Sign in to follow this  
Taomeow

And that's why I shun "new and improved interpretations" and "combining practices" and "a creative approach" to any original sources

Recommended Posts

This thread's header made me wonder: What makes an original source original? There is no text, practice, or system that didn't have some kind of predecessor.

 

Many a form of cultivation is called 'traditional'. The implication generally being that this is the real thing, not some modern fad. Something created long, long ago by a legendary master. Something that stood the test of time. Something you can have faith in.

 

But take a closer look and, in all likelihood, you will find that your time honoured traditional system is hardly more than 100 years old. And that even in that period, it has been subject to various alterations and modifications for reasons you may or may not approve of. Every living thing is in a state of flux and change.

 

Yes, there is value in preserving not so much the outer form of things, but their essence. And in restoring the latter when some of it has been lost (as so often is inevitably the case) - going back to the sources. Ideally, the result will be a blend of that old 'original' material with the best which innovative practitioners from later generations have found.

 

Such is the nature of true evolution.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once upon a time, while chatting with a store's cashier, she let me know that she was a black belt in Jiu-jitsu. I asked her about the particular style she was practising and she said to me, "why, it's the original one! The real thing, you know..." She was obviously totally unaware of the fact that - already long before the advent of BJJ and other modern variants - Jiu-jitsu existed in the form of numerous schools spread out all over Japan. It was not uncommon that they were rivals and would jealously guard their secrets from one another.

 

I experienced similar things when I was training Aikido at various schools. I would ask a senior  what style of the art we were actually practising and would consequently earn a blank look. Once a female black belt rushed off to ask the head instructor about it. His reply was "Ueshiba style" - said with an undertone as if he was stating the obvious. Alright. Fair enough. :mellow:

 

In those days, I was practising Aikido at the same time at another dojo in Kyoto simply because the two evenings a week the aforementioned one offered were not enough for me. Its respective head instructors were from the exact same lineage, yet there were some significant technical differences between the two schools. Sometimes I would find one school's version superior over the other and absorb it for my personal practice - ever hoping not to upset the other school's instructor too much by doing so. <_<

 

Now I have experienced the very same phenomenon even in so rigorously defined a style as Shotokan Karate, even though to a lesser degree. And I have  definitely seen it in Yang style Taiji. - All of which left little doubt in my mind that, invariably, a style changes not only over time, but with each instructor.

 

Please bear in mind that I am sharing this as someone who (in my younger days) used to be rather adamant about doing things 'the right way' in martial arts! And I would be quite unhappy if it was hard to ascertain that right way because different instructors (from the same school!) would tell me different things. Sometimes I would enlighten them as to a particular detail not being in keeping with what grandmaster so-and-so shared in his manual (which allegedly were authoritative to us). A rectification that was not always appreciated... :D Due to the dojo's strict hierarchical structure, I sometimes felt compelled to back down, even though I knew I was right. For I was making in-depth studies of the relevant literature, much more so than my instructors...

 

At present, my principal style is Kenpo Karate in the tradition of Grandmaster Ed Parker (who was my principal instructor's direct teacher). Actually, the term 'tradition' sounds a little odd in reference to Ed Parker's Kenpo as the system defines itself as non-traditional. Mr. Parker was continuously developing his system over the 30+ years he was teaching it and was encouraging his students to adapt it to their own needs and preferences - to 'tailor' it as he put it. It is said that his greatest fear was that it would be set in stone and stop evolving when he was gone!

 

Maybe he went through a somewhat similar process like the one I described above. Perhaps at some stage he too was comparing different styles and instructors. And rather than blindly following one or the other, he decided to combine the strenghts of all of them into a new system of his own making...

 

Many (if not all!) arts (long since considered traditional) were the result of just that kind of synthesis. Ed Parker's genius lies in not only admitting this fact in regards to his own system, but to invite further development and evolution. Upon watching one of his senior's (Barbara Hale's) class, he enthusiastically congratulated her: "Excellent! Not one of your students moves the way you do!" :D As a matter of fact, it was his vision that every black belt would be "a style unto themselves."

