true spirit
props boy
to evryone who read my first post, i am not saying you have no right to
say it, just that it doesn't belong being labelled as "martial arts". it
doesn't belong here for that reason. the true martial artist doesn't brag
about which art is better. the true martial artist doesn't talk about how
bad they are or how many trophies they've won. the martial arts are about
war-pure and simple. i've spent eleven years in the various styles of
martial arts, but it wasn't until i let go of my machismo that i learned
it's not about what art is the best, because it's all one art-just
different representations; it's not about who's best, because the winner
and loser are decided not just by the people involved but by the
circumstances around it. it's about mastering yourself.
i am not trying to censor anything, only to say that out of three or four
hundred posts(maybe more) i see bragging and arrogance that doesn't belong
in this group or associated with anyone who considers themselves a true
martial artist. a true martial artist is decided by his actions, not a
belt. behave correctly and with honor and treat this group the same way.
do not clutter it with irrelevant articles about this art is better or
this fighter could beat that fighter. as anyone who has fought for
real-not touneys, not ufc, but real street fighting-will tell you, every
technique has it's place, but you can't alwys kick to the head, you can't
always grapple someone to the ground, you can't always rely on one style
or technique. i have studied various forms and i know i am not a master.
i am an artist and i know i must learn. release yourself from every sense
of competition and learn the true way-peace. martial arts are the arts of
war, and who wants to war?
you've heard what i have to say and i hope evryone stops to listen to
everyone else, instead of readying a counter-point. a man cannot learn if
he talks over the teacher.
props boy
--
Don Langguth, CmpE(why,God,why) I "There are times in life when you
gt2...@prism.gatech.edu I can laugh or you can cry. Me...
Box 332126 Geogia Tech Station I I prefer to laugh."
Atlanta, GA 30332 I
the wharf rat
the wharf rat
In article <57aqm6$g...@catapult.gatech.edu>,
props boy <gt2...@acmey.gatech.edu> wrote:
>martial arts are still and will always be about war.
Judo is a martial art.
Judo has nothing to do with war.
Therefore you're incorrect.
>gt2...@prism.gatech.edu Box 332126 Geogia Tech Station
Must be the A&M of Georgia...
props boy
to the guy who said horseshit-up yours. martial arts are a way of life
which stem from a way of war. martial arts are about methods of death.
granted much of martial arts can be transfered to daily life, and should
be, such as knowing when to keep your mouth shut, but martial arts are
still and will always be about war.
props
try and reply to this !
Judo is a SPORT you dweeb ! Jiu Jitsu is the martial art from which this
SPORTING EVENT !!! is derived. Get a life.
the wharf rat
John C. Leylegian
I heard that it was a floor wax!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| John C. Leylegian |
| Princeton University MAE Combustion and Energy Laboratory |
| j...@Princeton.EDU http://www.princeton.edu/~jcl/ |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
| "I wanna be just like you. I figure all I need is a lobotomy |
| and some tights..." -from "The Breakfast Club" |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Weedhopper
In the year of Our Lord, Mon, 25 Nov 1996 17:29:44 +1100, the Heathen
"try and reply to this !" <n...@one.com.au> wrote:
>Judo is a SPORT you dweeb ! Jiu Jitsu is the martial art from which this
>SPORTING EVENT !!! is derived. Get a life.
Hey wharfie, is he talking to you? I think hes talking to you....
From the Temple of Truth of the One Most Holy:
Me!!! Weedhopper
Back in the good old US of A! Woo Hoo
Props
okay guys, leave the judoka alone. judo is not a martial art;it is a
sport. jujutsu was the art it was taken from by jigaro<sp> kano. jujutsu
was the samurai art of war(one of them, the samurai had lots of ways to
kill you). quickly, what does martial art mean? why it means art of war!
judo has its place, as a sport, but in real life it is not meant fro self
defense, although there are some teachers who treat it that way(usually it
just becomes jujutsu again).
and no more making fun of anybody's style. okay?
Props
--
Don Langguth, CmpE(why,God,why) I "Someday we'll find it, the
gt2...@prism.gatech.edu I Rainbow Connection, the lovers,
Box 332126 Geogia Tech Station I the dreamers, and me."
Atlanta, GA 30332 I -Kermit the Frog
Sean Hartigan
Props (gt2...@acmey.gatech.edu) wrote:
: okay guys, leave the judoka alone. judo is not a martial art;it is a
: sport.
If this is true, why is part of every Judo class dedicated to
practising techniques to keep you from getting maimed or killed
while playing this "sport"?
Anyone who thinks Judo is not a martial art should try this simple
test. Walk up to a Judo instructor and utter these magic words:
"Uchi-mata makikomi. Demonstrate."
Although, I'm not sure which frightens me more -- a good makikomi
or sode-tsurikomi-goshi. I hate it when I get thrown on my head
by both wrists, and can't breakfall.
Yikes, now I'll have nightmares tonight. :)
-- Sean Hartigan
Tim Brown
--
Tim Brown Four legs good,
tim....@cityc.demon.co.uk two legs bad,
City Computing Limited, City House, three legs wobbly.
Sutton Park Road, Sutton, Surrey SM1 2AE (George Orwell, Animal Farm)
Eric Berge
In Article<57fcv2$b...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>, <hart...@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca>
writes:
> Props (gt2...@acmey.gatech.edu) wrote:
> : okay guys, leave the judoka alone. judo is not a martial art;it is a
> : sport.
> Anyone who thinks Judo is not a martial art should try this simple
> test. Walk up to a Judo instructor and utter these magic words:
>
> "Uchi-mata makikomi. Demonstrate."
Actually, if one is to believe Michael Ozanne, this translates from
Judospeak into English as "Humour me".
Eric Berge
edb...@ibm.net
Eric Berge
In Article<57f3ea$3...@catapult.gatech.edu>, <gt2...@acmey.gatech.edu> writes:
> okay guys, leave the judoka alone. judo is not a martial art;it is a
> sport. jujutsu was the art it was taken from by jigaro<sp> kano.
Gosh, you're obviously an expert.
> jujutsu
> was the samurai art of war(one of them, the samurai had lots of ways to
> kill you).
Right. They hardly ever used those pointy sharp thingies they carried
around with them for show - they mostly just wrestled. And civilians
never fought, and nobody who did fight ever needed anything less drastic
than combat to the death.
> quickly, what does martial art mean? why it means art of war!
NO? Alert the media NOW!
> judo has its place, as a sport, but in real life it is not meant fro self
> defense, although there are some teachers who treat it that way(usually it
> just becomes jujutsu again).
That's right - I can just see it now (actually I'm plagiarizing a similar
piece of sarcasm I wrote to the judo-l a while back):
Reuters- Consternation swepped the Judo word today when it was announced
that throwing people forcefully to the ground, strangling them, and
putting them in painful joint locks was declared by authorities to be
no longer considered part of fighting, and therefore no longer of any
use in self-defense. Expressions of sympathy and concern have been
pouring in to judo dojos from spokesmen from wrestling styles all over
the world...
> and no more making fun of anybody's style. okay?
Haven't been around here long, have you?
Eric Berge
edb...@ibm.net
Eric Berge
In Article<329B84...@adam.com.au>, <Jhe...@adam.com.au> writes:
> but as we live ach day to day, we learn how much like watr our own lives
> are .. the strategies one must use to overcome, the peace and harmony
> needed to relax, the exercise to stay fit. life IS war, and martial arts
> ARE life (:
Jeez. Is marijuana legal in Australia?
Eric ("Thinking of emigrating, but they changed the law here in California")
Berge
edb...@ibm.net
Jai Heward
props boy wrote:
>
> to the guy who said horseshit-up yours. martial arts are a way of life
> which stem from a way of war. martial arts are about methods of death.
> granted much of martial arts can be transfered to daily life, and should
> be, such as knowing when to keep your mouth shut, but martial arts are
> still and will always be about war.
but as we live ach day to day, we learn how much like watr our own lives
are .. the strategies one must use to overcome, the peace and harmony
needed to relax, the exercise to stay fit. life IS war, and martial arts
ARE life (:
my 2+1/2 cents (:
> props
> --
Michael F Ozanne
In article <57fcv2$b...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>, Sean Hartigan <hartigan@gp
u2.srv.ualberta.ca> writes
>
>
>Anyone who thinks Judo is not a martial art should try this simple
>test. Walk up to a Judo instructor and utter these magic words:
>
>"Uchi-mata makikomi. Demonstrate."
Are you ready for the lawsuits, some dofus is bound to try this.
>Although, I'm not sure which frightens me more -- a good makikomi
>or sode-tsurikomi-goshi. I hate it when I get thrown on my head
>by both wrists, and can't breakfall.
At least with the Sode-Tsuri you dont get lumps behind the ears and a
nasty taste in your throat. :-)
--
Michael F Ozanne
Sean Hartigan
Michael F Ozanne (moz...@pcsngb.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: >
: >Anyone who thinks Judo is not a martial art should try this simple
: >test. Walk up to a Judo instructor and utter these magic words:
: >
: >"Uchi-mata makikomi. Demonstrate."
:
: Are you ready for the lawsuits, some dofus is bound to try this.
Uh, I meant demonstrate a safe, controlled uchi-mata makikomi
on a trained Judo practitioner while the skeptic watches. Um. Yeah. :)
: At least with the Sode-Tsuri you dont get lumps behind the ears and a
: nasty taste in your throat. :-)
Thank Allah for small blessings, I guess. :)
: --
: Michael F Ozanne
-- Sean Hartigan
Props
Sean Hartigan (hart...@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
: Anyone who thinks Judo is not a martial art should try this simple
: test. Walk up to a Judo instructor and utter these magic words:
: "Uchi-mata makikomi. Demonstrate."
: Although, I'm not sure which frightens me more -- a good makikomi
: or sode-tsurikomi-goshi. I hate it when I get thrown on my head
: by both wrists, and can't breakfall.
: Yikes, now I'll have nightmares tonight. :)
: -- Sean Hartigan
i am not very familiar with judo techniques, but i will tell you that the
technique you mention is much closer to jujutsu than kano ever intended.
kano invented a sport. if your instructor calls it judo, eh, what's in a
name? the simple fact is that judo as it was originally invented is a
sport. anyone who teaches it otherwise is not teaching judo-jujutsu
maybe, maybe another offshoot, but no JUDO. if judo was taught to defend
yourself in the real world, that would make it an art of war. judo is a
sport. if you don't study a sport, then you don't study judo, but you do
study an art of war.
Props
--
Props
Jai Heward (Jhe...@adam.com.au) wrote:
: but as we live ach day to day, we learn how much like watr our own lives
: are .. the strategies one must use to overcome, the peace and harmony
: needed to relax, the exercise to stay fit. life IS war, and martial arts
: ARE life (:
life isn't war. many aspects used in war may be transfered to life, but
that doesn't make them equal. life is life. all war ever made was death.
but part of the martial arts is learning how NOT to war.
"if i make friends of my enemies, have i not elliminated them?"
abraham lincoln
Sean Hartigan
Props (gt2...@acmey.gatech.edu) wrote:
:
: i am not very familiar with judo techniques, but i will tell you that the
: technique you mention is much closer to jujutsu than kano ever intended.
In Kano's own book, there are pictures of punches, kicks, defenses
against knives, guns, sticks, and so on. As I understand it, Kano
conceived of Judo as a martial art for our times -- one that
could be practised safely for physical education and mental
culture, but that was still useful for self-defense.
If you know of a source where Kano said that Judo was purely
a sport, I'm sure the many Judo practitioners on this group
would be interested to see a quotation.
-- Sean Hartigan
Kerman Geoffrey Bryan
On 24 Nov 1996, the wharf rat wrote:
> Date: 24 NOV 1996 10:00:14 -0600
> From: the wharf rat <wr...@jump.net>
> Newgroups: rec.martial-arts
> Subject: Re: true spirit
Nicely put. :) Granted, so of the martial arts were derived from
war arts, i.e jajutsu (combat from a horse mount - not jujutsu) etc., but
the arts around today are not about war: to be about war, you'd need them
to include field tactics, surveillance, espionage, etc. etc.
