Shorin Ryuu

How old are you, Gilbert? I was just curious, since you type like a 14-year-old. I don't want to be a big grammar nazi or anything, nor can I force you to type in completely correct sentences all the time (I don't do that either). It just helps your argument when you sound like you have a firm grasp of the language. Note: My apologies to foreigners or people who simply don't waste, I mean spend a lot of time typing like me... Edit: I'm honestly not making fun of you...I just think people might take your posts more seriously if you phrased them more coherently beyond a simple stream-of-consciousness style that makes you come across as someone with very little experience or only a basic understanding of martial arts. You may not be, but that is merely my impression. Of course, one day I hope to be as good as I hope I sound sometimes...

Yes, and Bruce Lee should be everyone's role model...

I like that Ueshiba said it was important to train to teach others. I think that training to teach others is something that is often overlooked. Doug Perry once told me this story. When he first started cleaning house decades ago and winning some of the major tournaments in Okinawa he walked up to his teacher, Nakazato Shuguro (Head of a branch of Kobayashi Shorin Ryu). This was in the "earlier days" of karate's exposure to the world and he was feeling pretty pleased with himself. He fully expected Nakazato to praise him. Instead, Nakazato only said this: "You don't train to fight, you train to teach," and turned away. Doug Perry said that was one of the major turning points in his martial arts experience. Don't take this the wrong way. He definately trains to fight (and can), but he really hammered home to me an important lesson in my mind. As a note, both he and his son Jason have gone over to Okinawa and won competitions (empty hand kata, weapons kata, kumite) on numerous occasions. But the brief time I got to spend with him really let me see the difference between those that trained only to fight and those that trained to teach. As another side note, they don't train solely for competitions, but they are good because they train in good karate, an important distinction that many people miss in my opinion. [/end idolize] But seriously, I do look up to him greatly.

I have a lot less jo training then I do with the bo, so I'll concede to someone with more experience. I will mention though that a lot of Yamani Ryu focuses on a lot of hand position changes (still holding onto the bo of course) and a lot of the strikes can be likened to that of a sword. But in terms of grappling and the like, I think a lot of people downplay the bo's effectiveness (not saying you are, I just mean people in general). So while it is impossible to pretty much hold it at both ends, there is a reason (one of them anyways) that Yamani ryu holds the bo in "thirds" but will change the grip so that on strikes, there is only about a fist length or so sticking out behind your back. But yes, my first post was rather vague, and you are right, there are more differences then speed and distance. I was thinking more principles-wise rather than technique-wise and probably should have said so.

A theory that I've heard is that the jo was used indoors where there was less room and the bo was used outdoors where there was more room. Some jo techniques may be able to be done in a tighter space, but since it isn't exactly a one-handed weapon (maybe it could be, but...) it wouldn't differ as much as say the bo and the tanbo. All the same, the techniques and principles in the whole "bo" family (bo, jo, hanbo, tanbo) are pretty much the same. It's just a matter of slight differences in speed and distance.

Well, if your body reacts badly to soy (I don't know what exactly that entails), then you really don't have a choice. But as far as things that have been taken in by humans for a greater part of history, then soy is up there, along with more natural foods. All this "new" health food stuff isn't new. It's just Eastern and new to Westerners.

Just don't be like Bruce Lee and almost paralyze yourself for life...contrary to what that ridiculous documentary showed, he hurt his back lifting weights rather than getting kicked there. Whatever I may think of him, I have to give him credit for getting over this injury at least.

This just brings back a huge sense of dejavu. Has this been posted before or maybe on another forum? Or maybe it's just me. No offense to in any way, it just really sticks out at me...weird...

un tyme i beet up like three guys at onc. i m kool. wirship mee. But seriously guys...it has been hinted at enough...

Wow. You truly are a master.

Just two things I would like to comment on. I've never fully trained with an aikido school, but I have attended some classes, had some friends that did and am currently taking a classical form of Japanese jujitsu. Take it for what its worth. I believe there is a reason for a lot of the "over telegraphed" attacks that aikido practitioners defend against. Simply put, the beginner in aikido has to first be able to readily identify an attack, but more importantly, he or she has to be able to manipulate the attack's energy. For beginners, it is highly difficult to manipulate anything other than an opponent's attack that is fully committed. Later, as the person becomes more sensitive, these ridiculous attacks become less and less ridiculous and begin (should begin) to model more realistic attacks. Even in karate, some self-defense techniques are first taught in slow motion until the person gets used to it. Since aikido is a soft art, the body has to become very sensitive, and in the beginning, the introduction of opponent's energy has to be more blatant than in a real fight. Even in karate, the soft manipulation of an opponent's energy is something that has to be gained over time and be attuned from experience. You just have to make sure that you don't spend forever in the beginning stage. Everyone bags on the wrist grab or the shoulder grab. I think in their defense, they are more common than most people realize. If you get into any sort of grappling situation, of course you don't start out with someone grabbing your wrist, or your shoulder. But usually in the scuffle, hands switch and transition and you find yourself in a position the same or similar to something you learned about in class (wrist grab). As 47MartialMan intimated, it is the concepts behind them that prove the most useful.