 

It is said that Bruce Lee was inspired to create his famous Jeet Kune Do (called Kenpo Karate's sister style by some) along similar lines of ongoing exploration due to Mr. Parker's influence (the two martial artists knew each other well).

 

What Mr. Parker's spirit of progression led to is a martial art that the CIA (after an extensive study conducted over a time span of seventeen years) considers to be the most effective of all due to its adaptability and practicality. It has spread all over the US as well as to other parts of the world.

 

Following the guidelines given by its founder, among the numerous individuals teaching it, many have taken it into various directions according to their individual strengths and preferences. I keep watching quite a few of them on Youtube. Sure enough, I don't always like what I see. However, I may choose to integrate anything that fits into my own practice - thanks to this style's open approach. The same holds true even for elements from the other systems that I got involved with to one degree or another during my three decades of studying the martial arts.

 

At some stage, I became concerned about people expecting to learn the original Parker system from me, when in fact what I was teaching deviated from whatever that may be in certain ways. I asked the senior instructors on a Kenpo forum about it and was laconically told not to worry about it. :D That said, at some stage I may indeed want to give my system a  name of its own... Right now, there seems to be no need for that, despite its various features assimilated from Japanese Karate, Aikido, Taiji and other arts.

 

True, the lack of a binding curriculum does not exactly facilitate qualification in Parker style Kenpo. Then again, as I have seen, methods and content of instruction can vary  from one school or instructor to another even in the more traditional arts. So when people ask me what style I recommend to them, I tend to suggest they go and visit the various schools in their vicinity and choose the one they most resonate with. (As an aside, I essentially give them the same advice for finding a doctor, babysitter or whatever.)

 

At the end of the day, it is that personal resonance with a school and teacher and with what they have to offer that should be the criterion for seeking them out for instruction - far above their belonging to a particular tradition or organization. It is likely going to be the one that you can learn from the most, provided who and where you are.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2019 at 8:00 AM, Earl Grey said:

 

I think you’ve just completely ignored all the reasoning that was given as to how simply following a video with correct instructions is not enough for someone to truly grok the material.

 

Anyway, if what you argued truly  were the case, you could learn brain surgery from a YouTube video. It seems like you’re set in your ways, so there’s no point explaining further. Carry on, your video and notes practice is yours and my direct instructions from live teachers is mine, and neither of them affect one another.

 

On 9/7/2019 at 10:38 AM, Zork said:


@MildMouse23 Have you ever executed a recipe?

Why doesn't a cake or even a more complicated recipe turn out the same every time despite following the same steps and instructions?

 

You really have no clue do you?

 

 

"video with correct instructions is not enough for someone to truly grok the material."

 

"You really have no clue do you?"

 

 

This notion that one can't "grok" concepts by watching videos is completely divorced from reality.

 

People can and do get masters degrees, and even PhD.s online. 

 

Not degrees in easy subjects, but advanced mathematics, physics, etc.

 

Most online college classes are asynchronous meaning the lecture is prerecorded video. 

 

The "teacher" only provides a syllabus,  records the lectures, assigns readings, grades papers and assignments, and records test grades.

 

When I was in college I had some absolutely horrible math and chemistry teachers, and went online and watched videos of real teachers give correct instruction and I aced the classes as a result.

 

I also passed my CCNA, and CCNP Security exams which are extremely difficult using only videos, and written lab exercises executed on my home lab. 

 

I learned via youtube how to remove the starter and alternator off my car, I took them to a shop had them rebuilt and put them back on myself using a youtube video. 

 

I changed my brakes myself using a youtube video. 

 

A part in my washing machine failed, and again I used a youtube video to diagnose and replace it. 

 

I am not a mechanic or a appliance repair man. 

 

Being with a teacher is an exchange of information, a video contains that exact same information.