Methinks Props Boy maybe took Sun Tzu's book, The Art of War, to
mean that all martial arts were about war, as many have said that a
martial artist can learn from the book. Hint: we don't learn how to wage
war, P.B., from reading this book.
GBK
Thomas B Valesky
Kerman Geoffrey Bryan (ker...@server.uwindsor.ca) wrote:
: Nicely put. :) Granted, so of the martial arts were derived from
I thought that was the study of combat with Rastafarians. :-)
--
===========================================================================
Tom Valesky -- tval...@osf1.gmu.edu -- tval...@site.gmu.edu
http://www.site.gmu.edu/~tvalesky -- check out the Java & ActiveX pages
Richard H. Kim
In the year of Our Lord, 27 Nov 1996 17:13:37 GMT, the Heathen
gt2...@acmey.gatech.edu (Props) wrote:
>
>i am not very familiar with judo techniques, but i will tell you that the
>technique you mention is much closer to jujutsu than kano ever intended.
>kano invented a sport. if your instructor calls it judo, eh, what's in a
>name? the simple fact is that judo as it was originally invented is a
>sport. anyone who teaches it otherwise is not teaching judo-jujutsu
>maybe, maybe another offshoot, but no JUDO. if judo was taught to defend
>yourself in the real world, that would make it an art of war. judo is a
>sport. if you don't study a sport, then you don't study judo, but you do
>study an art of war.
>
Let me pre-empt wharfie by saying: Oh, horseshit!
Go do some more research, and then come back to us. Oh incidentally,
I don't care what you do, martial art or martial sport, uchimata
makikomi, side kick, or eye claw, in this funny little thing called
"war", we sit about 250 yards out and shoot you with a funny little
thing called an M-16. Better yet, you call in for arty, or for that
matter, close air support. Sport/ martial art, my ass, unless your
name is Chuin or Remo, ain't nothing stopping that 30mm deplated
uranium slug. Thats "war". Funny how definitions can be thrown in
your face, eh?
From the Temple of Truth of the One Most Holy:
Me!!! Weedhopper
Mine fields are not neutral.
- Murphies Laws of Combat # 17
Desmond Chan
Props (gt2...@acmey.gatech.edu) wrote:
: Sean Hartigan (hart...@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
: : Anyone who thinks Judo is not a martial art should try this simple
: : test. Walk up to a Judo instructor and utter these magic words:
: i am not very familiar with judo techniques, but i will tell you that the
: technique you mention is much closer to jujutsu than kano ever intended.
: kano invented a sport. if your instructor calls it judo, eh, what's in a
: name? the simple fact is that judo as it was originally invented is a
: sport. anyone who teaches it otherwise is not teaching judo-jujutsu
: maybe, maybe another offshoot, but no JUDO.
And if jujutsu people practise jujutsu in a sport fashion, then it's just
another sport that they are doing. What's in a name?
: if judo was taught to defend
: yourself in the real world, that would make it an art of war.
: [snip]
Could you take a look at page 173 to page 203 of "Kodokan Judo", 1986
edition, and tell me what they are showing?
Regards,
D Chan
Don Wagner
In <Pine.SGI.3.91.961127...@server.uwindsor.ca> Kerman
Geoffrey Bryan <ker...@server.uwindsor.ca> writes:
> Nicely put. :) Granted, so of the martial arts were derived from
>war arts, i.e jajutsu (combat from a horse mount - not jujutsu) etc.,
>but the arts around today are not about war: to be about war, you'd
>need them to include field tactics, surveillance, espionage, etc. etc.
I see what you're getting at, but this isn't the last word on "martial
arts" is it? A "martial art" (unarmed) wasn't mean't to be used on
the field of battle. It was primarily a last ditch effort to survive.
The only reason that it was used on any field of battle was due to the
closeness and "personal" nature of running a piece of steel into
someone who was in your face. The possibility of having a fight end up
inside of effective weapon range was increased due to the nature of
close quarter fighting and fouled weapons ("Stupid spear! It _always_
gets stuck in the ribs!";-)).
The martial arts of Japan and China (and I believe Korea too) did
include "war colleges" that trained people in the arts of strategy,
tactics, recon and resource management. As far as I know though, these
arts did not include unarmed training in them. This was something
taught by seperate teachers.
> Methinks Props Boy maybe took Sun Tzu's book, The Art of War, to
>mean that all martial arts were about war, as many have said that a
>martial artist can learn from the book. Hint: we don't learn how to
>wage war, P.B., from reading this book.
>
> GBK
AoW can be used to make winning (at anything) easier though. Apply it
to getting a promotion, playing poker or climbing a mountain...it'll
work. (depending upon how you apply it of course!) ;-)
...so will the writings in "The Prince" (Machiavelli) for that
matter...
later,
--Don--
Karen Nagai
In article <57hss1$1...@catapult.gatech.edu>,
Props <gt2...@acmey.gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>i am not very familiar with judo techniques, but i will tell you that the
>technique you mention is much closer to jujutsu than kano ever intended.
>kano invented a sport. if your instructor calls it judo, eh, what's in a
>name? the simple fact is that judo as it was originally invented is a
>sport. anyone who teaches it otherwise is not teaching judo-jujutsu
>yourself in the real world, that would make it an art of war. judo is a
>sport. if you don't study a sport, then you don't study judo, but you do
>study an art of war.
>
aspect of judo we're required to study beyond competition.
It includes self defense and is actually titled self defense.
It includes bit of weaponry and striking, in addition to
the grappling and throwing curriculum.
Karen "This is my tanto, this is my bokken"
Richard H. Kim
In the year of Our Lord, 29 Nov 1996 01:19:09 GMT, the Heathen
nag...@u.washington.edu (Karen Nagai) wrote:
>>
> I think your information is incomplete. There's another
> aspect of judo we're required to study beyond competition.
> It includes self defense and is actually titled self defense.
> It includes bit of weaponry and striking, in addition to
> the grappling and throwing curriculum.
>
> Karen "This is my tanto, this is my bokken"
>
"This is for fighting, this is for fun..."
-FMJ
Bonedaddy
On Wed, 27 Nov 1996, Kerman Geoffrey Bryan wrote:
> On 24 Nov 1996, the wharf rat wrote:
>
> > In article <577qhm$e...@catapult.gatech.edu>,
> > props boy <gt2...@acmex.gatech.edu> wrote:
> > >the martial arts are about war-pure and simple.
> >
> > Oh, horseshit.
> >
> Nicely put. :) Granted, so of the martial arts were derived from
> war arts, i.e jajutsu (combat from a horse mount - not jujutsu) etc., but
> the arts around today are not about war: to be about war, you'd need them
> to include field tactics, surveillance, espionage, etc. etc.
Methinks "oh horshit" seems to be an unimaginative phrase used by this
"gentleman" pretty often. Geoff, you are correct that we don't learn
about espionage, etc., but the Martial arts *are* about fighting...hence
the term "Martial". From my understanding, Sun Tsu didn't write his
book to teach how to wage a war, but as a means of explaining the finer
points...the"art"...of war. I don't know
if any of this has already been stated 'cause I came late to this thread.
Bonedaddy | Man
Anthropology/ Jiu-Jitsu | is but a
| Worm!
Aren't you glad I didn't call myself PoppaBone?
Vandit Kalia
While completely naked, Karen Nagai (nag...@u.washington.edu) mimed:
: I think your information is incomplete. There's another
: aspect of judo we're required to study beyond competition.
: It includes self defense and is actually titled self defense.
: It includes bit of weaponry and striking, in addition to
: the grappling and throwing curriculum.
Methinks you are a lucky to find yourself a judo school like that - I
took up judo again recently after moving to DC, and it has been a fairly
disappointing experience. Partly it is other things, like the high
student-instructor ratio - but partly, it is b/c that we dont do ANYTHING
that is not allowed in tournaments. I did a wrist-throw (very carefully, so
as not to cause any injury) against a black belt in randori and got a warning
for using an illegal technique. I used an ankle lock and got another
warning. At that point, I just stopped doing anything and let them pin me
and toss me. One time we DID do self-defense, it was laughable.
I dont mean to knock judo - i used to train in a police dojo when i was a
kid, and i saw the way they taught judo there and it was VERY different.
This is the same situation as karate - my primary system is Okinawan
karate and if I find a good school teaching karate, I'd join it in a blink.
But most karate schools i've seen are jokes - they teach a lot of things,
karate it aint.
Judo and karate - great.
Judo and karate as being taught in most places today - terrible.
Vandit
--
========================================================================
Vandit Kalia, now webbed at http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~vkalia/home.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"With the first link, a chain is forged. The first speech censured, the
first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all
irrevocably"
Karen Nagai
In article <57of2n$r...@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Vandit Kalia <vka...@blue.seas.upenn.edu> wrote:
>
>Methinks you are a lucky to find yourself a judo school like that - I
>took up judo again recently after moving to DC, and it has been a fairly
>disappointing experience. Partly it is other things, like the high
>student-instructor ratio - but partly, it is b/c that we dont do ANYTHING
>that is not allowed in tournaments. I did a wrist-throw (very carefully, so
>as not to cause any injury) against a black belt in randori and got a warning
>for using an illegal technique. I used an ankle lock and got another
>warning. At that point, I just stopped doing anything and let them pin me
>and toss me. One time we DID do self-defense, it was laughable.
>
Kodokan who had followed a more traditional curriculum.
They learned and taught lots of self defense. It was
clear that judo was more than competition. Unfortunately
not everyone has the same opportunities. Lots of the
really interesting stuff doesn't come until yudansha
level if it's taught at all.
>I dont mean to knock judo - i used to train in a police dojo when i was a
>kid, and i saw the way they taught judo there and it was VERY different.
>This is the same situation as karate - my primary system is Okinawan
>karate and if I find a good school teaching karate, I'd join it in a blink.
>But most karate schools i've seen are jokes - they teach a lot of things,
>karate it aint.
>
>Judo and karate - great.
>Judo and karate as being taught in most places today - terrible.
>
Competition judo is okay. The elements of 'fighting spirit'
and exploiting opportunites are important. It's just that
Jigoro Kano created a larger system than people realize.
karen
Props
okay, i've been away fro thanksgiving and i had many admirers post on judo
and the definition of "martial arts". "martial arts" are arts of war.
look at the name guys. it's not just about this technique or that
technique, it's about principles that can be applied to war or to other
facets of life. i have read art of war(it's been a while though) and
that is about war. war is confict, not just unarmed, but armed. you can
apply the martial arts to a pistol or sword because the martial arts are
not just techniques, they're the principles behind them. martial art
means war and was intended for such. too often they have become watered
down to sports or near sports(this is often the argument with tkd; i am
not insulting tkd, just stating that that is why everyone keeps insulting
it).
as far as judo, my experience with that is limited, but everything i have
learned(not technique, but principle) leads me to the conclusion that it
was meant more for sport wrestling. can you fight with wrestling, yes,
but that doesn't make collegiate wrestling a martial art. a martial art
is more than just a set of techniques, it's the principles people use to
win in battle. if i am wrong, hey, i'm human. show me that i'm wrong and
i'll agree with you, but some asswipes clutter up space here with stupid
comments like "you're wrong" and don't bother explaining it. some dolt
mailed me to say that i didn't know what i was talking about, but offered
no explaination of how i was wrong.
now, to the guy who said that i was wrong about the samurai and jujutsu,
listen, jujutsu teaches weaponry. and jujutsu isn't just wrestling, it
involves a slew of painful strikes. the samurai used jujutsu as well as
other jutsu, nothing says you have to limit yourself to one style.
look guys, what i'm trying to say is that a martial art is an art because
it teaches more than just this punch or that kick-it teaches discipline,
control, humility(hint, hint, all you flamers), and moreover it teaches
the principles behind an art. can i do some of the flying kicks other
people can? no, but i understand the principles of fighting well enough
that i don't need to. i don't think judo is a martial art because the
principles one uses in war aren't there. my experience with it has been a
very advanced form of wrestling. if i'm wrong, hey, prove it to me and
i'll admit it. as for kano's books, i'll go look over them. thanks for
the advice.
p.s.no more flaming, no more insulting other people's style(offer
criticism, not blatant insults), no more behavior that doesn't belong in
the martial arts
Props(formerly props boy)
--
Don Langguth, CmpE(why,God,why) I "They say love can heal the broken.
gt2...@prism.gatech.edu I They say hope can make you see.
