Bruce didn't make out that his JKD was anything other than it was and to my knowledge he actually studied the arts that he integrated into his system. He didn't just watch a Kali guy doing hubud and decide to stick stick work in there or integrate the concepts into his Chi Sao.
Sure, and they are shown the correct way of doing things by the appropriate person so they don't do it again and get jumped on by someone much harsher. Now a question for you (and other Hoshin peeps): Do you think Mr Glimme is right to deceive Hoshin students by not stating his basic level of practice in 'sword arts' and his non-existant level of practice in 'Musashi's techniques'...? Stating that he 'formulated the techniques' after studying Musashi is a little vague, but more than enough to pull the wool over the eyes of an 'earth belt' who is quick to learn and part with $$$, don't you think...? I always enjoy the Bruce Lee analogy - it doesn't really hold up when you are creating non street-effective fighting styles though.
Which is different to what we've seen hear where the head of the org is actually supporting what Mr Glimme has done.
OK, guys, I've been following this thread, and I have a genuine question (honest!). I am neither part of Hoshin or HNIR, I don't know any of the people involved, and I am not familiar with the styles involved. However, the debate seems to revolve around someone who is using (stole, borrowed, incorporated, or adapted, depending on what side of the debate you take) elements of one style and made it into another that he is teaching. All arguments about the specific current players aside, can you please give your thoughts on what the right way to do this would be? For instance, would you think it ethical if someone studied an art under an accredited teacher for five years, another art for three years, then took what they learned from both and melded it into a new course... ......a) if they did not call it by the old names, styles? ......b) if they advertised it as incorporating techniques from Style A and Style B? ......c) if they used the same forms/kata with other elements or techniques added? Does it depend on how much of the art he is "incorporating" (i.e, 100%, 50%, or less)? Does it depend on how long he studied or how proficient he is in the techniques? The reason why I ask is because this type of thing happens all the time with Korean martial arts (much different MA culture than the Japanese koryu system, so much so that when we discuss it on these boards, it's like we're speaking different languages - check out some of the history of the Mu duk kwan, f'rinstance). So how 'bout it - If I study an art for XX years, then leave or get booted out, what would be an honorable way to continue training/teaching without crossing some ethical line?
"Hi, I'm Ed Glimme, a shodan in Hoshin with some experience in sword arts, and today I am here to promote my new DVD range of kenjutsu techniques taken from a famous school in Japan, the Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu. I have not formally studied the Ryu or its techniques, but have seen them on YouTube and decided to learn the seiho from there. Since then I have got pretty good at 'YouTube-ha Niten Ichi Ryu' so I decided to share my skill via Digital Versatile Disc. All major credit cards accepted."
Trouble is Mr Glimme hasn't studied Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu. By his own admission he got the Kata off the net and he does not have permission to teach those Kata, which are the property of the Ryu and it's Soke. So for example this isn't the case of someone with 5 years experience in say Aikido and 10 in Boxing and another 5 in Judo and gaining teaching levels in those system then taking that experience and developing a new system. It’s not even like he’s read the Gorin no sho and adapted the principles and teachings within to Kata he has developed himself or even to another system that he has substantial experience in. He has read the Gorin no sho watched some video of the kata, that belong to HNIR, and then passed it off as a sword curriculum for Hoshin. End of story. Now we can all dance about listening to people talk about human movement and all that but I bet if someone was selling DVDs of the Hoshin stuff without having any experience in the system nor having permission to do so then there would be an uproar. IMO it seems like he needed a sword system which would get attention and what better way of doing it than passing of the techniques developed by one of Japans most famous swordsmen as part of your own system.
Aye Capt.! (Sorry, bad jokes are a terrible habit!) The way I see it, Mr. Glimme, and by association the entire Hoshin system, is getting slammed so hard because he took a poor copy of someone else's stuff in order to stoke his ego and make money. All of that is in conflict with everything that is taught by the koryu Japanese arts that he stole the kata from. If he was being genuine about wanting to add his own personal sword enterpretation to the Hoshin curriculum, he should have first studied long enough with a qualified instructor to understand the basis of the arts. Then he would have some kind of framework within which to create his own interpretation rather than baldly attempting to take someone else's. It is glaringly obvious from the small bit that I saw that Mr. Glimme has very little understanding of the Japanese sword arts, and so shouldn't be making up his own style much less teaching it to others. However, even if he did, he still would not have gotten more than a quick giggle from anyone if he had made up his own stuff. Plenty of bad home-made sword stuff can be found on YouTube. Instead, what he did was to copy (very poorly) the kata from an existing school, and lie to everyone and say it was his interpretation of Musashi's Gorin No Sho. The only reason for doing this is ego gratification and hopes of making a buck. As if this wasn't bad enough, it seems that the folks in charge of the Hoshin system, instead of being appalled at his actions, have given him their support to go ahead and gratify his ego, and perhaps drop a buck their way. Pretty sad really. Sorry, it makes me start ranting when I think about it! Anyway, back to your original question, perhaps my situation can clarify things. I practice two different sword arts. One, Shin Shin Sekiguchi ryu, is a koryu art. The other, Kobu Shin ryu, is a modern made art, created in 1995 by my instructor Ray Hall. It was based upon his many years of training in several different sword arts. The reasons for its development are rather involved and irrelevant so I won't go into them, but the fact is that it is a modern invented art. My koryu sensei has no problem with me continuing to practice this art. I have used this modern art in a number of battodo Tai Kai (competitions) with no complaints. I am friends with, and have had interesting discussions with, many highly ranked JSA practitioners and no one has had a problem with me and Kobu Shin ryu. The reason is that it has never been touted as anything other than what it is. It isn't a blatant ripoff of any other school, it has never been used strictly as a vehicle to make money, and the underlying principles and practice are sound. If you compare these things with what Mr. Glimme is trying to sell, you can see the obvious differences. Just my thoughts on it.
