Yet Another Shuai Chiao Post
Rue The Day
only Shuai Chiao book in print (there is another called Fundamentals
of Shuai Chiao but it's out of print). Here are my thoughts on the
techniques in the book.
A lot of the throws are easily recognizable from Judo and wrestling:
Judo - O Goshi, Ippon Seoi Nage, Osoto Gari, Ouchi Gari, Kata Garuma,
Tomoe Nage, among others
Wrestling - double leg, low single, high single, ankle pick
Beyond that, most of the techniques are variations of the basic trip.
Opponent throws a punch or kick, you grab his striking arm/leg while
hooking your foot around his ankle, then you pull his captured limb in
one direction while twisting his torso in the other direction causing
him to trip over your foot in a very awkward (for him) position.
I did not really see any joint lock throws like one would see in
Aiki-Jujitsu which is what I had initially expected.
So, my opinion is that it does have some interesting facets,
particularly in terms of how you get into different positions to throw
as a defense against strikes, but nothing really new as far as
throwing techniques go.
Albert Yang
Well, since Judo came from Shuai Chiao, no big surprises there..
What were you expecting exactly? Like big BIG surprises?
Mike Sigman
"Albert Yang" <albert...@achtung.com> wrote in message
news:b9tu6b$mvjna$1...@ID-172581.news.dfncis.de...
> > So, my opinion is that it does have some interesting facets,
> > particularly in terms of how you get into different positions to throw
> > as a defense against strikes, but nothing really new as far as
> > throwing techniques go.
>
>
> Well, since Judo came from Shuai Chiao, no big surprises there..
>
> What were you expecting exactly? Like big BIG surprises?
>
>
>
Not to mention that if you went and bought one of the early books on judo or
any other art, there would be nothing in it but a simplistic runthrough of
some of the basic techniques. You'd get no idea of what the art really
looked like in toto.
Mike
Olaf
Albert Yang wrote:
Well, that brings us back full circle I guess, as I think that
was the assumption that started the previous thread. Do we
wait a few months before starting it again or just cut and paste
old posts :).
-Olaf
TK Sung
"Albert Yang" <albert...@achtung.com> wrote in message
news:b9tu6b$mvjna$1...@ID-172581.news.dfncis.de...
>
>
make it more interesting by injecting "eastern barbarian" nationalism.
Consider a possibility of shuai chiao and judo tracing back to the same
progenitor practiced by northern nomads. Chinese imports it and incorporates
into its style creating shuai chiao. Meanwhile, it propagates to another
branch as mongolian wresting-ssirum-sumo-jujitsu-judo.
Is that fun or what?
@hotmail.com.invalid Eric D. Berge
<albert...@achtung.com> wrote:
>Well, since Judo came from Shuai Chiao
Unsupported by any evidence.
Mike Sigman
"TK Sung" <tks...@wahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hWvwa.493$lL6.42...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
It's dumb. Once again it shows that you're ignorant of a LOT of peripheral
data.
Mike
Mike Sigman
"Eric D. Berge" <eric_berge @ hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:eq15cvo4bokvraotn...@4ax.com...
That you believe in. Doesn't matter... all these posts are on record by
the "experts". Place your bets, folks, on who's right. The shrill will be
silenced.
:^)
Mike
Olaf
Mike Sigman wrote:
I'm wondering how its going to be determined who is right. I suspect
there isn't anywhere close to enough historical evidence around for
more than opinions to be expressed. But I'm willing to be proven
wrong, and a pointer to published results in some peer reviewed
historical or anthropological journal will get more "You were
right, sorry for doubting you" kind of statements than you could
possibly use.
-Olaf
@hotmail.com.invalid Eric D. Berge
>I'm wondering how its going to be determined who is right. I suspect
>there isn't anywhere close to enough historical evidence around for
>more than opinions to be expressed. But I'm willing to be proven
>wrong, and a pointer to published results in some peer reviewed
>historical or anthropological journal will get more "You were
>right, sorry for doubting you" kind of statements than you could
>possibly use.
Well, the lineages of the Tenshin Shinyo, Fusen, and Kito ryu are all
available for study; no Shuai Chiao there.
Kano is not, to the best of my knowledge, thought to have had any
contact with Shuai Chiao.
There hasn't been any particularly strong evidence brought forward on
any of these threads that Shuai Chiao even _existed_ as a discrete
style, as opposed to a collective term for a variety of diverse
regional wrestling styles across parts of China prior to Chang Dung
Sheng. In fact, I would be curious to know if, or to what degree, his
style is taught in the mainland at all, and how unified Chinese
Wrestling is apart from his lineage.
I'm honestly puzzled by how anyone can even equivocally state that
Judo might be derived from Shuai Chiao, considering the wealth of
evidence to the contrary.
Chinese chauvinist mythology to the contrary, of course.
YoJimbo
says...
I vote that TK Sung has an interesting idea that cannot be dismissed.