Box 332126 Geogia Tech Station I They say faith can find a savior,
Atlanta, GA 30332 I if you would follow and believe."
I -Jars of Clay, "Like a Child"
Richard H. Kim
In the Year of Our Lord 2 Dec 1996 01:59:37 GMT, the Heathen "Steven Brownlee"
<s...@telerama.lm.com> wrote:
>Also remember that martial arts is an English interpretation. It is my
>understanding that Moo Doe is how it is referred to in China. Of course,
>this could be wrong, I've never been to China or spoken to a Chinese
>master.
>
>Moo Doe's translation is NOT martial arts. I've been taught that it means
>developing a harmony between a balanced mind and a strong body through
>practice. It really has nothing to do with war.
>
Negative. Moo Do is analagous to the Japanese 'Budo'. Same set of Chinese
character. Anyhow, in Korean, its the generic use term for 'martial arts'. The
'mu' means related to things martial and 'do' means 'path' or 'way'. There is
no Chinese character pronounced 'moo' in Korean that could be anything near
'harmonious' or 'balanced mind'.
If at first you don't succeed, call for artillery,
If that doesn't work, call in an air strike.
Murphy's Laws of Combat #21a,b
Weedhopper
Steven Brownlee
Karen Nagai
In article <57sgca$b...@catapult.gatech.edu>,
Props <gt2...@acmey.gatech.edu> wrote:
<snip>
>
>look guys, what i'm trying to say is that a martial art is an art because
>it teaches more than just this punch or that kick-it teaches discipline,
>control, humility(hint, hint, all you flamers), and moreover it teaches
>the principles behind an art.
Two principles of judo: mutual welfare and benefit;
maximum efficiency, minimum effort (although I prefer
max effect for minimal expenditure).
can i do some of the flying kicks other
>people can? no, but i understand the principles of fighting well enough
>that i don't need to. i don't think judo is a martial art because the
>principles one uses in war aren't there. my experience with it has been a
>very advanced form of wrestling. if i'm wrong, hey, prove it to me and
>i'll admit it. as for kano's books, i'll go look over them. thanks for
>the advice.
Oh, boy, don't get the wrestlers mad. You willingly admit that
your experience is limited---you may find Kodokan Judo very
interesting. Jigoro Kano studied with many jujutsu masters
of various schools. He incorporated many different systems
in judo. The forms (kata) he designed, give us a glimpse of
the different ryu.
The really sad part is that many judoists would say that
you're right because they haven't seen or studied all aspects
of Kodokan Judo. What more could we expect of you?
karen
Brian Ritchie
I am into Kickboxing and submission wrestling. I don't claim to be
involved in Martial arts. I don't speak for everybody that is into the
same thing as I am. I am in this group because, well # 1 is that there is
NO sports martial art group (HINT HINT), and # 2 is that these sports are
based on Martial arts. I'd be more than happy to discuss martial-art-based
sports with people that are interested and avoid people that post "Get this
PPV No Holds Barred shit out of this group".
I have no problem with that except that there is no place to go. This is
it so PPV and NHB is going to be discussed here along with all of the other
Martial-Arts-related sports.
As far as application goes. I don't think that the War aspect of any
martial art has been taught since the wars that started them 1000's of
years ago. They are all watered down. I feel lucky that I am into the
sport-related watered down version rather than something that is not very
athletic. That's just me.
No one can justly say that the sport aspect of martial arts has NO
application to War. Hell, Boys scouts has some application to war. I
rather know a martial-arts based sport than none at all. It really depends
on what you get out of what you practice. It is up to the practitioner to
decide how to apply it. I prefer to see it applied in a ring, with pads
and rules and judges. I feel that is the closest I'm going to get to war.
That's the closest that I WANT to get to war.
In war, I would think that your primary goal is to kill, injure, or at
least hinder people.
To say that Judo, Kickboxing and Wrestling isn't capable for use in war is
like saying that you can't kill, injure, or hurt people with techniques
used in these styles. Therefore, I think they are useful in war.
If you're talking about strategy in war, I don't think that ANY martial art
teaches that. If there is one, tell me about it. I have not heard of it.
B.R.
> not just techniques, they're the principles behind them. martial art
> means war and was intended for such. too often they have become watered
> down to sports or near sports
>
> look guys, what i'm trying to say is that a martial art is an art because
> it teaches more than just this punch or that kick-it teaches discipline,
> control, humility(hint, hint, all you flamers), and moreover it teaches
> the principles behind an art. can i do some of the flying kicks other
> people can? no, but i understand the principles of fighting well enough
> that i don't need to. i don't think judo is a martial art because the
> principles one uses in war aren't there. my experience with it has been
a
> very advanced form of wrestling. if i'm wrong, hey, prove it to me and
> i'll admit it. as for kano's books, i'll go look over them. thanks for
> the advice.
>
> Props(formerly props boy)
> --
>
Props
Karen Nagai (nag...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: Two principles of judo: mutual welfare and benefit;
: maximum efficiency, minimum effort (although I prefer
: max effect for minimal expenditure).
wrestling uses principles like these, as do kickboxing and american
boxing.
: Oh, boy, don't get the wrestlers mad. You willingly admit that
: your experience is limited---you may find Kodokan Judo very
: interesting. Jigoro Kano studied with many jujutsu masters
: of various schools. He incorporated many different systems
: in judo. The forms (kata) he designed, give us a glimpse of
: the different ryu.
i know judo came from jujutsu, i use jujutsu(not recognizable as such, but
it's there). i never "took" judo-i have many friends in the martial arts
and we have trained together by teaching one another our various methods.
don't take this as punks who "took" a few martial art classes and thought
they were cool-we have all studied for years. the judo i was taught was
derived from jujutsu but lacked the striking and some of the basic
principles(both martial and philosophical). granted this could have been
the particular instructor my friend had and then he passed it on to me,
but i have not seen(i.e. beyond anyone saying different) that judo was a
martial art in the sense that i describe them.
this thread all started because i felt many were missing the real meaning
of martial arts-i think we should get back to that. what do you think the
definition of a martial art is?
Props
--
Don Langguth, CmpE(why,God,why) I "They say love can heal the broken.
gt2...@prism.gatech.edu I They say hope can make you see.
Box 332126 Geogia Tech Station I They say faith can find a savior,
Atlanta, GA 30332 I if you would follow and believe."
I -Jars of Clay, "Like A Child"
Chris McCulloch
Actually...the Bujinkan does make quite a bit of study in the area of
Stealth, Espionage, Impersonation, et...
Kerman Geoffrey Bryan wrote:
>
> On 24 Nov 1996, the wharf rat wrote:
>
> > Date: 24 NOV 1996 10:00:14 -0600
> > From: the wharf rat <wr...@jump.net>
> > Newgroups: rec.martial-arts
> > Subject: Re: true spirit
> >
> > In article <577qhm$e...@catapult.gatech.edu>,
> > props boy <gt2...@acmex.gatech.edu> wrote:
> > >the martial arts are about war-pure and simple.
> >
> > Oh, horseshit.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Nicely put. :) Granted, so of the martial arts were derived from
> war arts, i.e jajutsu (combat from a horse mount - not jujutsu) etc., but
> the arts around today are not about war: to be about war, you'd need them
> to include field tactics, surveillance, espionage, etc. etc.
>
the wharf rat
In article <57vish$r...@catapult.gatech.edu>,
Props <gt2...@acmey.gatech.edu> wrote:
>Karen Nagai (nag...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
>wrestling uses principles like these, as do kickboxing and american
>boxing.
Please illustrate boxing's use of the principle of
mutual benefit and welfare.
Michael Peter
How about: "I beat you up in the ring so you don't
get killed on the street"; Gradual toughening of
the body; An atmosphere that promotes strenuous
training. Since training (outside of competition)
is most cases a mutual benefit and welfare kinda
thing (unless you've got a long line of expendable
training partners). All the boxers I know are a
tight-knit group.
Mike "big puffy mitts are fun"
A-EWTO
Brad Webb
In article <581pq1$a...@serv1.jump.net>, wr...@jump.net (the wharf rat) writes:
|> In article <57vish$r...@catapult.gatech.edu>,
|> Props <gt2...@acmey.gatech.edu> wrote:
|> >Karen Nagai (nag...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
|> >wrestling uses principles like these, as do kickboxing and american
|> >boxing.
|>
|> Please illustrate boxing's use of the principle of
|> mutual benefit and welfare.
|>
Score one for wharfie.
Brad.
--
Brad Webb, HEY NEW EMAIL ADDRESS -->> bwe...@airmail.net
or reply to:erw...@rwasic33.aud.alcatel.com (wrchh187 bounces)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan Shotokan Karate, Dallas,TX. Nortel, Inc. (214)684-1737
(214) 231-4922 Me represent NT? I think not.
Seek perfection of character. Don't make them laugh so hard.
Props
Brian Ritchie (po...@ntr.net) wrote:
: I am into Kickboxing and submission wrestling. I don't claim to be
: B.R.
: >
i think you need to reread my post. martial arts are about war, but war
is not about killing, it's about doing what you have to to survive. that
is still taught. there are times when a person is faced with killing his
attacker or being killed himself, but often war employs much less lethal
outcomes. part of war is knowing when not to war-i.e run like hell jutsu.
i have run, and i've stood and fought. they are all aspects of war.
"the greatest warrior is one who wins without fighting"
as for sport newsgroups, sorry, but i still don't want it here. with all
the popularity kickboxing and ppv fights(i would never call them no holds
barred), there are people out there to make your own newsgroups. you
said it yourself-they're not martial arts.
Props
the wharf rat (wr...@jump.net) wrote:
: In article <57vish$r...@catapult.gatech.edu>,
: Props <gt2...@acmey.gatech.edu> wrote:
: >Karen Nagai (nag...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: >wrestling uses principles like these, as do kickboxing and american
: >boxing.
: Please illustrate boxing's use of the principle of
: mutual benefit and welfare.
define them. personally, i think mutual benefit and welfare is i will
only do as much damage as necessary. i survive, you do if you give in.
that's mutual. sport boxing is mostly about money, olympic boxing is
usually about medals or "proving one's manhood", while street boxing
(boxing with life applications) is about surviving. btw, you can have a
mix of the three.
Desmond Chan
Props (gt2...@acmey.gatech.edu) wrote:
: [snip] i never "took" judo-i have many friends in the martial arts
: and we have trained together by teaching one another our various methods.
: don't take this as punks who "took" a few martial art classes and thought
: the judo i was taught was
: derived from jujutsu but lacked the striking and some of the basic
: principles(both martial and philosophical).
What principles you are talking about?
Regards,
D Chan
Desmond Chan
Props (gt2...@acmey.gatech.edu) wrote:
: okay, i've been away fro thanksgiving and i had many admirers post on judo
: and the definition of "martial arts". "martial arts" are arts of war.
From Carl Von Clausewitz's "On War", Chapter One:
"War is nothing but a duel on a larger scale. Countless duels
go to make up war, but a picture of it as a whole can be formed
by imagining a pair of wrestlers. Each tries through physical
force to compel the other to do his will; his immediate am is
to throw his opponent in order to make him incapable of further
resistance.
