seeing as we're talking about a japanese martial art . . . ;op soke wasn't a term i was overly familiar with, but i was merely paraphrasing the link provided =)
Erm actually no...the background on Soke Blundell talks about training with an old Chinese man (Master Kim) who fled China and settled in Singapore. There's almost no way Master Kim would have referred to his little training area as a dojo. So it seems odd to refer to it as a dojo even though what you are doing is a japanese style. But hey ho.
perhaps Master Kim referred to it as a Kwoon, but as the link is for a jujitsu website it makes sense that they would refer to it as a dojo, at least in my opinion
Actually one of the firsdt things I read on that site I'd take issue with. No idea what a "true martial art" is but "Karate" (if you can generalize in that way) is not a daughter art of Ju Jitsu. At a push Wado is (more a shared parentag really) but not other styles of Karate.
I believe "true martial art" refers to the fact that jujitsu is largely based on a war time art and not a sport art such as TKD. I agree that claiming "mother art" over Karate is wrong, and that perhaps wado is shared between karate and jujitsu.
Thanks for that sir, an excellent read ^_^ (all this reading you are giving me is starting to feel like homework )
I get the computer side of things as homework, I designed the cover for our latest DVD and am currently redesigning my clubs badge as well ;op oh and i've been left in charge of organising our club xmas do as well =p
My preconceptions only came about from my intial treament on this forum when i defended my club. My problem as such is that far too many forget why martial arts exist and seem to put too much emphasis on lineage,fully understanding technique etc but cant make it work in reality. In reality its nice if you can get your feet into the perfect position for that technique or this technique but to me the real skill is being able to adapt for when it doesnt happen.Transitioning into a technique that is more suited at that particular moment/situation or recovering from a mess up is more important. Non dojo opponents resist,move and generally dont make it easy for you to carry out a lot of techniques.Techniques progress and get improved,its not all about doing it the old ways. Its like looking at the history of bikes, sure they may have the same number of wheels but we arent riding around on penny farthings anymore because progress has found far more efficient ways to design a bike.Martial arts are no different and studying a penny farthing or quoting this or that history about it wont make any difference to how you design your bike now.Do you really want you bike with a huge front wheel when gears are available ? First and foremost the martial art should actually work in todays environment as thats why martial arts came about,to actually defend against the attackers of the current time.
Well it probably didn't help that you dropped the good old "keyboard warrior" bomb in your early posts as a response to some questions and critiques. However overall you had a pretty even handed reception in the thread concerning your club. You also made it pretty clear that you had no use for lineage so you came into the discussion and this presumably with a skewed perspective. For some that may well be the case but without training with them you won't know will you? So coming into this type of discussion with that type of point view is a little counter productive as you run the risk of making assumptions about certain members on here simply because they hold a different point of view to you. Hence my comments about being open minded. Understandable but if you'd of experienced the type of training some of us are thinking about then you would realise that it isn't a case of attaining perfect form not in the way you appear to think. Form relates to function in these instances and you make sure you are moving in line with the principles of the school and that it works for you. I'm a completely different build to my teachers, there's little point in me trying to do things exactly as they do just for the sake of looking pretty. Also your argument in that regard doesn't have any bearing as such on what we are discussing. Another thing to keep in mind is that the discussion of late has centred around the usage of anachronistic weaponry, so using it down the pub is not much of a consideration but learning how to use it in line with the combative principles and techniques developed by those who did in fact use such weaponry is a consideration. So how do you do that? Well studying as part of a tradition that has teachings preserved and passed on from those times is a good place to start, so here you might see why lineage is a factor. You are completely missing the point to be honest. Of course functionality is of importance but we aren't discussing self defence training, we're talking about weaponry from another culture and time period and how it relates to the background or pedigree of a style. It's not that having such a lineage is important just because you have it, the importance is due to what that lineage represents. The functional aspects of the school, the knowledge transmitted within it and combative cohesion, for want of a better term, maintained throughout those teachings. If you are training properly then your opponent resists and doesn't make it easy for you, no it's not at the do or die level of something kicking off but hopefully there are enough drills and training methods to enable you to act appropriately. Those old ways are not necessarily about rote techniques, you aren't really learning a set of a,b,c answers in response to x,y,z attacks, it's a lot deeper than that and more comprehensive. Anyway you are missing the point again. With regard to weapons such as the naginata it is about doing it the old ways because they simply are not appropriate today, if you want to know how to use it then you go somewhere that has a connection to those who did actually use it, the guys who made it work outside the Dojo. Again the reason why people get concerned about lineage, how do you know the school you study at is passing on the right skills and knowledge for said weapon? You can hardly take it out down town to play with the rioters. If you don't care about using it correctly then fine go have fun but be safe, after all weapon training is serious and when swinging a three foot razor blade around there are things to consider. As long as someone if fully aware about what they are doing, are enjoying themselves and are training safely you won't get an argument from me. However as soon as people talk about traditional weapons training then it'll raise a few eyebrows if they aren't actually part of such a tradition. So what modern Japanese swordsmanship training is there? By that I mean what is that equivalent of a Hayabusa? Btw the answer isn't Kendo. You see because we are in fact talking about riding those older bikes, not the new ones and not on modern roads or in races. This conversation of late hasn't been about modern weapons has it? It's been about "Katana" and naginata, Bo and Sai etc No in your opinion that is what they should do, those are your goals and ideals. Battlefield archery, horseback archery, spearmanship, swordsmanship aren't exactly relevant to a night out on the town when it kicks off but they are all martial arts and still studied today. So if anyone wishes to train in them then the usefulness of a naginata in a crowded pub isn't really going to be a consideration is it? The teachings and their connections to that weapon actually being used in combat will be though, that again is where lineage comes in. It isn't having a lineage for the sake of having one that is important, it is what that lineage represents by way of knowledge, skill development and functionality. A little like a quality seal. The same can be applied to a system claiming to be traditional Japanese Jujutsu, the lineage simply shows its roots and gives a degree of verifiability that the claims of the system, teachers etc are in fact true. Now you may not care about them lying but for me I want to study under someone who is honest and has some integrity, after all I'm putting my safety in their hands. There are plenty out there who can teach you how to fight, plenty of honest people, so why train with a liar?
