of Gurkhas where I am, serving and ex as well as their families so putting hands together and saying 'namaste' is quite common round here now.
Bowing and curtseying used to be very common across all classes of people in Europe and the UK, I imagine the US too, basically due to diseases and plagues.
I do think a bow is elegant for everyone though
Awesome... I'm a fan
Awesome... I'm a fan
My shift partner was a Gurkha and I've trained TKD with the Gurkha recruits occasionally, just as a guest as I know their instructor.