War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will."
: look at the name guys. it's not just about this technique or that
: technique, it's about principles that can be applied to war or to other
: facets of life.
Mind elaborating on those principles?
: i have read art of war(it's been a while though)
Which one?
: and
: that is about war. war is confict, not just unarmed, but armed.
So is boxing, wrestling, Judo, Muai Thai, UFC. They are unarmed conflict.
And your understanding of the definition of war is...?
: you can
: apply the martial arts to a pistol or sword because the martial arts are
: not just techniques, they're the principles behind them. martial art
: means war and was intended for such.
: too often they have become watered
: down to sports or near sports(this is often the argument with tkd; i am
: not insulting tkd, just stating that that is why everyone keeps insulting
: it).
: as far as judo, my experience with that is limited, but everything i have
: learned(not technique, but principle) leads me to the conclusion that it
: was meant more for sport wrestling. can you fight with wrestling, yes,
: but that doesn't make collegiate wrestling a martial art. a martial art
: is more than just a set of techniques, it's the principles people use to
: win in battle.
Could you show us why all the "sports" you said above do not fit the idea
proposed by Carl Von Clausewitz?
: look guys, what i'm trying to say is that a martial art is an art because
: it teaches more than just this punch or that kick-it teaches discipline,
: control, humility
: {snip]
Discipline, control, and humility certainly appear in Judo.
Regards,
D Chan
the wharf rat
In article <585klj$2...@catapult.gatech.edu>,
I'd think that before you say things like "Those principles
are used in other arts" you might at least have an idea what the
principles in question are defined as.
>personally, i think mutual benefit and welfare is i will
>only do as much damage as necessary.
That's not what we mean when we speak of Jita-kyoei.
Michael Peter
the wharf rat wrote:
[snip]
>
> >personally, i think mutual benefit and welfare is i will
> >only do as much damage as necessary.
>
> That's not what we mean when we speak of Jita-kyoei.
Watch what you say, wharfie. The language police
are out to eradicate all traces of diversity on the
group, starting with the Japanese terminology of Judo.
"Speak Englush?"
"WHUT?"
"Ah say-ed, speak Englush?
Cain't ya hear, ya idjit?"
Mike
A-EWTO
Johnnemann
Yeah!!! I agree 100%. martial artists *should* (key word) be more
mature than to argue over which art is better, who could kick who's
butt, and so on...
Soo Bahk!!!
props boy wrote:
>
> to evryone who read my first post, i am not saying you have no right to
> say it, just that it doesn't belong being labelled as "martial arts". it
> doesn't belong here for that reason. the true martial artist doesn't brag
> about which art is better. the true martial artist doesn't talk about how
> bad they are or how many trophies they've won. the martial arts are about
> war-pure and simple. i've spent eleven years in the various styles of
> martial arts, but it wasn't until i let go of my machismo that i learned
> it's not about what art is the best, because it's all one art-just
> different representations; it's not about who's best, because the winner
> and loser are decided not just by the people involved but by the
> circumstances around it. it's about mastering yourself.
> i am not trying to censor anything, only to say that out of three or four
> hundred posts(maybe more) i see bragging and arrogance that doesn't belong
> in this group or associated with anyone who considers themselves a true
> martial artist. a true martial artist is decided by his actions, not a
> belt. behave correctly and with honor and treat this group the same way.
> do not clutter it with irrelevant articles about this art is better or
> this fighter could beat that fighter. as anyone who has fought for
> real-not touneys, not ufc, but real street fighting-will tell you, every
> technique has it's place, but you can't alwys kick to the head, you can't
> always grapple someone to the ground, you can't always rely on one style
> or technique. i have studied various forms and i know i am not a master.
> i am an artist and i know i must learn. release yourself from every sense
> of competition and learn the true way-peace. martial arts are the arts of
> war, and who wants to war?
--
Johnnemann Nordhagen (jsn...@rof.net)
Desmond Chan
Michael Peter (pet...@concentric.net) wrote:
: "Speak Englush?"
: "WHUT?"
I think he's also asking about "wing tsun", too.
Regards,
D Chan
Eric Berge
In Article<57sgca$b...@catapult.gatech.edu>, <gt2...@acmey.gatech.edu> writes:
> Path:
> okay, i've been away fro thanksgiving and i had many admirers post on judo
> and the definition of "martial arts". "martial arts" are arts of war.
It has been a few days, and several other people have told you that this
is rubbish, but allow me to join the chorus.
For any society that has advanced in complexity beyond the kind of thing
one reads about in Homer (e.g., Bronze-age Greece) in which war is waged
by heroic champions challenging each other to single combat, hand to hand
combat skills (and to a lesser example, armed individual combat skills)
are only marginally relevant to success in battle.
Almost no currently popular martial art is or ever has been a military
art (and yes, before anyone leaps to inform me, I have heard of Krav Maga,
Military SOMBO, and Military San Shou. That's three). No style of
Okinawan, Japanese, or Korean Karate has ever been taught or used as a
battlefield art (the common word in any language for an unarmed, unarmoured
man facing a trained soldier with a three foot razor blade is "corpse").
Few wrestling styles have military antecedants, and if they did, they were
universally practiced as secondary - or more likely tertiary - arts to more
important concerns like how to use a spear, a bow, or a sword (in likely
order of importance, at least for most actual combat soldiers), never mind
the skills involved in training cavalry or combat engineers.
The closest any of what we now call "martial" arts comes to being "military"
arts is in their use for physical conditioning and training the troops
in an agressive mindset. The Korean army's use of Tae Kwon Do is a good
example.
Before someone starts throwing (:-) jujutsu in my face, I suggest they
check out which still-current jujutsu styles had roots in actual medieval
Japanese military practice, and which evolved during the Tokugawa
Shogunate, and in which social classes.
If anyone knows of a dojo in the US that teaches Yoroi Kumi-Uchi (Honest
to goodness military grappling in full armour, if I am remembering the
term correctly), I wish they would let me know; I would love to actually
see a living fossil like that in action.
I can even reasonably argue that the weapon arts for civilian, police, and
military use have significant and readily apparent differences; a good
example being the art of rope-tying (forget the name in Japanese) - very
useful for police, who have to restrain people (see some good pictures
in Draeger's "Modern Budo and Bujutsu"), but useless for soldiers, who
are busy killing everything in their way.
Another excellent example would be of the European rapier, a weapon that
became popular for civilians to carry and use (and whose practice was
highly systematized) precisely at a time when edged weapons were beginning
to fade in importance on European battlefields. The rapier has never, to
my knowledge, been a military weapon - is anyone going to tell me that
a skilled fencer with a rapier and parrying dagger is not a "martial"
artist?
I have never seen a dojo where military edged weapons arts are taught; I
suspect the skills involved in fighting in a phalanx or shield wall with
sword or spear are not of much use to civilians, police, or, for that
matter, criminals, even in societies where these are living, useful arts.
Next, as to your comments in several posts about Judo being "...not a
martial art, only a sport." - What on earth makes you think that the
two are mutually exclusive?
Almost all combat skills that can be practiced safely as sports, _are_
practiced as sports. Almost ALL wrestling arts, the world over, are
practiced as sports; the examples are too literally too numerous to list.
Every society that I can think of that used the sword, had some way to
use the sword in some sort of safe, competitive fencing drill; Kendo
and European fencing being only two of the most well known.
In fact - here's one that should give you pause - Bayonet fencing is
a reasonbly popular sport in Japan (jukendo). Is that "not a martial
art"? What possible other-than-military use could one have for a rifle
and bayonet (I ask this as the owner of a .22LR rifle that takes a bayonet)?
Even as far back as classical Greece, sports (which originally evolved
out of the physical training for warriors; the link would be clearer
if we still had events like the foot race in full armour that was
featured in the ancient Olympics) and martial arts like wrestling, boxing,
and pancration were understood to be part of the same continuum of
activities.
I think you should stop reading too much into the etymology of "martial"
arts, and start translating the term as "combat" arts, rather than
"military" arts.
Eric Berge
edb...@ibm.net
Ingo Bojak
Great post Eric, and this
On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, Eric Berge wrote:
> battlefield art (the common word in any language for an unarmed, unarmoured
> man facing a trained soldier with a three foot razor blade is "corpse").
>
should be said to every instructor that tells his student that his style
can deal with all armed attacks.
Ciao,
Ingo
(5. SG WT)
enj...@aol.com
how about the Chinese Boxer's Rebellion...they were training to take
bullets from the British....not too sucessful....but it was an
experimental form of MA specifically targetted at (ha,ha) flying hot
lead.
MA is a secondary weapon....just like a sidearm, who's going to use it
when you have an AK-47 (i don't like them M-16s)....
have you ever been in a firefight....what if your weapon jams....time to
break out the chop suey when the dude's rushing you....
you can't tell me that those Japanese warlords didn't employ MA in their
battles
when there were not many guns around....if anything, MA was more used
during the ancient days in the battlefield....which was what it was
developped for....kicking ass against an armed mean-dude.
enj...@aol.com
===============
Eric Berge wrote:
No style of
Okinawan, Japanese, or Korean Karate has ever been taught or used as a
battlefield art (the common word in any language for an unarmed,
unarmoured
man facing a trained soldier with a three foot razor blade is "corpse").
===============
Karate was developed by Japanese peasants to fend against armed
Samurais....
(saw this explained in UFC 2........."Jiu-Jitsu all the way.... (burp)"
nicho...@aol.com
A Burmese martial system , bando teaches the kukri as a combat or military
weapon. The kukri is used by gurkha soldiers and is presently taught to
bando students a military weapon.
Respectfully,
Nicholas
Michael Ozanne
In article <NEWTNews.850118...@ibm.ibm.net>
edb...@ibm.net "Eric Berge" writes:
*Few wrestling styles have military antecedants, and if they did, they were
*universally practiced as secondary - or more likely tertiary - arts to more
*important concerns like how to use a spear, a bow, or a sword (in likely
*order of importance, at least for most actual combat soldiers), never mind
*the skills involved in training cavalry or combat engineers.
For Samurai of the gempei period Bow, grappling/dagger, Sword
For the later Sengoku period it was arquebus, sword, grappling
*Before someone starts throwing (:-) jujutsu in my face, I suggest they
*check out which still-current jujutsu styles had roots in actual medieval
*Japanese military practice, and which evolved during the Tokugawa
*Shogunate,
The first codification of a ryu is attributed to Hisamon Take-No-Uchi
in 1532. Just prior to Japanese warfare becoming dominated by firearms.
By the Meiji reformation there is evidence that there was knowledge of
Jiu-Jitsu outside the samurai class. Some noted criminals were known as
skilled exponents.
*
*Another excellent example would be of the European rapier, a weapon that
*became popular for civilians to carry and use (and whose practice was
*highly systematized) precisely at a time when edged weapons were beginning
*to fade in importance on European battlefields. The rapier has never, to
*my knowledge, been a military weapon - is anyone going to tell me that
*a skilled fencer with a rapier and parrying dagger is not a "martial"
*artist?
Once armour started to disappear the hanger and the falchion were the typical
cutlery. It went through various transformation and finished up as the cutlass
and the cavalry sabre.
*In fact - here's one that should give you pause - Bayonet fencing is
*a reasonbly popular sport in Japan (jukendo). Is that "not a martial
*art"? What possible other-than-military use could one have for a rifle
*and bayonet (I ask this as the owner of a .22LR rifle that takes a bayonet)?
Opening a stubborn tin of beans ? :-)
--
Michael Ozanne
Richard H. Kim
In the Year of Our Lord 9 Dec 1996 16:28:00 GMT, the Heathen enj...@aol.com
wrote:
>how about the Chinese Boxer's Rebellion...they were training to take
>bullets from the British....not too sucessful....but it was an
>experimental form of MA specifically targetted at (ha,ha) flying hot
>lead.