Another issue is that no where does it mention "what" exactly "Mr. Kim" taught him. This shouldn't be a mystery and most people would be proud to talk about the specifics of their training. IME the vagueness is a red flag.
If I can make a suggestion, why not do some more research so you can say? On that same note, you may want to start with an internet search on "Professor Robert Clarke and hontai yoshin ryu". Also, there is a UK branch for hontai yoshin ryu that may be a good source too.
did another quick search, and generally a lot of stuff seems quite vague still, lots of it word of mouth stuff. The problem I found is that it seems a lot of people didn't like the way Prof Clarke dealt with the WJJF - He apparently tried to "franchise" it and turn it into a money maker, were only allowed to train in WJJF Gi's, always needed new badges, gradings were very expensive etc. However most people do seem to agree that while his financial morals might be questionable, his skill on the mat was excellent - and I've trained with senseis who have been to his courses etc and have indeed said that his jujitsu was top notch (and very painful lol) So far I've pieced together that Professor Robert Clarke Trained under 'Soke' Blundell and was one of the first 'group' of instructors trained by Blundell. Blundell Created the British Ju Jitsu Association - BJJA, Clarke Created the Worl Juj Jitsu Federation - WJJF Blundell apparently trained in various jujitsu styles but the main one someone said they thought was Juko Ryu, although this is disputed as there was no proof other than tenuous links in Spanish and Czech... Clarke Spent some time training in Japan in Hontai Yoshin Ryu - people dispute how much time - claimed 6 months every year for 20 years. But people mostly bash the aforementioned money aspect of his schools in the posts about this background. Japanese Sensei from Hontai Yoshin Ryu came over for seminars etc in the '80s to train with Clarke. However there was dispute about Clarkes Dan Grades - I gather that because it was his style he was teaching he awarded himself Dan grades and apparently reached his 9th dan at a, relatively, very early age. Also there was dispute about Clarke using the Hontai Yoshin Ryu name, and sometimes signatures, on certificates etc - while they somewhat agreed that the Ryu had a large influence upon the style Clarke taught, it was wrong to call it such. I'm not sure back in the '80s etc how similar the BJJA and WJJF syllabus' were. I am fairly certain that the current BJJA Shodan syllabus is based of Clarkes WJJF Shodan syllabus - or at least they are similar. So in conclusion - I think that potentially the BJJA use a modernized amalgamation of Clarke's and Blundell's Syllabus' - Which definitely have roots in Hontai Yoshin Ryu and possibly in Juko Ryu. While I imagine Koryu schools always teach the "classic syllabus'", the BJJA does occasionally have a look at the syllabus it teaches and makes changes. This was last done by Sensei (Professor) Terry Parker as far as I know.
First, it looks like you have been doing some homework which is good. Depending on the "juko ryu" you are talking about it can get sketchy to say the least. There is the "juko ryu" of Soke Rod Sacharnoski and his juko-kai organization. As you can see there are some issues that have been brought up in the past: http://www.e-budokai.com/jukokai/index.htm This has also been discussed in the past on MartialTalk: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php/32005-Juko-Ryu-Jujitsu To me it appears to be a mix of aikido, karate and judo and again there is nothing wrong with that; however it is not traditional jujutsu. It is also highly unlikely that Soke Blundell learned "juko ryu" or "hontai yoshin ryu" from the "Mr. Kim" in Singapore. As an aside, in relation to "Clarke using the Hontai Yoshin Ryu name" it appears to be more than just a "dispute". Also if Mr. Clarke were truly training for six months every year for 20 years in Japan then there would be a record of him at the Budokwai.