 

Edited by MildMouse23
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Zork said:

100% misleading you mean.

I already told you than unguided zhan zhuang practitioners that practice every day by the methods of Lam Kam Chuen's book have wildly varying results. So no! The argument is wrong. End of story!

 

By the way, conventional strength training also disproves what you are saying. A good coach increases the results manyfold!

 

No, not 100% misleading.

 

100% accurate.

 

I don't consider the practice your reference real or valid, so I see any "varying results" as purely placebo. 

 

Also your strength training argument only applies to keeping people motivated.

 

People with enough motivation and discipline are going to achieve the same result coach or no coach.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

This thread's header made me wonder: What makes an original source original? There is no text, practice, or system that didn't have some kind of predecessor.

 

Many a form of cultivation is called 'traditional'. The implication generally being that this is the real thing, not some modern fad. Something created long, long ago by a legendary master. Something that stood the test of time. Something you can have faith in.

 

But take a closer look and, in all likelihood, you will find that your time honoured traditional system is hardly more than 100 years old. And that even in that period, it has been subject to various alterations and modifications for reasons you may or may not approve of. Every living thing is in a state of flux and change.

 

Yes, there is value in preserving not so much the outer form of things, but their essence. And in restoring the latter when some of it has been lost (as so often is inevitably the case) - going back to the sources. Ideally, the result will be a blend of that old 'original' material with the best which innovative practitioners from later generations have found.

 

Such is the nature of true evolution.

 

I am not concerned with the originality of a practice, I am only concerned with the results it gets. 

 

If a teacher can demonstrate real results in a controlled environment for professionals who are there to rule out fraud, you should probably listen to what he says imho.

 

If he can't you shouldn't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread started with an interesting video and has devolved into a Mo Pai debate.  Chalk one up for sticking with original sources.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

This thread started with an interesting video and has devolved into a Mo Pai debate.  Chalk one up for sticking with original sources.

 

You will notice Luke that I've done my best to ignore such comments, and I have not discussed specific practices in this thread ;)

 

So far you and Steve are the only ones to bring it up.

Edited by MildMouse23
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MildMouse23 said:

 

You will notice Luke that I've done my best to ignore such comments, and I have not discussed specific practices in this thread ;)

 

So far you and Steve are the only ones to bring it up.

 

The absolute certainty in yourself is still annoying though, even when you haven’t spoken to the point of things like learning disabilities or how people wouldn’t learn brain surgery from YouTube, or how you wouldn't be the best judge of learning to sing well, otherwise, people who do karaoke would sound as good as Janis Joplin. My clients who are not visual learners are unable to learn from videos for varying reasons, which is why they pay me to tutor them in various subjects I have authority over. 

 

You also do not speak of misinformation, and people who learn from it while thinking they've learned something correct. You should be familiar with this as one of your friends tells me he has a collection of misinformation that he is cataloguing so he knows how others get confused. 

 

Good to have your contribution here still, albeit you can be somewhat irritating from that smug certainty. 

 

More power to you though for the things you’ve learned for yourself. Enjoy your time here on the forum. 

 

Cheers.

Edited by Earl Grey
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MildMouse23 said:

 

I am not concerned with the originality of a practice, I am only concerned with the results it gets. 

 

If a teacher can demonstrate real results in a controlled environment for professionals who are there to rule out fraud, you should probably listen to what he says imho.

 

If he can't you shouldn't.

 

 

And all that I am interested in is if a practice leads to real results in my own experience.

 

This is the crucial criterion also according to the Buddha and other great masters. Anything else is of no consequence to me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MildMouse23 said:

 

 

"video with correct instructions is not enough for someone to truly grok the material."

 

"You really have no clue do you?"

 

 

This notion that one can't "grok" concepts by watching videos is completely divorced from reality.

 

People can and do get masters degrees, and even PhD.s online. 

 

Not degrees in easy subjects, but advanced mathematics, physics, etc.

 

Most online college classes are asynchronous meaning the lecture is prerecorded  video. 

