You aren't really teaching something-ryu.

[Wado Heretic]

I do not adhere to the "pinch of salt to Wado" way of thinking; I consider it a misdirection from the actual truth of the matter. However, that is an experiential conclusion; borne from what I have encountered.

I also would not say I augment one or the other; rather I have carried forward experience I had with Wado-Ryu, such as certain novel solutions or responses to situations, that do not exist in an apparent manner in Shorin-Ryu. It would be better to say my Wado-Ryu experience is a part of the lens through which I explore Shorin-Ryu.

On a literal and apparent level; I still utilise the Gyakunage Kata as a teaching tool. I also continue to practice Kihon Kumite, Idori no Kata, Tantodori no Kata, and Shinken Shirahadori. I find these practices still contribute to my own personal growth.

On a more subtle technical level; the expression and form of Zentai Ryoku, Katamae, Kuzushi, and Tai Sabaki all hold a debt to Wado-Ryu in what I practice and teach. Although; I make a conscious effort to marry them with the expressions found in Shorin-Ryu. It is not a case of picking and choosing on basis of "better", rather finding the common ground, and allowing my students to take the expression where they have to.

I would say about 10-15% of what I do would appear to be Wado-Ryu to the trained eye. However, I admit it would probably look like bad or poor Wado-Ryu; and in truth it somewhat is that.

[Kusotare]

I do not adhere to the "pinch of salt to Wado" way of thinking; I consider it a misdirection from the actual truth of the matter. However, that is an experiential conclusion; borne from what I have encountered.

Interesting, what do you feel is the "actual truth"?

K.

[Wado Heretic]

I cannot speak of Ohtsuka Meijin and his personal expression, which I suspect lent much to his jujutsu background, however, his vehicle for martial education which became Wado-Ryu shares many parallels with Motobu-Ryu, Shito-Ryu, Shindo Jinen-Ryu, and Kobayashi Shorin-Ryu.

Motobu-Ryu specifically contains Atemi-Waza exercises that exist also in Wado-Ryu. Also; an emphasis on protecting the head and the centre line, in the manner Wado-Ryu Kata suggest, is essentially the same advice as Motobu Choki gave.

Wado-Ryu and Shito-Ryu kata share many similarities in the structure, and the manner with which techniques are performed in the kata. The divergence between Shito-Ryu and Wado-Ryu, is much less than say the divergence between Shotokan and Wado-Ryu.

Many of the combative notions of Wado-Ryu also have a counter part in Kobayashi Shorin-Ryu; especially Kyusho-jutsu and “sticking”; which is taking control and maintaining control of the opponent. If one looks at the early works of Funakoshi; we can observe this way of thinking being present in Funakoshi’s practice, and thus we can presume he taught it.

I mention Shindo Jinen-Ryu as Konishi Yasuhiro and Ohtsuka Hironori are both credited with the invention and introduction of Jiyu and Yakusoku kumite into Funakoshi ha karate (I use this phrase to refer to Funakoshi’s pre-war karate, before Shotokan began to take shape.)

Lastly; Wado-Ryu places a significant emphasis on solo Kata, and the solo kata of Wado-Ryu have an Okinawan heritage. The paired kata were also devised as an exploratory body for the solo kata (Although, there does exist the argument that Ohtsuka created many to provide answers he felt were lacking in his exposure to karate. There is also an argument that he developed some as jujutsu answers to karate manoeuvres.)

I will admit, my exposure to Jujutsu is limited to Judo, Brazilian Jujutsu, and courses on Shindo Yoshin-Ryu and Yoshinkan Aikido. On balance; despite similarities in principles, I would argue that Wado-Ryu expresses these principles in a way more similar to Okinawan Karate, than traditional Japanese Bujutsu.

Anyway; I believe Wado-Ryu holds a greater debt to Okinawan Karate in terms of both structure, and fighting concepts, than the pinch of salt phrase acknowledges. In its original context; I believe it was to emphasise that Wado-Ryu was more than the sum of its parts, and that if you try to understand it by any of its individual parts you will have missed the point entirely. However; I have seen it bandied around as a justification for insular thinking, and that is why I do not adhere to it. One is who they associate with, and I would rather not associate with such thinking.

Ultimately; Wado-Ryu is an invention of Ohtsuka Meijin, and incorporates much of his original thinking, innovation, and inventions. A sincere exploration of his art, I believe, requires one to sincerely look at all his influences without discrimination, and to remember what he created was a product of these influences; not a simple continuation of them.

However; I now primarily study Shorin-Ryu and Okinawan Kobujutsu. I am now speaking as an outsider; take my thoughts as you will.

[Kusotare]

Thanks for the reply Wado Heretic.

First, I think it sounds like you take your training and understanding (in terms of pedagogy) very seriously. Many don’t these days.

I'll be honest - I'm not a great lover of the ideal that Wado is “so vast” that in order to study it properly - you shouldn't have time to study anything else! That's just not my bag so I guess I'm a bit of a heretic also

That said, my journey has taken me along a slightly different path (namely Koryu-bujutsu) to perhaps a different conclusion.