Shuai jiao came from Mongolian rasslin, at least he's right on
one item already. Judo, I dunno, possible.
However, I digress. Using the logic we see
here on RMA, since ancient Mongolian wrestling predates modern shuai jiao,
the ancient Mongolians were far better fighters than the shuai jiao
crowd. And the shuai jiao people stole all their uniforms from them,
too. And shuai jiao is a sport, while mongolian rasslin' is a no-nonsense
system of deadly combat, far more complete.
Have I got the spiel right here? :-)
Let's lay the cards on the table, I think this will be fun.
We haven't had nearly enough shuai jiao threads, let's jack this thing
up to thousands.
JS
JS
Mike Sigman
"Olaf" <ol...@I.Hate.Spam.com> wrote in message
news:3EC29629...@I.Hate.Spam.com...
> > That you believe in. Doesn't matter... all these posts are on record
by
> > the "experts". Place your bets, folks, on who's right. The shrill
will be
> > silenced.
>
> I'm wondering how its going to be determined who is right. I suspect
> there isn't anywhere close to enough historical evidence around for
> more than opinions to be expressed. But I'm willing to be proven
> wrong, and a pointer to published results in some peer reviewed
> historical or anthropological journal will get more "You were
> right, sorry for doubting you" kind of statements than you could
> possibly use.
I supposed it's because I had as strong a Japanophile viewpoint as anyone
(via judo, karate, and aikido) that I have to admit that my perspective of
what happened took me a number of years to admit and to understand the China
versus Asia viewpoint. I'm not just shooting from the hip. China was that
big. And there's still a sense of the old relationships under the
superficial layers of today's history, so bear in mind that a good part of
China's present political viewpoint is to reclaim its territorial dominance
of yesterday. The shuai-jiao/judo thing is actually a no-brainer that I
don't think is going to "require proof" so much as "require education" of
the "experts" who simply don't know. IMO, this is such a laydown that the
demands for proof, etc., aren't worth the effort... and the protests are
interesting because people took such fixed positions of protest are now in
archived records. :^)
Mike
Mike Sigman
"Eric D. Berge" <eric_berge @ hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>
> Well, the lineages of the Tenshin Shinyo, Fusen, and Kito ryu are all
> available for study; no Shuai Chiao there.
>
Hmmm... I don't think anyone posited that they had.
> Kano is not, to the best of my knowledge, thought to have had any
> contact with Shuai Chiao.
I don't know of any written documents saying Kano studied, etc., shuai jiao,
and I don't think that was posited. *However*, I've often thought that Kano
was far more familiar with shuai jiao than the written records indicated.
That is simply speculation on my part, though. What little I bothered to
read about Kano was years ago and I never thought it important to read much
of it. Again, I have to mention that I have been fairly surprised at the
"histories" of Japan I've been encountering that make no mention of China or
Chinese influence when they read, talk, write, cure, and wear Chinese
everyday..... that non-mentioning of Chinese influence *may* have been a
factor in why the China thing is such a surprise to a lot of people.
>
> There hasn't been any particularly strong evidence brought forward on
> any of these threads that Shuai Chiao even _existed_ as a discrete
> style, as opposed to a collective term for a variety of diverse
> regional wrestling styles across parts of China prior to Chang Dung
> Sheng. In fact, I would be curious to know if, or to what degree, his
> style is taught in the mainland at all, and how unified Chinese
> Wrestling is apart from his lineage.
I don't think that any particularly strong evidence has been brought forward
to even prove China exists, in this thread. It may not, since no proof has
been given. Maybe it's more like the "rocket trip to the moon" that was
fabricated????
>
> I'm honestly puzzled by how anyone can even equivocally state that
> Judo might be derived from Shuai Chiao, considering the wealth of
> evidence to the contrary.
I think these words should be copied in large print like this:
"I'm honestly puzzled by how anyone can even equivocally state that Judo
might be derived from Shuai Chiao, considering the wealth of evidence to the
contrary." -- Eric D. Berge
And kept for about 5 years or 10 years (or however long it takes) and then
be presented back to Berge at some party. :^)))
Mike
Rue The Day
>
> What were you expecting exactly? Like big BIG surprises?
I forgot to mention - there's also a chapter on groundfighting. Some
basic submissions from the mount and the guard as well as some basic
escapes from those positions. I was kinda surprised to hear him use
those terms for the positions though. I was waiting for him to say
omo plata or mata leao.
Olaf
Mike Sigman wrote:
Actually no-brainers have a pretty poor track record historically, starting
with Aristotle's physics and getting worse as time went forward.
Asking for proof is pretty basic, and tends to turn up
surprising answers. Being told there's no need for proof tends to
make me suspicious, and I've found it either means there is no proof,
or the proof goes against the person telling me its not necessary.
-Olaf
Mike Sigman
>
Being told there's no need for proof tends to
> make me suspicious, and I've found it either means there is no proof,
> or the proof goes against the person telling me its not necessary.
