Why is lineage important?

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I think it is very important in Kenpo, because, if I know who taught you, I can guess the way you are doing something, and take it from there. There are just too many differences, in Kenpos, to not simplify, by asking who sent ya.

With kenpo I understand it completely. There are way too many differences between kempo styles, so the only way to know what one practices is by their line.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I don't think I was clear in what I was asking. I didn't mean why would it matter how far you are from the original source - the logic that more changes may occur the farther away you get is fairly sound. I'm confused as to why who your line follows matters, in a standardized art. For instance, if master A taught masters B and C, and they went on to have their own pupils, but followed master A's curriculum in teaching their pupils, why would it matter if your master learned from B or C?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I don't think I was clear in what I was asking. I didn't mean why would it matter how far you are from the original source - the logic that more changes may occur the farther away you get is fairly sound. I'm confused as to why who your line follows matters, in a standardized art. For instance, if master A taught masters B and C, and they went on to have their own pupils, but followed master A's curriculum in teaching their pupils, why would it matter if your master learned from B or C?

In an ideal world, it would not. But this is not an ideal world.

 

[ballen0351]

I don't think I was clear in what I was asking. I didn't mean why would it matter how far you are from the original source - the logic that more changes may occur the farther away you get is fairly sound. I'm confused as to why who your line follows matters, in a standardized art. For instance, if master A taught masters B and C, and they went on to have their own pupils, but followed master A's curriculum in teaching their pupils, why would it matter if your master learned from B or C?

It would matter how much B or C changed what they were taught. And also since martial arts for most,people are a hobby if you compare it to other hobbies why do some people like 1 sports team and not the other if it's the same sport. I've seen some nasty fights even murders erupt over sports rivalries

 

[Steve]

If you're interested in historical preservation, lineage is important. It's also important if your art lacks any other means of measuring quality.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

since martial arts for most,people are a hobby if you compare it to other hobbies why do some people like 1 sports team and not the other if it's the same sport.

That probably makes more sense then anything I've heard before..never thought of applying the team mentality to MA

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

If you're interested in historical preservation, lineage is important. It's also important if your art lacks any other means of measuring quality.

For preservation, slightly, but most people aren't interested in that. As for quality, having a good lineage (or for that matter claiming one) to me has a much lesser impact than having a good instructor at your school. I'd pick a good instructor from a 'bad' lineage over a bad instructor from a 'good' lineage any day

 

[Steve]

For preservation, slightly, but most people aren't interested in that. As for quality, having a good lineage (or for that matter claiming one) to me has a much lesser impact than having a good instructor at your school. I'd pick a good instructor from a 'bad' lineage over a bad instructor from a 'good' lineage any day

if you have the knowledge and experience to distinguish a good instructor from a bad one, I would agree!

 

[Touch Of Death]

if you have the knowledge and experience to distinguish a good instructor from a bad one, I would agree!

You bring up a strong point. Personality is what brings and keeps students. A lack of skill can easily be covered up by a few good fight stories.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

if you have the knowledge and experience to distinguish a good instructor from a bad one, I would agree!

If you don't have that knowledge, I would guess that you don't know much about lineages either. Although learning lineage is probably the easiest of the two, so maybe not

 

[Steve]

If you don't have that knowledge, I would guess that you don't know much about lineages either. Although learning lineage is probably the easiest of the two, so maybe not

Think brand recognition. someone doesn't know anything about bjj, but when the coach says he's a Royce Gracie black belt, you make presumptions.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Think brand recognition. someone doesn't know anything about bjj, but when the coach says he's a Royce Gracie black belt, you make presumptions.

Okay yeah I can see that. Makes sense for new martial artists then. Still not useful, outside of the team think Ballentine mentioned, for a more experienced one

 

[Steve]

Okay yeah I can see that. Makes sense for new martial artists then. Still not useful, outside of the team think Ballentine mentioned, for a more experienced one

I think that you and Ballentine are talking about affiliation, which is not the same thing as lineage.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

So far a long time I've dealt with the disease that lineage is important in kenpo. I disagree with it, but some people have a huge issue with not being second generation chow/parker/etc. Despite my disagreement, I understood because so many kenpo practitioners took kenpo in separate ways that the head of hour style is practically it's own style by itself.

However, reading on here, I've discovered similar issues in styles where, to me, the lineage shouldn't matter at all. In most non-denominational atyles, regardless of who your lineage follows you'll still be learning a standardized skill set as long as you have the same founser/grandmaster. The only clear exceptions to this that I know of are wing chun and kenpo. Is there any logical reason for why they matter in other styles, or is it more of a pissing contest based on how 'pure' the styles are?

For my part, lineage only matters if I know something about those involved. In other words, if you tell me you trained with Don Angier, that tells me some useful information (assuming it's true). If you tell me you studied with Jeff Smith (a name I just made up), I don't care unless and until I know something specific about Jeff Smith.