 

The "teacher" only provides a syllabus,  records the lectures, assigns readings, grades papers and assignments, and records test grades.

 

When I was in college I had some absolutely horrible math and chemistry teachers, and went online and watched videos of real teachers give correct instruction and I aced the classes as a result.

 

I also passed my CCNA, and CCNP Security exams which are extremely difficult using only videos, and written lab exercises executed on my home lab. 

 

I learned via youtube how to remove the starter and alternator off my car, I took them to a shop had them rebuilt and put them back on myself using a youtube video. 

 

I changed my brakes myself using a youtube video. 

 

A part in my washing machine failed, and again I used a youtube video to diagnose and replace it. 

 

I am not a mechanic or a appliance repair man. 

 

Being with a teacher is an exchange of information, a video contains that exact same information.

 

None of these applies to qigong or martial arts.

 

12 hours ago, MildMouse23 said:

 

No, not 100% misleading.

 

100% accurate.

 

I don't consider the practice your reference real or valid, so I see any "varying results" as purely placebo. 

 

Also your strength training argument only applies to keeping people motivated.

 

People with enough motivation and discipline are going to achieve the same result coach or no coach.

You have no clue that is why!

There is a person logging on this forum that has unlocked demonstratable abilities just through Zhan Zhuang from LKC book. Almost everyone else doesn't. All use the same instructions.

 

As i already said you are wrong and you have no proof demonstrating your argument.

Edited by Zork
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Zork said:

None of these applies to qigong or martial arts.

You have no clue that is why!

There is a person logging on this forum that has unlocked demonstratable abilities just through Zhan Zhuang from LKC book. Almost everyone else doesn't. All use the same instructions.

 

Hi Zork,

 

I do have a lot more than a clue.

 

This does apply to our system.

 

Lets see this demonstrable Zan Zhuang ability from the LKC book.

Edited by MildMouse23
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Zork said:

As i already said you are wrong and you have no proof demonstrating your argument.

 

I am absolutely correct, and we do indeed have proof for serious individuals.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MildMouse23 said:

 

Hi Zork,

 

This was for Earl, not for you, please stay out of it.

 

I do have a lot more than a clue.

 

This does apply to our system.

 

Lets see this demonstrable Zan Zhuang ability from the LKC book.

No you have no clue and you will remain so.

You are off topic stay out of the thread. ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

Once upon a time, while chatting with a store's cashier, she let me know that she was a black belt in Jiu-jitsu. I asked her about the particular style she was practising and she said to me, "why, it's the original one! The real thing, you know..." She was obviously totally unaware of the fact that - already long before the advent of BJJ and other modern variants - Jiu-jitsu existed in the form of numerous schools spread out all over Japan. It was not uncommon that they were rivals and would jealously guard their secrets from one another.

 

Like Shotokan was THE original karate  ?    :)

 

Quote

 

I experienced similar things when I was training Aikido at various schools. I would ask a senior  what style of the art we were actually practising and would consequently earn a blank look. Once a female black belt rushed off to ask the head instructor about it. His reply was "Ueshiba style" - said with an undertone as if he was stating the obvious. Alright. Fair enough. :mellow:

 

 You mean Daiyto Ryu   ju jitsu ?  ....    Oh wait , now they have  added an 'aiki '   do  .... I mean   Daiyto do ... no .... ;

 

 

 

Quote

 

In those days, I was practising Aikido at the same time at another dojo in Kyoto simply because the two evenings a week the aforementioned one offered were not enough for me. Its respective head instructors were from the exact same lineage, yet there were some significant technical differences between the two schools. Sometimes I would find one school's version superior over the other and absorb it for my personal practice - ever hoping not to upset the other school's instructor too much by doing so. <_<

 

Now I have experienced the very same phenomenon even in so rigorously defined a style as Shotokan Karate, even though to a lesser degree. And I have  definitely seen it in Yang style Taiji. - All of which left little doubt in my mind that, invariably, a style changes not only over time, but with each instructor.