> >> -Olaf
I dunno what it is that you guys smoke, Olaf, but this imprecise way of
approaching assertions and attributions that I've seen in the last few weeks
is really leaving an impression on me about the effects of judo on memory.
:^))) I've never said there is no proof.... I simply demurred from
pretending to be an expert and presenting proof. It would mean too much
work for me to compile that much stuff in subjects I have *stated openly* I
am no expert in and have little real interest in. All I've done is point
out that a storm is coming, based on what I have personally seen and heard
corroborated satisfactorily... and all I get are people telling me that I'm
not an expert in meteorology and demands that I provide the weather data to
support it. :^)
Just the fact that Albert, who appears to want to stay on my bad side by
insulting me, has gotten offhand support for what I've been saying... that
should make you wonder whether there is some *massive* Chinese conspiracy
that I've somehow become part of or whether there may be something worth
looking at and therefore doing some research. What's really interesting is
that the clinical searches or the "I'll look into it" sort of responses one
would encounter in most groups of really interested people have been
foregone in favor of personal attacks, assertions of "qualifications", etc.
It makes me wonder what the real interests of some of the people are.
So if your choices are only the two: "there is no proof" or "the proof goes
against the person telling you that it's not necessary (for him to
provide)", then you will be remembered along with Berge and Holmes et al.
:^)
Mike
ho_hum yawwwn
Shitfire!!
dreedle p. fartwhistle
TK Sung
peripheral
> data.
>
I'm not dumb enough to insist on unsupported speculation being a fact
without those. As far as peripheral data goes, I know a bit about history
and people's movement in that area consisting of scytho-siberian and chinese
branch, and cultural intercourse between them. What I threw in was along
those line.
Now, carry on with your "logical conculsions".
ho_hum yawwwn
> You'd get no idea of what the art really
> looked like in toto.
w'll pardon me cap'n ain't Toto get back in Kansas? He dint eat buncha
vangoes didee? Gotta slice ol' Toto open t' get at 'em now? Hope they
wa'nt too ripe, shame to haff clean up tHAT mess, vangoe used oll
paint dintee?
Put right shit innit, my '58 ford van still goes.
At yur'n servis sir,
dreedle p. fartwhistle
TK Sung
"YoJimbo" <Seagul...@LowBudget.com> wrote in message
news:b9u7bd$n7k$1...@Crestone.UCHSC.edu...
>
> Judo, I dunno, possible.
>
That was my contribution to a stew of wild speculations. Yaoyi Japanese
landed on Kyushu around 2000 years ago from Korean peninsula with farming
and quickly replaced Jomon native. Language-wise, there is widely
circulated theory that Japanese was derived from the northern kingdom on the
peninsula. Afterwards, there were also great deal of intercourse between
Yamato Japanese and peninsula, described as "brotherly relationship" on the
Japanese gov website.If those are true, Japanese can trace back to "eastern
barbarian" root of northern nomads as to Han chinese.
Now, does it have any correlation with martial art history? It's just one
big speculation unless someone can prove it. But I don't think it is no
more ridiculous than insisting judo is derived from chuai chiao.
Mike Sigman
>
> >
> Not true. What I'm missing is a LOT of *core* supporting data. At least
> I'm not dumb enough to insist on unsupported speculation being a fact
> without those.
Why don't you ask specific questions using Albert as an intermediary? The
answers may not be complete (and I'll bet that if they're not, none of the
judo crowd will be able to seduce the teacher in the park to go look for the
precise answers by insulting him), but at least they'll give pointers. IF
you're interested. My stance is that few people seem interested in pursuing
what generally accurate information I've given... the RMA stance of proving
a point wrong through insult seems to be the M.O. Email Albert in public
or private, if you're interested. Frankly, you seem so determined in your
perspective that I don't have much interest in talking about it much more.
> As far as peripheral data goes, I know a bit about history
> and people's movement in that area consisting of scytho-siberian and
chinese
> branch, and cultural intercourse between them. What I threw in was along
> those line.
>
> Now, carry on with your "logical conculsions".
You know a bit, do you? I'm amazed at how many judo people are just simply
"qualified", frankly. Why would pre-history that pre-dates the population
of the Japanese islands by the Koreans have much bearing on this? I'm
ready at any moment for someone to tell me that Kanji was developed
independently of the Chinese.
Mike
TK Sung
"ho_hum yawwwn" <fartw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:97b814cc.03051...@posting.google.com...
> Yeah you igrorant sumbitch you, TeeKay, periffle data that's th
mos'portant part!
>
hide behind my initials anymore!
Olaf
Mike Sigman wrote:
> "Olaf" <ol...@I.Hate.Spam.com> wrote in message
> news:3EC2B2BF...@I.Hate.Spam.com...
> >
>
> Being told there's no need for proof tends to
> > make me suspicious, and I've found it either means there is no proof,
> > or the proof goes against the person telling me its not necessary.
> > >> -Olaf
>
> I dunno what it is that you guys smoke,
Well, they're going to decriminalize pot in Canada :).