...I hate to see the condition of your peers then.

Hmm...it's probably best of it to think of it in this way. Kenjutsu came first, as it just simply means the study and practice of the combative uses of the sword. A version of kenjutsu is battoujutsu, which specialized in cutting an opponent as the katana is drawn from the saya (sheath). This general style also incorporated fighting from the unsheathed position as well as with the sword still sheathed. In other words, it was like other kenjutsu styles, but put a lot of emphasis on the drawing (others did as well, but this one did even more so, hence the name, which just really meant the art of drawing a sword/blade). Even during the Tokugawa Bakufu (before the Meiji Era), some of the sword systems became more stylized and less practical, although there were many that dedicated much time to the practice of fighting, really for lack of anything better to do. The Tokugawa era was relatively peaceful, extremely much more so in comparison to the times just before it, in its beginning and at its end, so there was less "battlefield" experience. As the Tokugawa era ended, there was a surge of modernization in Japan, as the Meiji Era was ushered in more by the powers of rifles than swords (ironically, this was similar to the Tokugawa Era). In this case, modernization was there to stay and with the ending of the samurai class, which in many places was just a joke of its former martial status anyway, a lot of the old warrior traditions were dying out. Attempting to preserve all of the spirit and some of its techniques and principles, the Dai Nippon Butokukai was formed and helped unite a lot of jujitsu and kenjutsu into judo and kendo forms. As the katana was no longer used in kendo (kendo was being implemented into a lot of school systems and was being even more open to the public), a lot of the techniques were changed. So, where does this answer your original question? Iaido is basically an outgrowth of those kenjutsu schools that were battoujutsu. The name iaido is about as "old" as that of "karate", meaning it is very new. Kendo is more of an outgrowth of styles that did not place as much emphasis on drawing the sword. So, short answer is that kendo and iaido stemmed from kenjutsu.

I think some of the techniques, methods and practices can be the same. Sometimes even the bamboo shinai are used in kumite by iaido practitioners, like those in kendo. However, I think the practice in iaido is always geared towards using a real sword whereas in many dojo (from what I've gathered by talking to kendoists in Japan) they train specifically to use the shinai, although more so on the sport circuit. Even if they do train with the bokken, most usually do not carry it over into the shinken level where they use a real sword. On the other hand, any use of a non-sharp sword (apart from getting around weapons laws in japan) by the iaido practitioner is limited only for either safety or practicality purposes. The techniques they use, whether it is the shinai, bokken, iaito or shinken should all be exactly the same: as if they were using a shinken. As I mentioned before, iaido focuses heavily on the aspect of cutting and using the iaito/shinken. At the higher levels, they progress to live blades and some will train using steel on steel. I think there is some advantage of being able to use some safer variants of a sharp katana. However, just like in overly sport-oriented versions of karate, there is the risk of losing the combative application by shifting the training from the proper use of a training tool (kumite) to excelling at the use of a training tool (focusing mainly on tournaments or matches).

*mArTiAl_GiRl*: I like your avatar...nothing like a mind-bending, reality-warping experience to get your day started...

Um, are people just ignoring my posts?

I will admit that I've only really skimmed a book that a friend had bought because he was mildly curious about it. One thing the book was really big on was the deception (i.e. walk casually up to someone and slice them before they sense any aggression). While I think masked intent is good in a fight, apparently the whole philosophy of capoeira (according to this guy) was big into deception period. Life was just a game, so play it any way you can, including lying, stealing, conning if it gets you ahead. I don't necessarily like its whole overtones in that area. Of course, divorced from this, I think it is interesting at least.

I think Kendo can be taught incorporating some of its kenjutsu origins, but I doubt they could be the same. For one, the emphasis of kenjutsu (using the classical definition of basically what the classical samurai, such as Muromachi era samurai, used to mean combative application of the sword) was to kill the opponent whereas kendo has a lot more philosophical overtones. Yes, I do realize there were many warrior philisophers like Musashi who practiced kenjutsu, but the fact remains that it is very difficult to approximate what they faced with what the kendo practitioner faces. The kendoist faces a different enemy than Okita Souji or Minamoto Yoritomo faced in their lifetimes. I'm not saying you can't become a competent swordsman or swordswoman via kendo, it's just that kendo is much more sport oriented or personal growth oriented in many places as opposed to pure combatives. In this instance iaido (which since it is a term only first used in 1932, maybe its predecessor battojutsu being renamed to just battodo would be more appropriate?) may even be more closer to kenjutsu. Because the emphasis is more upon cutting and using the sword in its original context (even if there is more philosophical overtones), it may be closer to "true" kenjutsu. Just some thoughts.

