Any evident connection between Samurai and 'Samurang'?

Basically: others invented it, they get, improve and bash other people's skulls with it. It's like "screw who created it (if they didn't create it), what matters is that we're BETTER THAN YOU in using it."

They did it with religion (hindu - mikkyo, buddhism -zen, "the more popular version"), philosophy (confucianism/neo-c - bushido), Martial arts (quan fa/shuai jiao - karate - kyokushin), media (cartoons - anime, comics - manga), even tea! They might not be the first ones in all these fields, but they sure became the most prominent in spreading their version. Korea just came too damned late to the MA party. If the koreans where the ones who held the first UFC, they have a hold to something, but no.

 

A) what are you basing your assertion that Japanese arts have improved on Chinese?
B) the Koreans weren't late, the Japanese repressed their martial arts and started teaching their own.

 

Palatability, marketing, structuralized/systematized for mass consumption; need I say more?

The prevalence of black sash (from black belt, which came from judo's dan, which Kano got from Go), the mass availability of the teachings that led to numerous innovators and evolving methods (not just japanese arts but those who derived from it, e.g. BJJ, Kajukenbo,etc.), the predilection of competition, in the sporting venue and in the battlefield.

To limit an art to an inner circle (the japanese are guilty of these too, see koryu) and restrict outside feedback hinders growth. The japanese were the ones who were the most vigorous in promoting MA at the advent of the modern era.

Pre-WWII: judo, aikido, post-WWII: karate, kendo. Would the entire world embrace CMA that early if not for Bruce Lee? The japanese were vigorous promoters, enabling brainstorming and field testing on a large scale.

And? Were the japanese methods so effective that it superceded korean methods? And why the hell are their early poomse taken from shotokan? Aren't their indigenous methods more effective than japanese ones? Don't they have martial traditions hidden as dance?

Was the japanese indoctrination so effective that they abandoned their root arts and now cling to japanese customs such as the samurai? I feel bad for the hwarang.

During the advent of the modern era where MA reared its head on the world stage, korea is late. Why? Getting conquered and not having free remnants that carry on certain traditions diminishes the capability of spreading their own version of MA. They hit a jackpot with TKD's kicks, but that's about it.

National and cultural safety are paramount in viable MA traditions (hell, those things are what MAists of ages past are supposed to protect). Korea failed both, and managed to recover due to outside influence, that's why they were late.

 

Largely kind of true in bonsai as well. No one thinks of Chinese, Vietnamese or Indonesian bonsai, but they all have independent and unique traditions.

 

The only thing we can say for certain is that Britain invented everything.

 

Sorry to wade in on this but I think baby carts talking out of their back side.

If japanese arts are better than the Chinese arts because other arts descended from japanese arts how does that make japanese styles superior.

Chinese art -> japanese art -> modern art = Japanese > Chinese

Seems a seriously flawed argument.

Also has very little to do with Korea, the samurai or this thread In general.

 

It's probably best to view it as adapting for their needs.

So in a specific environment it is better but better can be rather subjective.

 

Why thank you, my digestive system's clear and working, thanks for the check-up.

Where did I say it was superior? Improved, yes; but superior? Superior implies perpetuity; many japanese styles of today suck (and judo is heading that way too.

Marketers? Yes. Testers? Yes. But all-around superiority? No. Just like boxing, wrestling and Muay Thai. Innovation comes from failures in competition, they either improve or altogether change the goal posts (which judo is bent on doing nowadays).

There is a connection. MA authority stems from two sources: lineage provenance (I am older/senior to you) and application record (I am better than you). If haidong gumdo cannot be the best sword art at kicking rear ends, they have to claim antiquity. But resorting to another culture's core devices (aka the samurai) leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

 

I have to say it's one of the most bizarre theories I've heard in a while. It' doesn't really make much sense to be honest. You'd have to define 'better' and unless you start pushing very narrow parameters... the argument isn't going to make any sense at all. Which is in a sense what you're trying to do with the following... so let's take a look:

err... huh? So in this instance you're equating 'more popular' with 'better'. I seriously doubt there is much of a case for Zen buddhism having much traction with these parameters. On numbers alone the Hindu's and the Cha'an Buddhists easily outnumber adherents to Zen Buddhism. If I'm understanding what you're getting at here... your example doesn't really make sense.

Again - If I'm understanding you... you're trying to compare Confucianism and Bushido? While Bushido adhered to the broader spectrum of Confucian ideas that were imported from China it doesn't really follow that Bushido is 'better' than Confucianism. I'm still not seeing the whole 'better' angle working out here.

Again - how are you defining 'better'. This argument when applied to martial arts makes no sense. While I'm a huge fan of the Japanese martial arts... I've seen enough Chinese martial artists to know that it's the person that is the largest indicator of how effective an art can be.

Here it doesn't work either. Why would animae be superior to cartoons. Again they take their original influence from western cartoons to begin with. Trying to draw a 'better' comparison here is foolhardy. The same for comics and manga. They both speak to their audiences in ways that their respective audiences can understand. The narrative structure of stories and story values in fictional narrative predate even Japan as a country and most forms of modern storytelling are still based on the classic story structure. There is no one culture or group of people that have the market cornered on this.

Again... how? This one baffles me completely. Everyone has their own traditions for tea drinking. Trying to call some sort of value judgement is a bit silly. I'd really like to hear how you arrived at that conclusion.

Using tea as an example I'd have to beg to differ. I'd say the Chinese have pretty much cornered tea since day one. I'd also argue that there are more Russians drinking tea historically than there are Japanese drinking tea simply down to the population numbers.

It seems here you've shifted the goal posts so that now the standard for 'best' is 'most prominent in spreading their version'. I'm not convinced even with those standards that the argument holds water.

Insanely myopic. Now the standard has shifted again to the 'We were first' parameter. With the UFC thrown in for variety? I dunno... I'm guessing because it doesn't make a bit of sense.



You have a lot of tangents going on all at once in an effort to hold Japan as some sort of example of 'better'... but it's not very coherent logic you're applying. At the very least... it's not consistent in the which parameter you're trying to measure 'better' by.

 

And no. Just no.

But wait... England does always seem like the Engineering Crescent. Alway some show on the TV that sort of shows England as a nation of tinkerers.... Joe Bloggs working away back out in the garden shed and BAM!!! he comes up with nstant world changing invention. ahhahah... love it.

 

The Value is not "better" but "better than you." That means they will one-up you the best way they can. Doesn't matter if it's in skills or marketing, they'll do their best to gain more influence than you, thus obtaining the lion's share of brainpower and bodies (that helps in innovation and progress).

Well, the philosoraptor got the gist:

 

You're making a case for superiority based on popularity, which is flawed logic. Access is the big factor in popularity and the American occupation of Japan following WW2 is the big factor in the spread of Japanese martial arts. Also when you consider that China was essentially a closed shop for 50 years and martial arts were actively repressed in the middle of that period whereas Japan became a modern cosmopolitan nation, it's understandable.
Japan engineered a program of cultural genocide in Korea with the explicit aim of making Korea Japanese. An entire generation were denied their own culture and their ruling class's children were taken to Japan and educated as Japanese gentlemen. That's why TKD is structured around Shotokan. It has nothing to do with efficacy and everything to do with access.