> Olaf, but this imprecise way of
> approaching assertions and attributions that I've seen in the last few weeks
> is really leaving an impression on me about the effects of judo on memory.
> :^))) I've never said there is no proof.... I simply demurred from
> pretending to be an expert and presenting proof.
Hmm, reading what I wrote I don't see any indication that I claimed
you said you had no proof. But whether you have it or not the proof
hasn't been presented.
> It would mean too much
> work for me to compile that much stuff in subjects I have *stated openly* I
> am no expert in and have little real interest in. All I've done is point
> out that a storm is coming, based on what I have personally seen and heard
> corroborated satisfactorily... and all I get are people telling me that I'm
> not an expert in meteorology and demands that I provide the weather data to
> support it. :^)
>
Except that at this point its your opinion against other folks opinion,
which isn't really a compelling reason to take your viewpoint. Moreover,
the storm analogy breaks down in that there is no hurry to come to
the correct opinion on this, if the truth comes out tomorrow or in
ten years or a hundred years it won't change anyone's life for the
better or the worse. Its an academic discussion, and these have
the luxury of allowing time for certainty.
>
> Just the fact that Albert, who appears to want to stay on my bad side by
> insulting me, has gotten offhand support for what I've been saying... that
> should make you wonder whether there is some *massive* Chinese conspiracy
> that I've somehow become part of or whether there may be something worth
> looking at and therefore doing some research. What's really interesting is
> that the clinical searches or the "I'll look into it" sort of responses one
> would encounter in most groups of really interested people have been
> foregone in favor of personal attacks, assertions of "qualifications", etc.
> It makes me wonder what the real interests of some of the people are.
>
Actually I'm pretty bad about conspiracy theories of any kind; Ockham's
razor tends to cut them out. Conflicting circumstanstial evidence of
the kind surrounding judo and shiao jiao doesn't need conspiracies
to prefer either side of the argument.
>
> So if your choices are only the two: "there is no proof" or "the proof goes
> against the person telling you that it's not necessary (for him to
> provide)", then you will be remembered along with Berge and Holmes et al.
> :^)
>
> Mike
Well, it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong, and I'm quite willing
to change my tune when its clear that I'm mistaken. The historical
consequences of this discussion I suspect won't have a long enough
reach that my grandchildren will be reading about it in their history
classes, so I'm not too concerned either way. As an engineer I've
found asking for proof works very well, so I think I'll stick with
that approach.
-Olaf
TK Sung
>
> Why don't you ask specific questions using Albert as an intermediary?
> My stance is that few people seem interested in pursuing
> what generally accurate information I've given...
>
lineage since you are the one insisting that being a fact. On the other
hand, if you are merely suggesting a distant possibility and asking people
what they think of it...
>
> I'm amazed at how many judo people are just simply
> "qualified", frankly.
>
Huh? It seems to me that they've only been asking for supporting evidence
for shuai chiao being the progenitor of judo, other than some similarity.
Why is that being "qualified"?
> I'm
> ready at any moment for someone to tell me that Kanji was developed
> independently of the Chinese.
>
I already told you that I know about the cultural intercourse. What more do
you want?
Mike Sigman
>
>
> Mike Sigman wrote:
>
> > "Olaf" <ol...@I.Hate.Spam.com> wrote in message
> > news:3EC2B2BF...@I.Hate.Spam.com...
> > >
> >
> > Being told there's no need for proof tends to
> > > make me suspicious, and I've found it either means there is no proof,
> > > or the proof goes against the person telling me its not necessary.
> > > >> -Olaf
> >
> > I dunno what it is that you guys smoke,
>
> Well, they're going to decriminalize pot in Canada :).
>
You know, I saw that the other day and I thought..."what the hell, they
don't prosecute for it anyway so they might as well 'decriminalize' it so
they don't get so much heat from the American". :^))) They don't
really work too hard at stopping the growing of it, either... a lot of it is
shipped over the border.
> >
>
> Except that at this point its your opinion against other folks opinion,
> which isn't really a compelling reason to take your viewpoint. Moreover,
> the storm analogy breaks down in that there is no hurry to come to
> the correct opinion on this, if the truth comes out tomorrow or in
> ten years or a hundred years it won't change anyone's life for the
> better or the worse. Its an academic discussion, and these have
> the luxury of allowing time for certainty.
Basically true. I already got a few emails from people who hadn't thought
out the enormity of the Chinese effect (one way) on the culture of Japan. I
suspect a number of them will now keep their eyes out and make inquiries.
Like I said once before... the gates of China are only recently opened so
there's more to come.
>
> >
> > So if your choices are only the two: "there is no proof" or "the proof
goes
> > against the person telling you that it's not necessary (for him to
> > provide)", then you will be remembered along with Berge and Holmes et
al.