In all the dojo I have trained in (save one) the teachers were pretty relaxed in terms of humor and all that. If we were doing kata or something, then attention should be paid to what we are doing, but in between things, our teachers would often tell us stories or joke with us if we messed up or something like that. This isn't to say that they did not require discipline when it was needed. On the contrary, sometimes mental and physical discipline was requested rather harshly of us, so to speak, in some of our more grueling sessions. However, I think the more rigid discipline (standing at strict attention) is counter-productive, as martial arts is supposed to be a relaxed activity, not anything tense. The training was conducted as such. It was not uncommon for me to be taken out to dinner by some instructors or just sit and chat with others outside of class just for the company as opposed to strict learning. This is closer to traditional Okinawan training, at any rate, where the teacher would cause the students to sweat it out and then later share dinner. In other words, there is a difference between being tense and being disciplined. There is also a difference between being disciplined and being severe.

Not inflammatory, so here we go... Just thought I'd give some more interesting tidbits on how some styles use/got their names in relation to this discussion. As far as Shaolin do, however, perhaps in this case, they wanted to emphasize both the fact that their teachings stemmed from Shaolin schools of thought and the fact that it was more of a "do" as opposed to "jutsu". Yes, I understand that the name doesn't technically work in Chinese. At the same time, it looks like it is more of a mix between Chinese and Japanese, as the usage of the word do itself is more Japanese than Chinese, I believe (tell me if I am wrong, please). At any rate, the usage of the word Shaolin in martial arts is pretty prevalent. As many people know, the Shorin in any shorin ryu, shorinjiryu, etc. is just the japanization of the word shaolin. Even this is interesting as the characters they used for Shorin can be pronounced differently when using the Japanese readings for them. For example, in Kobayashi Shorin Ryu (correctly written as Kobayashi Shourin Ryuu), they use the same kanji for kobayashi and shorin, they just pronounce it differently. In contrast, Shimabukuro Eizo's Shobayashi Shorin Ryu (correctly written as Shoubayashi Shourin Ryuu) uses the original (Chinese version) characters for Shaolin, in an attempt to differ it from other schools and retain his teacher's emphasis on Shaolin. It doesn't really help that in terms of the romanization, the Ko in kobayashi and the Shou in Kobayashi can both be romanized as shou. Another one is Matsubayashi Shorin Ryu where the character was chosen in honor of Matsumura and Matsumora, two of Nagamine Shoshin's teachers. Oh, and did I mention that Matsubayashi could be pronounced as Shorin? The list goes on and one...there are tons of examples, but here are just a couple.

Really looked at this thread for the first time. I don't know how many of you have read the works of St. Augustine (regardless of whether or not you are Catholic, he was an early church writer and it is a good read, even if just for its political science/philosophy implications). He was (after a rather wild youth) a big early thinker in Christianity and wrote a lot during the time of the fall of the Roman Empire. One of the famous stories about him is that once, a Roman general (a Christian) wrote him that he was concerned about being a Christian and fighting battles and killing others. Augustine's response (and you can see things like this in his City of God, an interesting work on government) was that basically, we live in an imperfect world, the city of man. The soldier should not quit being a soldier. There is evil in this world, and sometimes it is necessary to fight this evil (in this case, fending off barbarians that were threatening to destroy civilization). I don't mean this to become a discussion on Just War Theory (and indeed, that draws a lot from St. Augustine), but I think the parallel between being a Christian in the military and studying martial arts is somewhat useful. St. Augustine's ideal of the "reluctant soldier" and the principle of never fighting unless it is absolutely necessary in many traditional martial arts are very similar and I see no conflict between the two. Please don't attack this on the basis that St. Augustine is not the bible, etc...I have my arguments against sola scriptura, but here is neither the time nor the place...

Yeah. Kyoshi Sean Riley up in Denver really loves those. The speed, power, distance and timing that he applies on those really gained me a new appreciation for yakusoku kumite.

I applaud your enthusiasm for aikido, but... I think you do not understand the similarities between aikido and many other arts. You also assume that any one who does karate (or tae kwon do or boxing) is merely someone who trains for the ring rather than real life. If you honestly believe that aikido is the only art that attempts to control energy in a confrontation, control distance, move in to contact the opponent, and resolve situations peacefully, then I suggest you spend some more time browsing this board.

Depending on how the teacher integrates the teaching, you may or may not want to cross train. As 47MartialMan states, the risk of you getting "confused" is high. Even cross-training within different karate styles can be difficult (which I have done before). I am actually cross training in three different overall styles, karate and jujitsu and iaido. But I do not think I would be able to be doing so unless I had already had a solid foundation in karate. Once you have that foundation, it is easier for you to recognize common and differing principles between the various studies that you are taking and use them to enhance your training. My first instructor's teacher trains his students side-by-side in karate and brazilian jujitsu. He doesn't add the brazilian jujitsu because karate is lacking, he adds it because it sharply emphasizes some things that are not directly stated in karate. He teaches them in a complementary manner, so it helps rather than hinders. Bottom Line: As many people will undoubtedly say, try and get a foundation first, then branch outwards.

Stretch. And stretch. And stretch. It sounds obvious, but most people do not stretch enough AFTER their work out.