 

Ahhh , the journey I have been on.  Eventually I found  (as you know )    Matsamura Seito Shorin Ryu  - the Sieto (supposedly) being 'traditional'  .

 

So, why are there so many guys (schools)  that are  bonafide  MSSR that look like they are doing   good ol 'new school ' 'dojo ' / sports karate  ?   ( Thats a question I ask myself , I'm not asking you .

 

And ther weapons demos  :rolleyes: standing there like a dork  or moving like robots while they twirl their weapons and the  rest of their body does nothing or some lame shit . .

 

Why am I doing things that my own MSSR 'instructor'  cant do. Why is his technique so full of holes .

 

For those that dont know what I am talking about  briefly ;

 

Spoiler

Matsamura family tradition stared with 'Bushi' - the personal bodyguard to the last 3 Okinawan kings.  needless to say, he would never have held that position if he wasnt awesome . Also people could challenge him to get his job, he killed  quite a few of them.   Some with a double whip kick to their liver  - a technique that no one seems to know anymore ?  ) It was a deadly fighting art . Eventually the Japs disbanded by the  kings, took over and then finished the Samuari system , by then, the fighting style had passed on down through family descendants  - 3 generations to Hohan Soken . No longer a samurai  family,  he had to make money from working , he went to Argentina and worked as a dry cleaner and a photographer, and taught MSSR a bit )

 

meanwhile in Okinawa 'karate '  (then meaning 'Chinese Hand ' a system combining that and Okinawan  ' wrestling ' , (  nasty stuff ; throat strikes, testicle ripouts and eye ball popping seemed  acceptable - along with the Chinese system of targeting 'weak points' and acupuncture points  ), people that practised these 'arts' wanted to make a living, all sorts of things happened , including a  VERY modified form being adopted as a physical education system for primary school students .  Then WWII decimated the  place . Some taught this    form of 'karate' to US servicemen to get money to feed their destitute families. (Well how much of your secret fighting arts ARE you gonna teach these giys that just invaded . and bombed your land to smithereens and killed most of your family and relatives ?  Then this devolved form got imported to USA and turned into a sport with rules and restrictions  and other stuff .

 

Mr Sokken comes back after this to Okinawa and sees what people are doing ; "Whats that ? "

 

"this is .... karate ! "

" Nooooo .... what the fuck happened "

 

Then he passed it on to his neph Kosei Nishihira  ( who said his knowledge and skill  was 'up to the knee of Mr Soken ' )

 

( all these people can be looked up on Wiki for details and bonafide students and/or see youtube ; '56 Reflections Dillman and Hohan Soken'  )   One of his students was Ted (who was a also a student of  Hohan Soken ) and my instructor was a student of Ted and Mr  Nishihira  )

 

... its some sort of weird devolution.   So although I have not rained with Mr N. ( he died before I got a chance to go to Okinawa)  I have made a point of travelling around and meeting those that did , when I could  (including Ted) and picking their brains and  training with some and  getting and observing  their films of him practising and teaching and putting it all together in a personal attempt to 'get back to the roots'

 

My point is ,  I am changing what is said to be THE tradition.  I am  changing what is being taught , yes, but is this a devolution and the sort of thing  this thread subject is complaining about ?  Or is it the opposite  and am I  re finding the original tradition.

 

And does this happen in other traditions , where people think developments are corruptions of what they think is original or bona fide forms .  (this is a question for everyone , I am just 'bouncing  off' Michaels post here )

 

Eg.  I use some of MR N's 'principles'  and add them to forms where they seem missing . Why stand still and twirl a weapon and stomp through movements , when Mr N taught to move totally different to that .   Why do 'blocks' when Mr Soken insisted " not block ... no blockie "  Why go up and down the hall practising an 'upper block' when there is no such thing ?  Why slide your feet around on the dojo floor Japanese  style when doing kata, when Mr N taught a  snapping stepping up and down and gripping with the toes movement  (  essential for outdoor training, in 'environment ',  where 'real shit' actually happens )  ...  and when he never really ever had a dojo in the first place  ??? )

 

Part of it is our old  friend ' money and income'   < spits on it ! >

 

And  a few of these guys I caught up with dont want to practice any more , or are too old or dont care or whatever ( art of the reason I am on the other side of the country at the moment) .