That's a very nice summation of the situation, I think, Mr. Smith :applause:. The koryu arena is a bit of a minefield when it comes to legitimacy and lineage (just look at the furore that still surrounds the Katori Shinto 'branches') and I think you expressed well just why there has been such a reluctance to let this issue be swept under the carpet. In my opinion that reluctance is justified but I can also see why students of the maligned 'style' feel a degree of chagrine. After all, if you've put in the effort then it must grate to be baldly told, "Nope, that's not legit". Like has been mentioned above tho', if it happened to me and I was the slightest bit interested in learning a koryu sword-art then that would be time to mark it up to experience and move on (or at least find a legitimate school in addition to continuing with the other, non-koryu, practice).
a). Doesn't matter, the kata and the techniques contained therein are still from that koryu. b). Even so, the said party has no formal instruction in style B, (copied from videotape & internet files on his own admission) therefore, the point is moot. c). See above. No and no, it depends if he got permission and blessing from the person who taught him. Since this was lifted from the internet, "There it is!" If you leave and set up your own dojo, people will know. You won't have permission in the first place, most people who trained with you will know, their associates will know that you a) never completed your training and b) that you opened a dojo without prior permission. If you have been given hamon (i.e. booted out), people will know - your licences, titles and grades will without question, be revoked. It doesn't matter how gifted you are or how well you can do the techniques, you're done. Cultural obligations are that you cannot even think about teaching anyone a school that you have been formally expelled from. However, neither of these two situations are of any creedence to the topic regarding Mr. Glimme, since he has never formally studied the school, and therefroe, hasn't been formally expelled. (Mind you if he tried to formally join now, he'd probably be laughed out of the dojo.)
Yup! A case in point is Saruta Mitsuhiro. He was one of Nakamura Taizaburo's senior students, but then (for reasons I don't know) was hamoned from Nakamura ryu. Saruta went on to found his own style, Ryu Sei Ken, which bears no resemblance at all to the Nakamura ryu which he studied for so long.
Yes indeed. Didn't he also study under the headmaster of Shin Shin Sekiguchi-ryu in Gifu as well? I recall hearing this from one of Mr. McLafferty's students a good while back when I was living in Japan.
It's possible. I'm not up much on that point of McClafferty sensei's history. I should see him in March, so I'll try and remember to ask about it.
all this is very interesting and sad in some parts but i have a few things to add to this. there is some controvercy in some parts as to gord hesseis right to lead the hoshin as he only apparently studied hoshin for 4 or 5 years. he was inducted by a bujinkan shihan named kevin millis and gord hessie has just recently passed 5th dan. now here is something of interest. kevin millis taught a kenjutsu seminare in germany for stefan frohlich on, wait for it, niten ryu!!!! i have no agenda here, i am a bujinkan practioner but i thought its was worth telling you guys this. oh and millis was made a shihan in the hoshinroshi ryu jutaijutsu by Glenn Morris.
So what? I used to teach self defence but that doesn't make me Bruce Lee. Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu is a popular ryu that people copy (badly) and make money out of teaching. The important thing is to know who is and who isn't following the founder's teachings. THAT is what makes the difference between people who just play at JSA and those who practice koryu kenjutsu.
Glad someone brought this up since I owe Steve an apology! I was going to ask McClafferty sensei when I saw him, and completely and totally forgot about it! Won't see him again until August's West Coast Tai Kai, but I'll write a note to remember this time! Sorry Steve!
Just popped onto this thread to send it to some HNIR guys I was talking to last week, and I am a bit concerned. MODS, a question if I may? Can you tell me why my post #3 (and a number of others after by various people) now have weblinks to music (which I quite like, actually) and that horrificly bad book by Mr Tanaka? I didn't put them there, but it looks like I am advocating his book - and that ain't on. I never agreed to that and would like them removed please.
I'll take a look, but rather than me reading every post, can you specify which posts are the problem?