Traditional Japanese Jujutsu is a strange kettle of fish and is quite a different animal to the gendai jujutsu that is practiced today.

Forgive me for cutting this short (as I am off out), but Tim Shaw writes about it very well here:

http://www.wadoryu.org.uk/jujutsu.html

I'm sure you have read this before, but as a member of a Koryu, I can confirm that his conclusions are pretty much bang on the money.

K.

[Wado Heretic]

No problem, and in turn, thank you for the link. It seems familiar, but I do not recall it; so useful food for thought.

I suspect the difference is like HEMA, and modern Olympic fencing, wrestling, and boxing. The essence of the older forms, and even the technical elements, have much in common, yet there are subtleties not readily apparent.

[sensei8]

Some very excellent posts by Wado Heretic and Kusotare; chock full of tidbits that should satisfy any MAists palette of MA history and the like. Thanks to both of you!!

[ps1]

Hmm... This is an interesting question. I really agree with Sensei 8 and Kusotare on this.

If we look at something else, say American Football, there are several variations. In the Mid-West, it's not uncommon to see some schools play a variation where each team has only 8 people because the schools are so small. But it's still football.

1 on 1 is still a basketball.

I feel the differences that make it "not Shorin Ryu" need to be more conceptual and application than content.

If we return to my football example, the goal is still go get the ball across the goal line within the confines of the rules set forth. Same for 1on 1 basket ball. It's not until I start using a different ball or changing the scoring methods that the game really starts to change.

My specialty is BJJ. If I start teaching BJJ using Kata and point sparring, it's fair to say it's no longer BJJ. It's something else. But teaching BJJ without a gi on...that's just a no-gi version of BJJ. It's still BJJ. The application and concepts remain largely intact.

Just my 2 cents.

[sensei8]

Hmm... This is an interesting question. I really agree with Sensei 8 and Kusotare on this.

If we look at something else, say American Football, there are several variations. In the Mid-West, it's not uncommon to see some schools play a variation where each team has only 8 people because the schools are so small. But it's still football.

1 on 1 is still a basketball.

I feel the differences that make it "not Shorin Ryu" need to be more conceptual and application than content.

If we return to my football example, the goal is still go get the ball across the goal line within the confines of the rules set forth. Same for 1on 1 basket ball. It's not until I start using a different ball or changing the scoring methods that the game really starts to change.

My specialty is BJJ. If I start teaching BJJ using Kata and point sparring, it's fair to say it's no longer BJJ. It's something else. But teaching BJJ without a gi on...that's just a no-gi version of BJJ. It's still BJJ. The application and concepts remain largely intact.

Just my 2 cents.

Very solid post!!

[devil dog]

You have to remember that the "ryu" systems (along with Shotokan and codified Aikido, Judo, etc) only started to come into being in the early to mid 1900s. Before that every individual instructor simply taught his own blend of Naha-te, Shuri-te and Tomari-te mixed with some Chinese Boxing, Kobudo and anything else they may have picked up. It was expected and accepted for serious karateka to study with multiple instructors and blend together what they consider most effective into their own personal style.

The general public seems to have this notion that the "traditional" martial arts have been exactly the same for hundreds to thousands of years and we're just know changing them in modern times. The truth is the vast majority of styles as we know them today are less than a century old and have never stopped changing. Changing your karate and making it your own IS traditional. People just don't like the idea of change.

Spot on. Those that claim to be true traditionalists that think the arts are unchanging do not know their history. It was quite exceptable to look outside your art to find different teacher to learn techniques and was even encouraged. Name the old school masters besides Nabe Matsumura that only had one teacher.

It was common place to seek out as many teachers as possible to create their version of the art. If it wasn't why aren't all Shuri Te derived systems teaching Matsumura Shorin Ryu or just plain Shuri Te instead of Shotokan, Shito Ryu, Matsubayashi Ryu, Kobayashi Ryu, etc. Its because each of the founders of these arts took what they learned and created their version of the art.

What you are doing is traditional in the most traditional sense of the word. You are incorporating what you have learned into the art for the purpose of benifiting your students with what you have learned.

I will say that he maybe right in one aspect. If you are changing the core and replacing it with what you have learned outside of the art then you would have a hard time calling it Shorin Ryu. You are in a sense creating something new.

And if he thinks Shorin Ryu does not contain grappling tell him to study his kata a little more. They are chock full of throws and submissions.

[Spartacus Maximus]

How a person practises their martial art is determined by experience but also by the level of mastery. Personality also has an important role. Everyone learns by first imitating their teacher. Only after the foundation and basic principles are mastered, a practitioner begins to personalize the system. For karate this usually happens after a decade of practise or between 4 and 6th dan. Teaching is different from practise or application.

To teach a system means that the teacher makes a conscious effort to transmit that system's fundamental principles, basic techniques and exercises exactly as he was taught. If any radical changes are made or parts left out, it can no longer be called the same system.

As long as you teach the core of X-ryu, you are teaching X-ryu.