> > :^)
> >
> > Mike
>
> Well, it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong, and I'm quite willing
> to change my tune when its clear that I'm mistaken. The historical
> consequences of this discussion I suspect won't have a long enough
> reach that my grandchildren will be reading about it in their history
> classes, so I'm not too concerned either way. As an engineer I've
> found asking for proof works very well, so I think I'll stick with
> that approach.
Sure, but sometimes "asking" is better replaced by "looking" and common
sense. But whatever.
Mike
Mike Sigman
>
> > ...
> > My stance is that few people seem interested in pursuing
> > what generally accurate information I've given...
> >
> Why should anybody? It's your job to supply evidence for shuai chiao-judo
> lineage since you are the one insisting that being a fact. On the other
> hand, if you are merely suggesting a distant possibility and asking people
> what they think of it...
>
Not my job at all. I know that jiu jitsu is a progenitor of judo, also
(we've discussed this), but I don't have the books and sources, etc., to
"prove" it at the moment and I wouldn't go run down the proof if someone
asked me too. So if I mentioned that, would you say that I am implying a
"distant possibility"? Or would you say that perhaps, given the massive
assimilation of Chinese culture in Japanese culture, that it's simply a
"possibility" as opposed to a "distant possibility"?
> > I'm
> > ready at any moment for someone to tell me that Kanji was developed
> > independently of the Chinese.
> >
> I already told you that I know about the cultural intercourse. What more
do
> you want?
Prove it came from China. I've never seen any proof of it, so at best I'd
call it a "distant possibility". How do you know that the Chinese didn't
get it from the Japanese and modify it? Do you have sources? :^))))
Mike
TK Sung
>
Or would you say that perhaps, given the massive
> assimilation of Chinese culture in Japanese culture, that it's simply a
> "possibility" as opposed to a "distant possibility"?
>
progenitor-progeny relationship. Can we settle with that? Personally, I
think it is rather unlikely. If any relationship existed at all, it is more
likely some sort of cross-polination, in either direction.
>
> Prove it came from China. I've never seen any proof of it, so at best I'd
> call it a "distant possibility". How do you know that the Chinese didn't
> get it from the Japanese and modify it? Do you have sources? :^))))
>
Cheeze, proof? Kanji, written in kanji, literally means "chinese
characters". If it originated from Japan, it would've been called Wa-ji.
Being a chinese/japanese expert that you are, you obviously can't read
chinese/janji/hanja characters, can you?
Mike Sigman
>
> "Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:vc5k3bg...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> Or would you say that perhaps, given the massive
> > assimilation of Chinese culture in Japanese culture, that it's simply a
> > "possibility" as opposed to a "distant possibility"?
> >
> Possibility of some sort relationship, and a distant possibility of
> progenitor-progeny relationship. Can we settle with that? Personally, I
> think it is rather unlikely. If any relationship existed at all, it is
more
> likely some sort of cross-polination, in either direction.
>
> >
> > Prove it came from China. I've never seen any proof of it, so at best
I'd
> > call it a "distant possibility". How do you know that the Chinese
didn't
> > get it from the Japanese and modify it? Do you have sources?
:^))))
> >
> Cheeze, proof? Kanji, written in kanji, literally means "chinese
> characters".
Sure, but that doesn't prove anything does it? I mean... I could argue
this into the ground easily if I was on the judo-L.
If it originated from Japan, it would've been called Wa-ji.
> Being a chinese/japanese expert that you are, you obviously can't read
> chinese/janji/hanja characters, can you?
Katakana, Hiragana, Kanji, Romanji. So you think there was a
"cross-pollenation", do you? :^) You have absolutely no proof of that,
as compared to the massive acquisition of Chinese culture by the Japanese in
*numerous* facets (almost all), but you want to refute the probability that
Chinese martial arts were *mostly* one-way to Japan and all the written
records in China tend to support this idea. But you want to go into denial
for some reason.
Good luck in your efforts.
Mike
Olaf
Mike Sigman wrote:
> "Olaf" <ol...@I.Hate.Spam.com> wrote in message
> news:3EC2C4E3...@I.Hate.Spam.com...
> >
> >
> > Mike Sigman wrote:
> >
> > > "Olaf" <ol...@I.Hate.Spam.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3EC2B2BF...@I.Hate.Spam.com...
> > > >
> > >
>
> > >
> > > So if your choices are only the two: "there is no proof" or "the proof
> goes
> > > against the person telling you that it's not necessary (for him to
> > > provide)", then you will be remembered along with Berge and Holmes et
> al.
> > > :^)
> > >
> > > Mike
> >
> > Well, it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong, and I'm quite willing
> > to change my tune when its clear that I'm mistaken. The historical
> > consequences of this discussion I suspect won't have a long enough
> > reach that my grandchildren will be reading about it in their history
> > classes, so I'm not too concerned either way. As an engineer I've
> > found asking for proof works very well, so I think I'll stick with
> > that approach.
>
> Sure, but sometimes "asking" is better replaced by "looking" and common
> sense. But whatever.