>
>MA is a secondary weapon....just like a sidearm, who's going to use it
>when you have an AK-47 (i don't like them M-16s)....
>
M-16A2 is a better battlefield assault rifle than any AK47 variant ever was/is.
But thats another thread/newsgroup.
>have you ever been in a firefight....what if your weapon jams....time to
>break out the chop suey when the dude's rushing you....
>
Nope, you SPORT.... ah what the hell? This moron is rushing you? Let your
buddy take him out. Better yet, the rest of your fire team. And the last thing
I'm going to do is try and side kick a guy if I ave a gun (club) or kife in my
hand.
>you can't tell me that those Japanese warlords didn't employ MA in their
>battles
>when there were not many guns around....if anything, MA was more used
>during the ancient days in the battlefield....which was what it was
>developped for....kicking ass against an armed mean-dude.
>
hehe. The Japanese had so many guns, at one point they had more muskets engaged
in one feudal battle than all of europe combined. Japanese, didn't have guns,
what a gas.
Eric Berge
Saint Dogbert defend us from the demons of stupidity!
In Article<19961209162...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, <enj...@aol.com>
writes:
> have you ever been in a firefight...
No. Have you?
>
>what if your weapon jams....time to
> break out the chop suey when the dude's rushing you...
Only if he's unarmed. Otherwise, Plan A is "run and hide".
> you can't tell me that those Japanese warlords didn't employ MA in their
> battles
> when there were not many guns around....if anything, MA was more used
> during the ancient days in the battlefield....which was what it was
> developped for....kicking ass against an armed mean-dude.
That's right. In fact, they employed special brigades of mercenary
Koreans, who specialized in doing flying sidekicks to knock the enemy
off their horses.
And I understand that they had squads of Brazilian experts, to tackle
enemy pikemen and take them to the ground where their weapons would be
useless.
Try reading the post next time.
Eric Berge
edb...@ibm.net
Eric Berge
In Article<19961209163...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, <enj...@aol.com>
writes:
Well, how could I argue with references like that?
Permit me to try anyway:
1) Karate was developed in Okinawa, NOT Japan.
2) Okinawa was an independant monarchy.
3) Ergo, Karate was not developed by anyone (no matter how suicidally
stupid) to "fend (sic) against armed Samurais". Which, by the way, does
not take an "s" in the plural.
Suggestion: Crack a book sometime; it wouldn't hurt.
Eric Berge
edb...@ibm.net
Desmond Chan
enj...@aol.com wrote:
: ===============
: Eric Berge wrote:
: No style of
: Okinawan, Japanese, or Korean Karate has ever been taught or used as a
: battlefield art (the common word in any language for an unarmed,
: unarmoured
: man facing a trained soldier with a three foot razor blade is "corpse").
: ===============
: Karate was developed by Japanese peasants to fend against armed
: Samurais....
I think it was some of the weapons they used that was developed for that
purpose, not the developement of karate itself.
Regards,
D Chan
Desmond Chan
enj...@aol.com wrote:
: how about the Chinese Boxer's Rebellion...they were training to take
: bullets from the British....not too sucessful....but it was an
: experimental form of MA specifically targetted at (ha,ha) flying hot
: lead.
They were trained to use an already existed martial art or techniques, if
they could be called as such, to deal with the bullets.
: [snip]
: you can't tell me that those Japanese warlords didn't employ MA in their
: battles
: when there were not many guns around....if anything, MA was more used
: during the ancient days in the battlefield....which was what it was
: developped for....kicking ass against an armed mean-dude.
So martial arts existed before they were being used in the battlefield?
Regards,
D Chan
Desmond Chan
Michael Ozanne (moz...@pcsngb.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: For Samurai of the gempei period Bow, grappling/dagger, Sword
: For the later Sengoku period it was arquebus, sword, grappling
: The first codification of a ryu is attributed to Hisamon Take-No-Uchi
: in 1532. Just prior to Japanese warfare becoming dominated by firearms.
: By the Meiji reformation there is evidence that there was knowledge of
: Jiu-Jitsu outside the samurai class. Some noted criminals were known as
: skilled exponents.
: Once armour started to disappear the hanger and the falchion were the typical
: cutlery. It went through various transformation and finished up as the cutlass
: and the cavalry sabre.
I think it can only be fair to say that some martial arts have their roots
related to war fair. Simplying saying martial arts are war arts is, IMHO,
an overgeneralization. I suppose we have individuals fighting each other
before we have group fighting ;-)
Regards,
D Chan
enj...@aol.com
==================
Weedhopper wrote:
>
hehe. The Japanese had so many guns, at one point they had more muskets
engaged
in one feudal battle than all of europe combined. Japanese, didn't have
guns,
what a gas.
===================
did the Japs have guns 2,000 years ago?
case closed.
Sean Hartigan
Desmond Chan (dc...@is.dal.ca) wrote:
: : Karate was developed by Japanese peasants to fend against armed
: : Samurais....
:
: I think it was some of the weapons they used that was developed for that
: purpose, not the developement of karate itself.
I'm not sure about this one. In the Uechi-ryu karate kata, there
are a number of movements structured around fightng a sword-armed
opponent. But Uechi-ryu didn't reach Okinawa until the turn of
the century... the movements must have been developed in
China at some point.
-- Sean Hartigan
Desmond Chan
Sean Hartigan (hart...@gpu3.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
Well, at least it was not the Japanese who needed to develop tonfa or sai
for defending the Japanese invaders; it was the Okinawan farmers, as I
have read somewhere.
As for the Chinese arts, I think they always have weapons training.
Regards,
D Chan
enj...@aol.com
Eric Berge wrote:
1) Karate was developed in Okinawa, NOT Japan.
2) Okinawa was an independant monarchy.
3) Ergo, Karate was not developed by anyone (no matter how suicidally
stupid) to "fend (sic) against armed Samurais". Which, by the way, does
not take an "s" in the plural.
Suggestion: Crack a book sometime; it wouldn't hurt.
Eric Berge
edb...@ibm.net
=====================================
no thank you...this would approach ultimate geekdom....as you've already
earned a black belt in.
enj...@aol.com
Eric Burger wrote:
> have you ever been in a firefight...
No. Have you?
>
========================
yes i have.....Cub Scout of America....in the woods somewhere...
enj...@aol.com
Weedhopper wrote:
>
Nope, you SPORT.... ah what the hell? This moron is rushing you? Let
your
buddy take him out. Better yet, the rest of your fire team. And the last
thing
I'm going to do is try and side kick a guy if I ave a gun (club) or kife
in my
hand.
----------------------------------------
what if you buddy's crappy M16 is jammed and he's a sissy....wait...what
if you're a sissy too?
Props
Eric Berge (edb...@ibm.net) wrote:
: In Article<57sgca$b...@catapult.gatech.edu>, <gt2...@acmey.gatech.edu> writes:
: > Path:
: > okay, i've been away fro thanksgiving and i had many admirers post on judo
: > and the definition of "martial arts". "martial arts" are arts of war.
: It has been a few days, and several other people have told you that this
: is rubbish, but allow me to join the chorus.
: For any society that has advanced in complexity beyond the kind of thing
: one reads about in Homer (e.g., Bronze-age Greece) in which war is waged
: by heroic champions challenging each other to single combat, hand to hand
: combat skills (and to a lesser example, armed individual combat skills)
: are only marginally relevant to success in battle.
: Almost no currently popular martial art is or ever has been a military
: art (and yes, before anyone leaps to inform me, I have heard of Krav Maga,
: Military SOMBO, and Military San Shou. That's three). No style of
: Okinawan, Japanese, or Korean Karate has ever been taught or used as a
: battlefield art (the common word in any language for an unarmed, unarmoured
: man facing a trained soldier with a three foot razor blade is "corpse").
: Few wrestling styles have military antecedants, and if they did, they were
: universally practiced as secondary - or more likely tertiary - arts to more
: important concerns like how to use a spear, a bow, or a sword (in likely
: order of importance, at least for most actual combat soldiers), never mind
: the skills involved in training cavalry or combat engineers.
: The closest any of what we now call "martial" arts comes to being "military"
: arts is in their use for physical conditioning and training the troops
: in an agressive mindset. The Korean army's use of Tae Kwon Do is a good
: example.
: Before someone starts throwing (:-) jujutsu in my face, I suggest they
: check out which still-current jujutsu styles had roots in actual medieval
: Japanese military practice, and which evolved during the Tokugawa
: Shogunate, and in which social classes.
: If anyone knows of a dojo in the US that teaches Yoroi Kumi-Uchi (Honest
: to goodness military grappling in full armour, if I am remembering the
: term correctly), I wish they would let me know; I would love to actually
: see a living fossil like that in action.
: I can even reasonably argue that the weapon arts for civilian, police, and
: military use have significant and readily apparent differences; a good
: example being the art of rope-tying (forget the name in Japanese) - very
: useful for police, who have to restrain people (see some good pictures
: in Draeger's "Modern Budo and Bujutsu"), but useless for soldiers, who
: are busy killing everything in their way.
: Another excellent example would be of the European rapier, a weapon that
: became popular for civilians to carry and use (and whose practice was
: highly systematized) precisely at a time when edged weapons were beginning
: to fade in importance on European battlefields. The rapier has never, to
: my knowledge, been a military weapon - is anyone going to tell me that
: a skilled fencer with a rapier and parrying dagger is not a "martial"
: artist?
: I have never seen a dojo where military edged weapons arts are taught; I
: suspect the skills involved in fighting in a phalanx or shield wall with
: sword or spear are not of much use to civilians, police, or, for that
: matter, criminals, even in societies where these are living, useful arts.
: Next, as to your comments in several posts about Judo being "...not a
: martial art, only a sport." - What on earth makes you think that the
: two are mutually exclusive?
: Almost all combat skills that can be practiced safely as sports, _are_
: practiced as sports. Almost ALL wrestling arts, the world over, are
: practiced as sports; the examples are too literally too numerous to list.
: Every society that I can think of that used the sword, had some way to
: use the sword in some sort of safe, competitive fencing drill; Kendo
: and European fencing being only two of the most well known.
: In fact - here's one that should give you pause - Bayonet fencing is
: a reasonbly popular sport in Japan (jukendo). Is that "not a martial
: art"? What possible other-than-military use could one have for a rifle
: and bayonet (I ask this as the owner of a .22LR rifle that takes a bayonet)?
: Even as far back as classical Greece, sports (which originally evolved
: out of the physical training for warriors; the link would be clearer
: if we still had events like the foot race in full armour that was
: featured in the ancient Olympics) and martial arts like wrestling, boxing,
: and pancration were understood to be part of the same continuum of
: activities.
: I think you should stop reading too much into the etymology of "martial"
: arts, and start translating the term as "combat" arts, rather than
: "military" arts.
: Eric Berge
: edb...@ibm.net
--
Don Langguth, CmpE(why,God,why) I "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm
gt2...@prism.gatech.edu I not the only one. I hope someday
Box 332126 Geogia Tech Station I you'll join us, and the world will
Atlanta, GA 30332 I be as one."-John Lennon, "Imagine"
Eric Berge
In Article<19961210040...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, <enj...@aol.com>
writes:
> did the Japs have guns 2,000 years ago?
>
> case closed.
Does being that stupid hurt? Just curious.
Eric Berge
edb...@ibm.net
edb...@ibm.net
For some reason my news server didn't carry this; lucky I check
dejanews occasionally. Good reply.
In article <850150...@pcsngb.demon.co.uk>,
moz...@pcsngb.demon.co.uk (Michael Ozanne) wrote:
>
> In article <NEWTNews.850118...@ibm.ibm.net>
> edb...@ibm.net "Eric Berge" writes:
> *to more
> *important concerns like how to use a spear, a bow, or a sword (in likely
> *order of importance, at least for most actual combat soldiers), never mind
> *the skills involved in training cavalry or combat engineers.