 

So, as far as the system goes  with BOTH empty hand and weaponry, my instructor tells me that me and him are the only ones left in the country  that do it any more , and when he  stops or dies, I will be the only one left .  Well .... considering that I can easily 'kill' him with a variety of weapons  and techniques he hasnt even thought of yet nor can figure out from the legacy left behind , I guess I am already it .   And no one else is really interested .

 

I think its inevitable ,  folks, its part of  human  nature , there IS no  original traditions , its all crapped out and devolved , they only hope we got is someone 're-inventing ' ... all people and all teachers will also  show their version  as well  eg . Mr N is VERY small and short , Ted is huge   and tall, my instructor is tall and  has so much 'instructor syndrome'  ( such a huge part of this devolution in ALL traditions  - but another story )  embedded into him, its never gonna change

 

Thing is, in MSSR it was never  supposed to be the same for each one , each type was supposed to ADAPT it to themselves .... but they where supposed to adapt from a original tradition a. principles and teaching , not adapt from someone else's adaptation .

 

But why they keep devolving to 'Japanese style sport / dojo karate' is beyond me  (unless it IS purely for the money and to make a profession out of it, as that is where the money is !  And most nowadays  , well here anyway,  have classes full of kids 

 

Eg, some of us went to another club to train with them and their teachers say to me " We are all in it for the same reason ; to   teach and help the kids grow up  into responsible adults ."

 

Me;  " We dont have any kids in our club and I would NEVER teach kids this stuff ! "    ( But I do see what benefit they DO get from a class like they teach .... as I said , it got changed to be able to teach it to primary school kids . )

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

Please bear in mind that I am sharing this as someone who (in my younger days) used to be rather adamant about doing things 'the right way' in martial arts! And I would be quite unhappy if it was hard to ascertain that right way because different instructors (from the same school!) would tell me different things. Sometimes I would enlighten them as to a particular detail not being in keeping with what grandmaster so-and-so shared in his manual (which allegedly were authoritative to us). A rectification that was not always appreciated... :D Due to the dojo's strict hierarchical structure, I sometimes felt compelled to back down, even though I knew I was right. For I was making in-depth studies of the relevant literature, much more so than my instructors...

 

We could write pages about this, and someone has , its brilliant , on aikido forum  about the transmission and emulation of teaching in martial arts by a   well qualified aikido instructor and uni lecturer on Japanese culture . I said this before ; start with  Honne and Tatemae '

 

I tell people how it is ... one day a group of instructors will probably gang up on me and beat me for it  :D 

 

(or a  gang of daobums  :) )

 

 

Quote

 

At present, my principal style is Kenpo Karate in the tradition of Grandmaster Ed Parker (who was my principal instructor's direct teacher). Actually, the term 'tradition' sounds a little odd in reference to Ed Parker's Kenpo as the system defines itself as non-traditional. Mr. Parker was continuously developing his system over the 30+ years he was teaching it and was encouraging his students to adapt it to their own needs and preferences - to 'tailor' it as he put it. It is said that his greatest fear was that it would be set in stone and stop evolving when he was gone!

 

You lucky you found him !

 

 

Quote

 

Maybe he went through a somewhat similar process like the one I described above. Perhaps at some stage he too was comparing different styles and instructors. And rather than blindly following one or the other, he decided to combine the strenghts of all of them into a new system of his own making...

 

yeah that too ... or getting back to some original form , like I am trying to do ?

 

Quote

 

Many (if not all!) arts (long since considered traditional) were the result of just that kind of synthesis.