>
> Mike
They're not mutually exclusive, finding out what's true is usually a
combination of doing your own experiments and drawing on the
findings of others. How much research people are willing to do
depends on how important the result is; in this case I'm not interested
in putting in more effort than doing the usual google internet searches,
which doesn't bring up very much. As for common
sense, in this case it can go either way, as all the previous posts
have shown.
-Olaf
Ben Holmes
<mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"Eric D. Berge" <eric_berge @ hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:8m95cv4m4aal32sb6...@4ax.com...
>
>> Well, the lineages of the Tenshin Shinyo, Fusen, and Kito ryu are all
>> available for study; no Shuai Chiao there.
>
>Hmmm... I don't think anyone posited that they had.
Yep... any "Shuai Chiao" influences go so far back as to be
meaningless in practical terms.
>> Kano is not, to the best of my knowledge, thought to have had any
>> contact with Shuai Chiao.
>
>I don't know of any written documents saying Kano studied, etc., shuai jiao,
>and I don't think that was posited. *However*, I've often thought that Kano
>was far more familiar with shuai jiao than the written records indicated.
>That is simply speculation on my part, though. What little I bothered to
>read about Kano was years ago and I never thought it important to read much
>of it. Again, I have to mention that I have been fairly surprised at the
>"histories" of Japan I've been encountering that make no mention of China or
>Chinese influence when they read, talk, write, cure, and wear Chinese
>everyday..... that non-mentioning of Chinese influence *may* have been a
>factor in why the China thing is such a surprise to a lot of people.
>
>> There hasn't been any particularly strong evidence brought forward on
>> any of these threads that Shuai Chiao even _existed_ as a discrete
>> style, as opposed to a collective term for a variety of diverse
>> regional wrestling styles across parts of China prior to Chang Dung
>> Sheng. In fact, I would be curious to know if, or to what degree, his
>> style is taught in the mainland at all, and how unified Chinese
>> Wrestling is apart from his lineage.
>
>I don't think that any particularly strong evidence has been brought forward
>to even prove China exists, in this thread. It may not, since no proof has
>been given. Maybe it's more like the "rocket trip to the moon" that was
>fabricated????
This is a typical response when questions get asked of Mike.
>> I'm honestly puzzled by how anyone can even equivocally state that
>> Judo might be derived from Shuai Chiao, considering the wealth of
>> evidence to the contrary.
>
>I think these words should be copied in large print like this:
>
> "I'm honestly puzzled by how anyone can even equivocally state that Judo
>might be derived from Shuai Chiao, considering the wealth of evidence to the
>contrary." -- Eric D. Berge
And, judging by the evidence thus far presented, Eric Berge is 100%
correct.
>And kept for about 5 years or 10 years (or however long it takes) and then
>be presented back to Berge at some party. :^)))
And what would lead you to believe that if you can't support it now,
you'll be able to support this theory of yours 5 or 10 years from now?
>Mike
TK Sung
>
> Sure, but that doesn't prove anything does it? I mean... I could argue
> this into the ground easily if I was on the judo-L.
>
to argue just for entertainment, but it's going absolutely nowhere, even for
the Usenet standard.
Ben Holmes
<mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"TK Sung" <tks...@wahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:Tgzwa.515$my7.45...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> >
>> Not true. What I'm missing is a LOT of *core* supporting data. At least
>> I'm not dumb enough to insist on unsupported speculation being a fact
>> without those.
>
>Why don't you ask specific questions using Albert as an intermediary?
Acting as an intermediary, I asked specific questions of an unknown
Judo instructor, and he informed me with great detail and supporting
information why Mike Sigman's theory is wrong.
Please don't ask me any further questions, as I plan on ducking them.
Just trust me.
Peter Claussen
<tks...@wahoo.com> wrote:
> "Albert Yang" <albert...@achtung.com> wrote in message
> news:b9tu6b$mvjna$1...@ID-172581.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > Well, since Judo came from Shuai Chiao, no big surprises there..
> >
> Instead of rehashing judo-shuai chiao or chuai chiao-judo lineage, let me
> make it more interesting by injecting "eastern barbarian" nationalism.
> Consider a possibility of shuai chiao and judo tracing back to the same
> progenitor practiced by northern nomads. Chinese imports it and incorporates
> into its style creating shuai chiao. Meanwhile, it propagates to another
> branch as mongolian wresting-ssirum-sumo-jujitsu-judo.
>
> Is that fun or what?
>
>
That is more interesting, in that pretty much any history of jujutsu
needs to at least attempt to account for sumo. And, IIRC, Japanese are
genetically closer to Koreans than to Chinese.
Weren't the Manchu's of northern nomad derivation?
Peter Claussen
Ben Holmes
Or, you could continue long enough for Mike to stop responding to you.
That happens if you keep asking him unanswerable questions.
Teabag
might want to pick one up.
>
> Not to mention that if you went and bought one of the early books on judo or
> any other art, there would be nothing in it but a simplistic runthrough of
> some of the basic techniques. You'd get no idea of what the art really
> looked like in toto.