>
> For Samurai of the gempei period Bow, grappling/dagger, Sword
> For the later Sengoku period it was arquebus, sword, grappling
OK - I actually had European ancient->medieval warfare in mind when
I wrote that, in which case the most important weapon on the battlefield
was probably the spear.
> The first codification of a ryu is attributed to Hisamon Take-No-Uchi
> in 1532. Just prior to Japanese warfare becoming dominated by firearms.
> By the Meiji reformation there is evidence that there was knowledge of
> Jiu-Jitsu outside the samurai class. Some noted criminals were known as
> skilled exponents.
Which bears out my point that Jujutsu wasn't neccessarily a military, or even
an aristocratic fighting art; people on RMA seem to get pretty hung up
on the idea that the only people who trained in martial arts in Japan
were Samurai.
> *Another excellent example would be of the European rapier, a weapon that
> *became popular for civilians to carry and use (and whose practice was
> *highly systematized) precisely at a time when edged weapons were beginning
> *to fade in importance on European battlefields.
> Once armour started to disappear the hanger and the falchion were the typical
> cutlery. It went through various transformation and finished up as the cutlass
> and the cavalry sabre.
I seem to remember reading that this was more true of England than of the
rest of Europe (in fact, I have a videotape somewhere which includes a
demonstration of 18th c. English techniques for the falchion). I also
think that the sabre evolved separately, most likely making its way into
Europe from Turkey and the Middle East via Hungary.
BTW - Since you're in England, have you had a chance to visit the Tower
Armouries Museum in Leeds? Its and incredible place - not only does it have
some of the best exhibits of weapons I have ever seen, but there are tons
of video tapes and live actors demonstrating the actual use of the stuff
on display. I was there for a day last August - they have displays of
military, police, hunting, civilian, and even criminal weapons; the top
floor even includes a couple of shooting galleries! I highly recommend
a trip.
Eric Berge
edb...@ibm.net
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Props
Richard H. Kim
In the Year of Our Lord 10 Dec 1996 21:11:05 GMT, the Heathen enj...@aol.com
wrote:
>
Oh lord, now THATS a comeback.
Taro Sumitomo
Since 2000 years ago, present day Japan was a haphazard collection of
pre-civilisation societies with little or no military tradition, the point
is irrelvant to MA.
And no, they did not have guns. Did anyone?
Moreover, it's 'Japanese' not 'Japs' ok?
ts
enj...@aol.com wrote:
:
: did the Japs have guns 2,000 years ago?
:
: case closed.
Props
Eric Berge (edb...@ibm.net) wrote:
:!>In Article<19961210040...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, <enj...@aol.com>
:!>writes:
:!>> did the Japs have guns 2,000 years ago?
:!>>
:!>> case closed.
:!>Does being that stupid hurt? Just curious.
:!>Eric Berge
:!>edb...@ibm.net
Eric Berge
(The following is forwarded with the permission of Scott Sonnon from
a good discussion that the two of us have been having by email)
--- On Mon, 09 Dec 1996 08:19:56 American Center of Russian Martial Art
<Amer...@gnn.com> wrote:
>Date: Sun, 08 Dec 96 23:13:49
>From: Eric Berge <edb...@ibm.net>
>Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
>Subject: Are "martial" arts = "war" arts? (Re: true spirit )
>For any society that has advanced in complexity beyond the kind of thing
>one reads about in Homer (e.g., Bronze-age Greece) in which war is waged
>by heroic champions challenging each other to single combat, hand to hand
>combat skills (and to a lesser example, armed individual combat skills)
>are only marginally relevant to success in battle.
>
conventional warfare, yes.
>Almost no currently popular martial art is or ever has been a military
>art (and yes, before anyone leaps to inform me, I have heard of Krav Maga,
>Military SOMBO,
Sambo (samozashchitya bez oruzhiya - unarmed self-protection); but this is
only the unarmed portion of out training. American's, with their myopic
preconceived notions of the constitution of combat skill, perceive sambo as a
martial art. Sambo is only the compartment for the unarmed portion of our
training. There are four other divisions, four other schools of combative
preparation.
I though you might find it interesting that, though Americans have translated
"Boevoe Isskutva" in reckless way, into their incumbent term, "martial art."
More appropriately, the term means "combat skill". In Russian combat skill,
there is not so much a style, but a reference to a type of activity.
>Few wrestling styles have military antecedants, and if they did, they were
>universally practiced as secondary - or more likely tertiary - arts to more
>important concerns like how to use a spear, a bow, or a sword (in likely
>order of importance, at least for most actual combat soldiers), never mind
>the skills involved in training cavalry or combat engineers.
Actually, in Russia, all skills were taught in a progressive manner, but only
to the elite and the guerilla special forces (Spetznaz) and to the secret
police. The general military is as you spoke, more concentrated on
attrition, as are all 'civilized' societies.
>The closest any of what we now call "martial" arts comes to being
> "military"
>arts is in their use for physical conditioning and training the troops
>in an agressive mindset. The Korean army's use of Tae Kwon Do is a good
>example.
I am not flaming you. I am the first American to be invited and to train
with the Russian special forces in Russia. Russian combat skill is the ONLY
thing they do; aside from their division specialty, for instance,
surveillance.
>I can even reasonably argue that the weapon arts for civilian, police, and
>military use have significant and readily apparent differences; a good
>example being the art of rope-tying (forget the name in Japanese) - very
>useful for police, who have to restrain people (see some good pictures
>in Draeger's "Modern Budo and Bujutsu"), but useless for soldiers, who
>are busy killing everything in their way.
I think you are the only individual in America that has ever stated this
veracity. I thought that no other individuals understood true philosophy:
doctrine, strategy, and tactics. Where one's doctrine determined the
strategies employed and dictated the tactics engaged. That would mean that a
telescopic baton in the hands of a soldier, a law-enforcement officer, and
a civilian would have utter disparate tactics, due to the differences in
indoctrination.
>Another excellent example would be of the European rapier, a weapon that
>became popular for civilians to carry and use (and whose practice was
>highly systematized) precisely at a time when edged weapons were beginning
>to fade in importance on European battlefields. The rapier has never, to
>my knowledge, been a military weapon
The rapier was an addition to the accoutraments of the royal military of
19th century, early 20th century Russia. In Russian combat skill, it is one
of our foci, though we go as far as to train in two-handed broadswords as
well, in armor.
>I have never seen a dojo where military edged weapons arts are taught; I
>suspect the skills involved in fighting in a phalanx or shield wall with
>sword or spear are not of much use to civilians, police, or, for that
>matter, criminals, even in societies where these are living, useful arts.
In Russian combat skill, a variety of weapons are taught: spear, kanyka
(the Cossack progenitor of the modern blackjack- about 1/2 meter long),
rapier, broadsword, battleaxe, handaxe, knife, dagger, pistol, machinegun,
carbine with bayonet, belt, spade (trench weapons), bullwhip
>Next, as to your comments in several posts about Judo being "...not a
>martial art, only a sport." - What on earth makes you think that the
>two are mutually exclusive?
>
martial art and combat sports are two different genres, analogous to the
difference between pure aikido and greco-roman wrestling. They are two
different doctrines. Russian martial art comprises a dedication to this
aspect of combative preparation: Renovated sambo and judo school.
>In fact - here's one that should give you pause - Bayonet fencing is
>a reasonbly popular sport in Japan (jukendo). Is that "not a martial
>art"? What possible other-than-military use could one have for a rifle
>and bayonet (I ask this as the owner of a .22LR rifle that takes a
> bayonet)?
Interesting, you are the only other person to know this that I have met.
Bayonet fencing with carbines, is one of the schools of Russian combat skill
training. There will be an Olympic sport version in 2004 in Snt. Petersburg,
Russia.
>I think you should stop reading too much into the etymology of "martial"
>arts, and start translating the term as "combat" arts, rather than
>"military" arts.
or combat 'skill'.
I have an article that I published
awhile back, entitled, "Russian close-quarters combat." It talks about the
disparity between the combative preparatory doctrines of combat sports,
martial arts, close-quarters combat, street-fighting, subject/crowd control.
Let me know if you would like me to send you a copy...
Vsego dobrogo,
Scott Sonnon
American Center of Russian Martial Art
Russian Federation of Russian Martial Art
http://members.gnn.com/amersambo/sambo.htm
Amer...@gnn.com
All the lies my enemies say about me are true.
Life's a bitch, wear a cup.
"Close Quarters Combat is what we do as a vocation. We are akin to the pig
in the ham-and-egg breakfast: we're committed! Martial arts is merely the
chicken:
it's involved." - ibid. SBS
Eric Berge
(Third of three forwarded with Scott Sonnon's permission from private
email exchange)
--- On Tue, 10 Dec 1996 14:09:13 American Center of Russian Martial Art
<Amer...@gnn.com> wrote:
Mr. Berge,
>I'm aware of the exception, of course. However, in modern times I would
>still maintain that if someone is engaging in hand to hand combat more
>extensive than, say, strangling a sentry, something has gone drastically
>wrong with the operation.
absolutely.
>*Blush* Thank you; but this is hardly true, since the example I cited was
>from a book by and American. I have been thinking of writing to Draeger's
>organization, the Hoplology society, and subscribing to their magazine.
>
Ah, there is an interesting responsive piece written by Col. Forrest Morgan,
concerning Draeger's work.
>In any case, I would maintain that it never was a serious battlefield
>weapon.
We are in agreeance. Though classical Russian martial traditions sustain
sword tactics and counter-tactics.
>I'm not sure that I agree with you that the line is so clearly drawn. I
>don't see any real technical distinction between -do arts and -jutsu arts
>(to use the japanese examples that I am most familiar with); the difference
>seems to be in the mindset of the practitioners.
>
I remain firm to my position, not because I refute your statement, but for
the reason that, in the 'American martial arts community', the precise
comprehension of such terms as -do and -jutsu are not only ambiguous and
misunderstood, but are convoluted and distorted to adhere to the American
mind.
This is a different culture, a disparate perspective than Far Eastern
culture. The world view and ethos are almost diametrically opposed to each
other. My theory bases this disparity on a linguistic foundation, but that
is of academic interest and not the scope of our conversation currently.
Regardless, I am in agreeance with you about one premise: that -do arts and
-jutsu arts, in America, may be categorized together (in the following
distinction of "martial arts" - that which posseses hidden or esoteric
agendas).
My analysis evinces the following distinctions in combative preparatory
education:
1. Combat sports
2. Martial arts
3. Close-quarters combat
4. Self-defense
5. Subject/Crowd control
6. Street-fighting
Each of these genre comprise greatly differing indoctrinations (general
beliefs about confrontation and general aims/purposes). My point is that in
America little is understood about 'style', but more about 'function': the
purpose or end to be effectuated. People gravitate, in America, to personal
combat doctrines that augment and facilitate their intrinsic requirements or
mandates.
>To muddy the waters still further, I would bet that most serious
> marathoners
>and triathletes have a mentality much closer to what most people would
>recognize as the "warrior" mentality than most (for example) suburban
>twice-a-week-at-the-stripmall-for-fun practitioners (pick your art).
Once again, I concur, yet hold to my position that in America, being a
different culture, the end is immediately pursued, regardless of the medium.
I know of a master chess player that out-witted four aggressive brawlers,
through keen tactics, presence of mind, and calm resolve. However, in
America, when I refer to the MEDIUM with which individuals enjoin, I refer to
the above six distinctions. I refer to the personal combative doctrines that
they maintain.
Eric Berge
(More forwarded with Scott Sonnon's permission from private email
discussion)
--- On Mon, 9 Dec 96 18:11:39 Eric Berge <edb...@ibm.net> wrote:
--- On Mon, 09 Dec 1996 08:19:56 American Center of Russian Martial Art
<Amer...@gnn.com> wrote:
>> hand to hand
>>combat skills (and to a lesser example, armed individual combat skills)
>>are only marginally relevant to success in battle.