I actually struggle with this in a different direction. Nihon Goshin Aikido is unrelated to Ueshiba's Aikido. Both took the name (as far as I can tell) after the Butoku-kai declared Aikido to be a group of arts. Why Ueshiba used just the word Aikido I do not know, but his art is so well known that many consider it deceitful to use that term (again, organized under the Butoku-kai) for an art not descended from his. People take that word to be a declaration of a lineage we have never claimed.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I know of a couple of styles that by the third generation of instructors many basic blocking movements, striking combinations, and forms no longer look like what the originator created. It only took fifty to seventy years for these changes aand all of those practicing the "new" way of doing things claim these are the way it was taught. Strange thing is thhese 3rd generation students never even knew the originator. To those old enough to have know or practiced under the originators mistakes or changes are obvious but new students coming into said organisations take what they are shown as being the way it has always been.

If the above instructor can prove his direct lineage he still has the right to say he is of X or Y,Z line and styyle. If there are big gaps from him to whom he claims to be decended from he should give his system a new name. Yes it is important to be able to verify whom you learned from if claiming to be of a certian system. Without that verifacation anyone can say they are teaching a system.

So if one can verify they are ligit students of "X" system and show their lineage when an "OLD" student sees changes he/she may know when or who changed things and add a little knowledge to new students.

One thought on differences in a style. I've seen two examples of changes from one senior student to the next as they matured in the art. You can see this in Ueshiba's Aikido, as you progress from his earliest black belts (like Shioda) to some that came up after his conversion to Omoto (like Tohei). There is a dramatic difference in the Aikido they learned, and went on to teach.

The second is in my primary art, Nihon Goshin Aikido. Steve Weber (probably the most senior active instructor in the art) described how Richard Bowe (his instructor, the progenitor of the art in the US) taught variations of the forms to different students. This would have been fairly early in Bowe's teaching, so he might have been experimenting, he might have been teaching more appropriate variations by body type, or he might have simply thought the variations were all valid for the form. I don't know, but I do know that those early students took some of those variations and ended up with small, but significant, differences. All those versions are, according to the stories I've heard from multiple instructors, the way Bowe taught them.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I have to apologize. I didn't think I had written that line, but I just scrolled all the way down and spotted that I did include it at the very end. I wrote the essay over a year ago and was just skimming it for a reminder just now.

To be clear, that was mostly intended figuratively. (Except for those arts like Tenshin Shōden Katori Shintō-ryū where divine inspiration is an explicit part of the origin story.) It's not intended to be derisive, just shorthand for the view that present day students can't have an understanding of the art that in any way surpasses that of the founder.

I seem to remember that essay. And I agree with the point you were making with the "divinely inspired" bit. Some (most?) folks in a style don't see the founder/progenitor as a human who did a good job putting together a style. They see them as an unmatched genius who did the unrepeatable in creating a nearly-perfect system. This can happen in as little as two or three generations.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I think that you and Ballentine are talking about affiliation, which is not the same thing as lineage.

First, Ballentine was my phone autocorrect in haha, sorry Ballen!
For the affiliation vs. Lineage, I see this (the team attitude he mentioned) as an issue in both. It definitely happens with affiliation, but it also happens with lineage, probably moreso. If you want proof of that, just scroll through the wing chun forum and see how often people get worked up over someone else's lineage.

 

[ballen0351]

First, Ballentine was my phone autocorrect in haha, sorry Ballen!

Its all good I thought it was funny

 

[Bill Mattocks]

One thought on differences in a style. I've seen two examples of changes from one senior student to the next as they matured in the art. You can see this in Ueshiba's Aikido, as you progress from his earliest black belts (like Shioda) to some that came up after his conversion to Omoto (like Tohei). There is a dramatic difference in the Aikido they learned, and went on to teach.

The second is in my primary art, Nihon Goshin Aikido. Steve Weber (probably the most senior active instructor in the art) described how Richard Bowe (his instructor, the progenitor of the art in the US) taught variations of the forms to different students. This would have been fairly early in Bowe's teaching, so he might have been experimenting, he might have been teaching more appropriate variations by body type, or he might have simply thought the variations were all valid for the form. I don't know, but I do know that those early students took some of those variations and ended up with small, but significant, differences. All those versions are, according to the stories I've heard from multiple instructors, the way Bowe taught them.

This happened in Isshin Ryu as well. Some of Master Shimabuku's direct students stated that he taught vertical fist punches, others were taught the standard Okinawan 'twist' punch. Then later students reported being taught the vertical fist again. Apparently, he did teach the torquing punch for a short period of time, but switched back to his original vertical fist after that. Since many of his students were American Marines who were stationed on Okinawa for a year or so and then rotated back to the US or went on to Vietnam, different students were authentically taught different things at different times. It happens.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

This happened in Isshin Ryu as well. Some of Master Shimabuku's direct students stated that he taught vertical fist punches, others were taught the standard Okinawan 'twist' punch. Then later students reported being taught the vertical fist again. Apparently, he did teach the torquing punch for a short period of time, but switched back to his original vertical fist after that. Since many of his students were American Marines who were stationed on Okinawa for a year or so and then rotated back to the US or went on to Vietnam, different students were authentically taught different things at different times. It happens.

I had forgotten about this - I don't even remember where I heard/read it. I do recall someone who had some Isshin Ryu background (I think) having a problem with our primary strike being the "twist" style. He considered the twist punch a "child's punch". Interestingly, though I'd never seen it taught by any of my instructors, most of the black belts (as I did) eventually seem to graduate to using a vertical fist much of the time.