>
> Mike
Mike Sigman
"Teabag" <teab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:31900951.03051...@posting.google.com...
I always recommend that people go to the top experts if they want the best
info. Try Bruce Tegner's book on judo. or karate. or kung fu. or stick
fighting. :^)))) For years I had a hard time deciding whether those books
were deliberate jokes or not. I think I'd better be careful what I say in
front of some of these judo guys, though.
Mike
Ben Holmes
Ah! This explains Mike's ignorant comments about "early" Judo books. He simply
doesn't know what early Judo books *were*.
The first one published in English was from 1905, and predates any of Tegner's
books by a few years... :)
And it's far from a "simplistic runthough of some of the basic techniques".
See http://www.bestjudo.com for Judo book reviews...
Mike Sigman
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:ba09q...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >I always recommend that people go to the top experts if they want the
best
> >info. Try Bruce Tegner's book on judo. or karate. or kung fu. or stick
> >fighting. :^)))) For years I had a hard time deciding whether those
books
> >were deliberate jokes or not. I think I'd better be careful what I say
in
> >front of some of these judo guys, though.
> >
> >Mike
>
> Ah! This explains Mike's ignorant comments about "early" Judo books. He
simply
> doesn't know what early Judo books *were*.
>
> The first one published in English was from 1905, and predates any of
Tegner's
> books by a few years... :)
>
> And it's far from a "simplistic runthough of some of the basic
techniques".
I have to admit, Ben... you are perhaps the *dumbest* person I have *ever*
seen posting on martial arts who claims to be a"qualified" expert. You
haven't been on-topic or exact in any assertions, rebuttals, etc., that I
can think of. And if this constant nastiness is your normal personality,
you should *NOT* be a teacher of any sort. Get a life. I've already marked
you as below-acceptable-IQ for any discussions I'm willing to get into, so
post your inanities to someone else.
Mike Sigman
Olaf
Ben Holmes wrote:
Is that Kano's "Kodokan Judo"?
-Olaf
TK Sung
"Peter Claussen" <dakot...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:140520032249015158%dakot...@mac.com...
>
> That is more interesting, in that pretty much any history of jujutsu
> needs to at least attempt to account for sumo.
>
about sumo or jujitsu so...
>
> Weren't the Manchu's of northern nomad derivation?
>
Yes, there were xianbeis, jurchins and others that were largely classified
as "eastern barbarian" by chinese. They were warrior tribes who at times
ruled china, Ching dynasty being the latest. Large portion of them were
absorbed into chinese population, and some into korean.
@hotmail.com.invalid Eric D. Berge
>>I always recommend that people go to the top experts if they want the best
>>info. Try Bruce Tegner's book on judo. or karate. or kung fu. or stick
>>fighting. :^)))) For years I had a hard time deciding whether those books
>>were deliberate jokes or not. I think I'd better be careful what I say in
>>front of some of these judo guys, though.
Stay away from Bruce Tegner's books on Judo and Karate.
His Tai Chi book is probably great, though, since Siggy likes him.
>Ah! This explains Mike's ignorant comments about "early" Judo books. He simply
>doesn't know what early Judo books *were*.
>
>The first one published in English was from 1905, and predates any of Tegner's
>books by a few years... :)
>
>And it's far from a "simplistic runthough of some of the basic techniques"
No fooling.
The people who wrote "early Judo books" were mostly dead of old age by
the time Bruce Tegner came on the scene - the best of the very early
crowd were probably Yokoyama's book from 1915 and Uyenishi's from
1905.
There are also Emily Watts' book from 1906 (? I think), and several
books by H. Irving Hancock, including his 1905 book with Higashi
(which may or may not have all that much to do with Kodokan Judo).
Badger North
hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Stay away from Bruce Tegner's books on Judo and Karate.
>
>His Tai Chi book is probably great, though, since Siggy likes him.
Ick. Tegner gets props for being a pioneer, but his knowledge of the
Chinese styles is just horrible. They were still pretty closed when
he was writing, and considering what he did with public styles like
Judo and Karate, it was unavoidable how bad a job he did with Tai Chi
and Kung Fu.
Although I do note Marvel Comics used his kung fu book as their
reference guide for Iron Fist.
Badger Jones
http://members.rogers.com/badger
Weren't robots supposed to be doing all the crap jobs by now?
@hotmail.com.invalid Eric D. Berge
(Badger North) wrote:
>On Thu, 15 May 2003 18:03:52 GMT, Eric D. Berge <eric_berge @
>hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Stay away from Bruce Tegner's books on Judo and Karate.
>>
>>His Tai Chi book is probably great, though, since Siggy likes him.
>
>Ick. Tegner gets props for being a pioneer, but his knowledge of the
>Chinese styles is just horrible. They were still pretty closed when
>he was writing, and considering what he did with public styles like
>Judo and Karate, it was unavoidable how bad a job he did with Tai Chi
>and Kung Fu.