>conventional warfare, yes.
I'm aware of the exception, of course. However, in modern times I would
still maintain that if someone is engaging in hand to hand combat more
extensive than, say, strangling a sentry, something has gone drastically
wrong with the operation.
>I am not flaming you. I am the first American to be invited and to train
>with the Russian special forces in Russia. Russian combat skill is the >ONLY
thing they do; aside from their division specialty, for instance,
>surveillance.
Spetsnaz seem to have noticeably different doctrine on SpecOps tranining
than most other countries; on the other hand, from your description, their
"combat skill" is pretty comprehensive and covers all the stuff that other
countries' armed forces do, too.
>I think you are the only individual in America that has ever stated this
>veracity. I thought that no other individuals understood true philosophy:
>doctrine, strategy, and tactics. Where one's doctrine determined the
>strategies employed and dictated the tactics engaged.
*Blush* Thank you; but this is hardly true, since the example I cited was
from a book by and American. I have been thinking of writing to Draeger's
organization, the Hoplology society, and subscribing to their magazine.
>The rapier was an addition to the accoutraments of the royal military of
>19th century, early 20th century Russia.
Of course; by that time it was the badge of a gentleman. It was also,
however, not the same weapon as it was during the period when it was
actually of some practical use, unless you're telling me that the Russians
had somehow managed to avoid the rapier's evolution from a long straight
sword with a cutting edge into the 18th century and later samllsword,
which rarely had an edge and often had a triangular or circular cross
section, rather like a knitting needle on steroids.
In any case, I would maintain that it never was a serious battlefield
weapon.
>martial art and combat sports are two different genres, analogous to the
>difference between pure aikido and greco-roman wrestling. They are two
>different doctrines. Russian martial art comprises a dedication to this
>aspect of combative preparation: Renovated sambo and judo school.
I'm not sure that I agree with you that the line is so clearly drawn. I
don't see any real technical distinction between -do arts and -jutsu arts
(to use the japanese examples that I am most familiar with); the difference
seems to be in the mindset of the practitioners.
To muddy the waters still further, I would bet that most serious marathoners
and triathletes have a mentality much closer to what most people would
recognize as the "warrior" mentality than most (for example) suburban
twice-a-week-at-the-stripmall-for-fun practitioners (pick your art).
>Interesting, you are the only other person to know this that I have met.
>Bayonet fencing with carbines, is one of the schools of Russian combat
>skill training. There will be an Olympic sport version in 2004 in Snt.
> Petersburg, Russia.
I think we had part of this conversation a few months ago, if you will
remember - I emailed you the URL of the PSV Eindhoven fencing club,
which has all the pictures of old-timey European martial skills, including
Bayonet fencing.
Thank you again for your comments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric D. Berge
edb...@ibm.net
Clay lies still, but blood's a rover;
Breath's a ware that will not keep.
Up, Lad! When the journey's over,
There'll be time enough to sleep.
- A.E.Housman, "Reveille"
o_ \ >
<| ' ,_|
___/_>____o)____
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Wagner
In <19961210211...@ladder01.news.aol.com> enj...@aol.com
writes:
>>Eric Berge wrote:
>>1) Karate was developed in Okinawa, NOT Japan.
>>
>>2) Okinawa was an independant monarchy.
>>
>>3) Ergo, Karate was not developed by anyone (no matter how
>>suicidally stupid) to "fend (sic) against armed Samurais". Which, by
>>the way, >does not take an "s" in the plural.
>>
>>Suggestion: Crack a book sometime; it wouldn't hurt.
>>
>>Eric Berge
>no thank you...this would approach ultimate geekdom....as you've
>already earned a black belt in.
Then pick up a "Black Belt Magazine", look at the pretty pictures of
VanDamme and the Power Rangers...right after that there may be
_something_ on martial arts. Maybe even karate!
;-)
--Don--
Eric Berge
Not to mention the fact that the "Japanese" weren't, at the time, living
in Japan - They immigrated later, displacing the native Ainu population.
Who didn't have guns either. So what?
Eric Berge
In Article<58l7ds$3c7$1...@nargun.cc.uq.oz.au>, <e432...@student.uq.edu.au>
writes:
> Since 2000 years ago, present day Japan was a haphazard collection of
> pre-civilisation societies with little or no military tradition, the point
> is irrelvant to MA.
>
> And no, they did not have guns. Did anyone?
>
> Moreover, it's 'Japanese' not 'Japs' ok?
>
> ts
>
> enj...@aol.com wrote:
> :
> : did the Japs have guns 2,000 years ago?
> :
> : case closed.
Michael Ozanne
In article <8502819...@dejanews.com> edb...@ibm.net writes:
*
*OK - I actually had European ancient->medieval warfare in mind when
*I wrote that, in which case the most important weapon on the battlefield
*was probably the spear.
A lot of warfare was fuedal cavalry mixed with peasant levies. Then
the British and Swiss brought in the Longbow and the Pike and professional
infantry based armies started to reform. The firearm finished the job.
*> The first codification of a ryu is attributed to Hisamon Take-No-Uchi
*> in 1532. Just prior to Japanese warfare becoming dominated by firearms.
*> By the Meiji reformation there is evidence that there was knowledge of
*> Jiu-Jitsu outside the samurai class. Some noted criminals were known as
*> skilled exponents.
*
*Which bears out my point that Jujutsu wasn't neccessarily a military, or even
*an aristocratic fighting art; people on RMA seem to get pretty hung up
*on the idea that the only people who trained in martial arts in Japan
*were Samurai.
You have to be careful about Japanese aristocracy the old aristocracy was
diluted by the Minamoto and Taira, who although originally part of the royal
line, had been well mixed with a bit of frontier rough. What was left of the
ancien regime was wiped out by the new Daimyo, most of whom were of "common"
stock, during the Sengoku-Jidai. During this process the samurai Yoroi Kumiuchi
most have become thoroughly mixed with the peasant Sumo styles. There wasn't
really a seperate warrior only caste until the late 16th century, before then
anyone could be a soldier.
--
Michael Ozanne
Michael Ozanne
In article <19961209165...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
nicho...@aol.com writes:
*A Burmese martial system , bando teaches the kukri as a combat or military
*weapon. The kukri is used by gurkha soldiers and is presently taught to
*bando students a military weapon.
Can you explain how this came about. The Ghurkas come from Nepal which
isn't that close to Burma(Myanmar), and the traditional burmese cleaver
is the dhao axe which doesn't much resemble a kukri. Is it a cross over
from the 14th army days or something ?
--
Michael Ozanne
Michael Ozanne
In article <19961210040...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
enj...@aol.com writes:
*
*==================
*Weedhopper wrote:
*
*>
*hehe. The Japanese had so many guns, at one point they had more muskets
*engaged
*in one feudal battle than all of europe combined. Japanese, didn't have
*guns,
*what a gas.
*
*===================
*
*did the Japs have guns 2,000 years ago?
*
*case closed.
During the Kofun period, i.e about 2000 years ago, the Tenno's army consisted
of a phalanx of professional heavy infantry in plate armour, shield, spear
and shortsword. Almost a dead ringer for a third century Roman Legionaire.
Your unarmed MA warrior would be rapidly turned into Sheesh kebab.
The mounted Samurai with his individual combats, mounted archery and curved
sword, evolved as a Kommando force in the frontier districts. They didn't
move back to the center of Japanese life until the Fujiwara's contracted out
the collection of taxes and other state functions to the Taira and Minamoto
clans.
--
Michael Ozanne
Enjoy DM
Don said:
Then pick up a "Black Belt Magazine", look at the pretty pictures of
VanDamme and the Power Rangers...right after that there may be
_something_ on martial arts. Maybe even karate!
;-)
--Don--
================================
who's your favorite Ranger.....?
the Pink one right?
(ha,ha)
Props
Props (gt2...@acmey.gatech.edu) wrote:
:!>Eric Berge (edb...@ibm.net) wrote:
:!>:!>In Article<19961210040...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, <enj...@aol.com>
:!>:!>writes:
:!>:!>> did the Japs have guns 2,000 years ago?
:!>:!>>
:!>:!>> case closed.
:!>:!>Does being that stupid hurt? Just curious.
:!>:!>Eric Berge
:!>:!>edb...@ibm.net
:!>--
:!>Don Langguth, CmpE(why,God,why) I "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm
:!>gt2...@prism.gatech.edu I not the only one. I hope someday
:!>Box 332126 Geogia Tech Station I you'll join us, and the world will
:!>Atlanta, GA 30332 I be as one."-John Lennon, "Imagine"
YoManBozums
>Eric Berge wrote:
>No style of Okinawan, Japanese, or Korean Karate has ever >been
>taught or used as a battlefield art (the common word in >any
Uh, the ROK army trains in TKD all the time. The Hwarang of the
Silla Dynasty trained in various Korean martial arts for
warfare. The Silla Dynasty eventually dominated Korea. The
martial arts studied by the Hwarang include high and jumping
kicks. Suitable to unhorse a warrior who would have a hard time
getting out of the way of a kick. The simple punches and kicks
of TKD are well-suited to combat as the military needs to teach
simple but effective means of fighting to maximize the
offensive capability of the troops in the shortest amount of
time.
Eric Berge
In Article<58inja$f...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>, <hart...@gpu3.srv.ualberta.ca>
writes:
> I'm not sure about this one. In the Uechi-ryu karate kata, there
> are a number of movements structured around fightng a sword-armed
> opponent. But Uechi-ryu didn't reach Okinawa until the turn of
> the century... the movements must have been developed in
> China at some point.
Interesting - which kata are those? (so I can glance through "Uechi Ryu
Karate-Do" and see if I can spot Kanei U. doing it).
The only movements I can with some certainty point to in Shotokan kata
as being designed to defend against weapons are for defense against
staff (eg the grabbing sequence in Jitte) - which makes me think all
the more that Karate, whether with weapons or empty hands, was designed
to defend against other people who did Karate or Karate-like arts, and
not against invading Samurai.
Which, now that I think about it, is probably true of most martial arts.
Eric Berge
edb...@ibm.net
Eric Berge
In Article<850318...@pcsngb.demon.co.uk>, <moz...@pcsngb.demon.co.uk>
writes:
> A lot of warfare was fuedal cavalry mixed with peasant levies.
..who were generally armed with some sort of simple to produce polearm
like a bill or a pike; that's how the Swiss got their start, after all.
>Then
> the British and Swiss brought in the Longbow and the Pike and professional
> infantry based armies started to reform. The firearm finished the job.
Heh. Trust an Englishman to mention the longbow ("...We few; We happy
few; We band of brothers..."). I don't think the longbow had a very
lasting effect on infantry warfare beyond the hundred years war - no
army outside of the English managed to make very successful use of it,
and even in England by Henry VIII's time the government was having to
pass laws to make people practice.
The pike, on the other hand, is still with us in the form of the bayonet,
although why armies think they still have to fend off cavalry while their
musketeers reload is a mystery to me.
> You have to be careful about Japanese aristocracy the old aristocracy was
> diluted by the Minamoto and Taira, who although originally part of the royal
> line, had been well mixed with a bit of frontier rough. What was left of the
> ancien regime was wiped out by the new Daimyo, most of whom were of "common"
> stock, during the Sengoku-Jidai.
I knew society was a lot more fluid up through about 1600 or so; how many
of Japan's surviving koryu actually have demonstable roots that go back
to the Gempei wars (since you seem to know a hell of a lot more than I
do about Japanese history)? Come to that, how many of them have roots
that go back before the Tokugawa Shogunate, to a period when one might
expect the techniques they teach to have actually seen some use in warfare?
> During this process the samurai Yoroi Kumiuchi
> most have become thoroughly mixed with the peasant Sumo styles. There
> wasn't really a seperate warrior only caste until the late 16th century,
> before then anyone could be a soldier.