 

< nods >

 

Quote

 

 

 

 

Ed Parker's genius lies in not only admitting this fact in regards to his own system, but to invite further development and evolution. Upon watching one of his senior's (Barbara Hale's) class, he enthusiastically congratulated her: "Excellent! Not one of your students moves the way you do!" :D As a matter of fact, it was his vision that every black belt would be "a style unto themselves."

 

There is also the politeness  thing ( tatame and honne again ! )  ; One guy I visited that trained with Mr N told me that when he went to see him and train Mr N said 'Show me kata "  he did and my N said very politely  " Yes yes,  very good , Ted 's form is very good . "   He told me;  "  So I said , Mr Nishihira, with all due respect to Ted , I came all the way over here from Australia to learn from YOU . If I want to learn more  from Ted , I just drive up the coast and visit him.   After that he showed me some great stuff ! "

 

I also heard a polite hint ...  " well  SOME of those guys trained with Mr Soken on US bases in Okinawa."   When you put that together with Dilman's quote ( from referenced youtube above ) re Mr Soken " You just bombed everyone !  Aericans  did NOT behave properly in our country and   you still dont , even today ! "  Another hint I picked up ; people that went to learn karate with them, learnt certain things. people that went to learn about their  culture as well,    learnt 'certain other things' .

 

I assume this aspect is similar in China ?

 

 

 

Quote

 

It is said that Bruce Lee was inspired to create his famous Jeet Kune Do (called Kenpo Karate's sister style by some) along similar lines of ongoing exploration due to Mr. Parker's influence (the two martial artists knew each other well).

 

And Bruce was sick and tired of all the controlling and BS and 'instructor syndrome ' as well. 

 

Quote

 

What Mr. Parker's spirit of progression led to is a martial art that the CIA (after an extensive study conducted over a time span of seventeen years) considers to be the most effective of all due to its adaptability and practicality. It has spread all over the US as well as to other parts of the world.

 

Following the guidelines given by its founder, among the numerous individuals teaching it, many have taken it into various directions according to their individual strengths and preferences. I keep watching quite a few of them on Youtube. Sure enough, I don't always like what I see. However, I may choose to integrate anything that fits into my own practice - thanks to this style's open approach. The same holds true even for elements from the other systems that I got involved with to one degree or another during my three decades of studying the martial arts.

 

At some stage, I became concerned about people expecting to learn the original Parker system from me, when in fact what I was teaching deviated from whatever that may be in certain ways. I asked the senior instructors on a Kenpo forum about it and was laconically told not to worry about it. :D That said, at some stage I may indeed want to give my system a  name of its own... Right now, there seems to be no need for that, despite its various features assimilated from Japanese Karate, Aikido, Taiji and other arts.

 

I've done that in aikido as well , especially with taninzudori, which is often  practised in such a stylised BS way .   But still I implemented some of it into shorin ryu, and then some seniors exclaimed  "Thats what Mr N does ! Where did you learn that ! "  Did MR N study aikido ? No, he didnt have to . Did the best aikido instructors study with Mr N ? Nope  ( They know it , they just 'imply that ' or, to put it in another way ; Aikdido has become 'outwardly polite and 'loving'  Ie they dont teach the 'devastating  that used to be in it  '  .. that happened after they lost WWII  :) )

 

One thing I did learn, when watching some medieval battle guys ; 3 on 3 , 2 on one side where down and this one guy held his own pretty good against the other 3 ... for   some time . I had to ask him later, after seeing what he did ; " Have you done some aikido ?"

" Nah ... we all got one head two arms and two legs and joints  that all move the same way , and real principles are universal ." 

;)

 

 

Thanks for the bounce off    Michael   :)

 

 

 

 

 

Spoiler

giphy.gif

 

 Latest traditional school of 'kempo shorin ryu'   .

 

 

Edited by Nungali
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

During conversations about New Age, images arise of Qiu Chuji in the woods, alone; exploring, refining, learning...  then sharing.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this