Since Sumo seems to have been formalized as a sport in a form more or
less similar to what we see today for a very long time, I would have
guessed that most of the influence would go Sumo->Yoroi Kumi-Uchi,
rather than the other way 'round (figuring that more people familiar
with Sumo would learn YKU rather than the opposite). Unproveable either
way, I suppose.
Come to that, a question that has occurred to me is, what degree of
influence Judo has had in modern times on Sumo? One often sees perfectly
good Judo throws in any given Basho - Lots of Uchi Mata, Hane Goshi,
Sukui Nage, Kubi Nage, Ashi Barai. I know a lot of this stuff existed
earlier, and that there must have been a great deal of influence (in the
early years) Sumo -> Judo; but since nowadays, since anybody who gets
through the Japanese school system - which I assume includes wrestlers -
must be at least passingly familiar with Judo, I would expect there to
be some flow of information the other way, no?
Eric Berge
edb...@ibm.net
Enjoy DM
====================
During the Kofun period, i.e about 2000 years ago, the Tenno's army
consisted
of a phalanx of professional heavy infantry in plate armour, shield, spear
and shortsword. Almost a dead ringer for a third century Roman Legionaire.
Your unarmed MA warrior would be rapidly turned into Sheesh kebab.
The mounted Samurai with his individual combats, mounted archery and
curved
sword, evolved as a Kommando force in the frontier districts. They didn't
move back to the center of Japanese life until the Fujiwara's contracted
out
the collection of taxes and other state functions to the Taira and
Minamoto
clans.
=========================
nope....never said that fighting empty hand against weapons were the first
option.
Richard H. Kim
In the Year of Our Lord Wed, 11 Dec 1996 10:00:37 -0800, the Heathen YoManBozums
<frank...@sandiegoca.ncr.com> wrote:
>Uh, the ROK army trains in TKD all the time. The Hwarang of the
>Silla Dynasty trained in various Korean martial arts for
>warfare.
THe hwarang were mainly trained inteh arts of buracracy. Archery was a
sideline. I find it funny the number of people who hero worship the hwarang.
hehe. Its funny how little the hwarang are thought of Korea.
>The Silla Dynasty eventually dominated Korea.
>
Not because of the hwarang, but rather throught a rather complicated system of
alliances with China.
>The
>martial arts studied by the Hwarang include high and jumping
>kicks.
>
Thats bull. There is no definitive text on ANY matter concerning the martial
arts in Korea.
hehehe. Study Korean history some more before getting back to us.
edb...@ibm.net
Ooops - got that wrong. There _were_ Japanese in Japan 2000 yrs ago; they had
immigrated some hundreds of years earlier.
Sorry.
Eric
In article <NEWTNews.8503195...@ibm.ibm.net>,
Eric Berge <edb...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
>
> Not to mention the fact that the "Japanese" weren't, at the time, living
> in Japan - They immigrated later, displacing the native Ainu population.
>
> Who didn't have guns either. So what?
>
> Eric Berge
Enjoy DM
----------
Eric Burger wrote:
Suggestion: Crack a book sometime; it wouldn't hurt.
Eric Berge
edb...@ibm.net
==================
does being a geek gets lots of chicks?
Don Wagner
In <19961212035...@ladder01.news.aol.com> enj...@aol.com
(Enjoy DM) writes:
>
>----------
>Eric Burger wrote:
>
>Suggestion: Crack a book sometime; it wouldn't hurt.
>
>Eric Berge
>edb...@ibm.net
>does being a geek gets lots of chicks?
What are you? A "Fireman" from Bradburys "451" story?
;-)
--Don "It was a pleasure to burn"--
Sean Hartigan
Eric Berge (edb...@ibm.net) wrote:
:
: > I'm not sure about this one. In the Uechi-ryu karate kata, there
: > are a number of movements structured around fightng a sword-armed
: > opponent.
: Interesting - which kata are those? (so I can glance through "Uechi Ryu
: Karate-Do" and see if I can spot Kanei U. doing it).
The most obvious examples are the "jump-back" and "leap-in" moves in
Seisan kata, which are a defense against a low-high sword (or baseball
bat, or whatever) combination.
The block "lean-in" elbow-strike combination in Seisan (about the middle
of the kata) is also taught as a defence against an overhead sword
strike.
: The only movements I can with some certainty point to in Shotokan kata
: as being designed to defend against weapons are for defense against
: staff (eg the grabbing sequence in Jitte) - which makes me think all
: the more that Karate, whether with weapons or empty hands, was designed
: to defend against other people who did Karate or Karate-like arts, and
: not against invading Samurai.
The step-in elbow/backfist/shoken combinations found throughout
the Uechi-ryu kata (first found in Kanshiwa kata) are usually taught as a
generic defense against an overhand weapon attack. The Uechi-ryu
circle block is also a "generic" block, in that it can be used against
either a weapon-armed thrust or an empty-handed punch, grab, etc. I took
a seminar on "edged weapon defense" once and was interested to see that
the defences, derived from Filipino MA, were (mostly) very similar to
Uechi-ryu guiding/grabbing blocks.
This said, I don't think Uechi-ryu was ever used (or designed to be
used) against samurai, since it didn't arrive in Okinawa until 1920 or so.
-- Sean Hartigan
Richard H. Kim
In the Year of Our Lord Tue, 10 Dec 96 18:28:24, the Heathen Eric Berge
<edb...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
>In Article<19961210040...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, <enj...@aol.com>
>writes:
>
>> did the Japs have guns 2,000 years ago?
>>
>> case closed.
>
>Does being that stupid hurt? Just curious.
>
>Eric Berge
>edb...@ibm.net
>
>
here's some more stuff htat kind a got wierdly routed:
><<
>>what does "martial" means?
>>
> Of or having to do with war. But that was nto your original argument. You
> are really grasping at straws. First you call MA's what you use after your
> weapon jams and what the Chinese did during the boxer rebellion, now you
> want it do with WAR arts? What does that have to do with the Japanese
> systemizng an unarmed fighting system a few hundred years and the English
> not? None. take it back to the group if you want. I'd like to see how
> many more people laugh you off.
>didn't answer my question Wendy...
>
>what does "martial" means...
>
Answered that in the first sentence.
More crap from enjoydm:
>>Bullshit. The M-16A2 is a better weapon than almost any variant of the
>>AK-47. Better battlefield ballistics and such. You are really grasping at
>>straws here, bud. Tak care of your weapon, and it will take care of you.
>that crap jams quite often in full auto....my AK is more reliable and
>powerful...
>bye Wendy
Yeah, I wanna know, too. Does it hurt when you're stupid, or does it come
naturally?
The 16a2 doesn't come in auto, you moron. Power doesn't count for as
ballistics, and power just means its tougher to aim on full auto which you seem
to enjoy so much. Idiot.
Damon Stone
Eric Berge wrote:
>
You were doing so well until you got here.
> The pike, on the other hand, is still with us in the form of the bayonet,
> although why armies think they still have to fend off cavalry while their
> musketeers reload is a mystery to me.
>
The bayonet has nothing, and I mean nothing to do with a pike.
They don't resemble each other in, function or design more than
something pointy on something not pointy to keep people away
if they get to close. THAT describes a majority of weapons
around the world. The bayonet is much closer to a hanbo with
a small blade at the top and a weight at the bottom in function
and design. The butt is used for short arcing blows, blocks, and
smashing, while the top is used for piercing thrusts, slashing,
and parries.
YT Damon
(a pike? how in the world is a bayonet like a ornery fish?)
Eric Berge
In Article<19961212035...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, <enj...@aol.com>
writes:
>
> >Suggestion: Crack a book sometime; it wouldn't hurt.
> does being a geek gets lots of chicks?
No, ya got me there. All the hot babes go for ignorant, stupid, and
hung like a hamster. Guess you're in luck.
Eric Berge
edb...@ibm.net
Eric Berge
In Article<32b09b7c...@news.iadfw.net>, <vari...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
writes:
> THe hwarang were mainly trained inteh arts of buracracy. Archery was a
> sideline. I find it funny the number of people who hero worship the
hwarang.
> hehe. Its funny how little the hwarang are thought of Korea.
>
I think I can answer that one - about fifteen years ago, when I was
training with an ITF group, one of things we had to do for belt gradings
was memorize and regurgitate the "history" associated with the names
of the hyungs, "hwarang" being the (I think) blue belt level form.
I remember having to learn to recite a paragraph or so of happy burble
about the virtuous hwarangs of yore; perhaps that's where this comes
from?
On the other hand, I can't find anything like that in Choi Hong Hi's book
(although I know there are other editions, so maybe there?), so perhaps
its not an ITF thing?
Eric Berge
edb...@ibm.net
Eric Berge
In Article<32B078...@wonderland.com>, <dorm...@wonderland.com> writes:
> Path:
> Eric Berge wrote:
> >
> You were doing so well until you got here.
>
> > The pike, on the other hand, is still with us in the form of the bayonet,
> > although why armies think they still have to fend off cavalry while their
> > musketeers reload is a mystery to me.
> >
> The bayonet has nothing, and I mean nothing to do with a pike.
> They don't resemble each other in, function or design more than
> something pointy on something not pointy to keep people away
> if they get to close.
Actually, the bayonet was invented as a substitute for the pike.
Musketeers were originally formed up for battle under the protection
of a line of pikemen; they would fire off a volley and then retire
under cover of the pikes so that they could reload without being
ridden down by enemy cavalry.
Bayonets were invented to combine these functions into one more versatile
weapon (the original bayonets were the "plug" style, which fit into the
bore of the musket; they were replaced by "socket" bayonets which had
a sleeve that fit over the muzzle and allowed the weapon to be reloaded
and fired with the bayonet in place). With the bayonet, the infantryman
had a missile weapon that could also be used to defend against cavalry
(which could otherwise take advantage of the slow firing rate of
muzzleloading weapons to attack), and also be used offensively as a shock
weapon in exactly the same way as the pike squares of the 16th Century.
IMO, the bayonet has pretty much run its course as a useful weapon.
Unless, of course, someone wants to give be a recent example of military
combat involving a bayonet charge?
Eric Berge
edb...@ibm.net
Richard H. Kim
In the Year of Our Lord Thu, 12 Dec 96 17:53:00, the Heathen Eric Berge
<edb...@ibm.net> wrote:
>I think I can answer that one - about fifteen years ago, when I was
>training with an ITF group, one of things we had to do for belt gradings
>was memorize and regurgitate the "history" associated with the names
>of the hyungs, "hwarang" being the (I think) blue belt level form.
>
>I remember having to learn to recite a paragraph or so of happy burble
>about the virtuous hwarangs of yore; perhaps that's where this comes
>from?
>
>On the other hand, I can't find anything like that in Choi Hong Hi's book
>(although I know there are other editions, so maybe there?), so perhaps
>its not an ITF thing?
>
Nah, I know what the Hwarang were and what they did. It seems the average
American needs some sort of hero ideal to worship like the samurai. Anyhow, the
hyung you are refering to is called hwarang and its still taught today in ITF
dojangs.
Eric Berge
In Article<32b1f651...@news.iadfw.net>, <vari...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu>
writes:
> Nah, I know what the Hwarang were and what they did. It seems the average
> American needs some sort of hero ideal to worship like the samurai. Anyhow,
the
> hyung you are refering to is called hwarang and its still taught today in
ITF
> dojangs.
My point was less that I could tell you who the Hwarang were than that
people learning the form get and earful of praise for them, and that maybe
that's where the odd misconceptions about them come from?
Eric Berge
edb...@ibm.net
Richard H. Kim
In the Year of Our Lord Fri, 13 Dec 96 07:39:57, the Heathen Eric Berge
<edb...@ibm.net> wrote:
I suppose. I'm just sick about hearing about the Hwarang 'blah blah blah,
warrior ideal, martial arts, blah blah" when in reality they were more trained
to deal with the rigors of a governmental bureuacracy.