What the web needs is a good glyph for sarcasm.
YoJimbo
Denial?
That's a curious explanation of why people all over the place are
raining on your parade, Mike.
How about if the "one-way chinese transmission" just is ridiculously
over-simplified? How about if people all over these threads are seeing
a huge (and narrow-focused) chinese bias in your comments? All the more
questionable when people want facts from you and you're relying on
"conversations" you had with a few chinese acquaintances...
I know that's the case, because you have zilch documentation you can
bring forth to support anything.
Nobody in the world knows what "all the written records in China" are
saying on these matters anyway. Even to know just the modern records,
somebody would have to read chinese. You don't, so using a phrase like this
to support your is silly.
It's irritating for people in judo and karate to hear a white guy
in love with everything in China trying to sell them on old cultural tales that
reflect a huge chinese bias from square one. Personally, the way you
slam Japan, it appears to me you've swallowed old chinese prejudices hook,
line and sinker. It would be hard for you to protest this, judging by
one absurd post after another from you on how the "Japanophiles" are
missing the boat because they don't bow down to the greatness of China
(i.e., taijiquan over anything, shaolin over karate, shuai jiao over
judo, barefoot doctors over japanese physicians, chinese broccoli over
sushi, etc, etc. etc.
Whatever it is, if it's from China, it's the firstest, the mostest,
the bestest, right Mike? After all, a couple of your teachers told
you so...
Even in a best case scenario, say a competent historican could show point blank
transmission of an art from one country into another, that really doesn't
tell us much in a couple hundred years. I could show that the chinese
introduced their garden design to Japan during the Heian period (they did),
but after a couple hundred years the Japanese turned it into something
entirely different, there's no way a chinese could say the chinese influence
is even present. And yes, sure enough, in the 20th century you'll find
some retro-pollination, like TK Sung suggested above.
But you're hanging desperately on the chinese superiority thing here,
and it's playing fast and loose with the facts. There's simply no way
modern judo is some simple derivation of shiao jiao, the two have
evolved completely separately.
It's no wonder the judo folks here are hammering your butt.
Don't think you're winning this argument with the judo crowd,
you're getting hammered and your ego won't let you concede.
The rest of us know bad history when we see it.
JS
Mike Sigman
"YoJimbo" <Seagul...@LowBudget.com> wrote in message
>
> But you're hanging desperately on the chinese superiority thing here,
> and it's playing fast and loose with the facts.
No, Jim... you're desperately trying another put-down for the embarrassment
of getting caught with your back-stabbing before. You, the "expert" of all
martial arts and quantum theory, the ex-anonymous put-down artist. Show
me ONE quote where I've said *anything* about "superior". If I'm arguing a
historical precedent, which is all I did, then "superiority" has nothing to
do with it. You've simply enjoyed reading the judo pack yapping and forgot
to read what I said. GO FIND THE QUOTE, asshole. (And I say that because
this is simply a personal attack based on your old grudges).
> There's simply no way
> modern judo is some simple derivation of shiao jiao, the two have
> evolved completely separately.
"The two have evolved completely separately"? How much would you like to
bet????? And let's at least make it into the thousands of dollars.
>
> It's no wonder the judo folks here are hammering your butt.
> Don't think you're winning this argument with the judo crowd,
> you're getting hammered and your ego won't let you concede.
> The rest of us know bad history when we see it.
Oh get fucked, Storey. You've gotten weirder and weirder the last few years
and these personal grudges don't help you any. Let me know the size of the
bet.
Weirdwolf
>
> "Peter Claussen" <dakot...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:140520032249015158%dakot...@mac.com...
> >
> > That is more interesting, in that pretty much any history of jujutsu
> > needs to at least attempt to account for sumo.
> >
> Really? I thought I only made that up :-) But then, I don't know much
> about sumo or jujitsu so...
instance through 70 standard techniques in the Nihon Sumo Renmei,(Japanese
Sumo Federation) list you'll see many of the same throws that you see in Ju
Jutsu. The correlation is there in the 10 techniques used from "ancient"
times. "......after the tenth century and the ascendency to power of the
warrior classes, sumo came to be widely practised as a fighting technique
among warriors", (from Sumo published by the Japan Sumo federation.)
In all the schools I have trained in it's been commonly accepted that Ju
Jutsu and Sumo have a common history.
Ted
--
Evil is such a negative term........
I prefer differently moraled.
\ /
0 0
°
~
Y
TK Sung
"Weirdwolf" <weirdwolf@ntl(hatespam)world.com> wrote in message
news:ba16a0$nu24i$2...@ID-169368.news.dfncis.de...
>
> In all the schools I have trained in it's been commonly accepted that Ju
> Jutsu and Sumo have a common history.
>
do some search on my own.
Ben Holmes
>
>
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>news:ba09q...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>>>I always recommend that people go to the top experts if they want the
>>>best info. Try Bruce Tegner's book on judo. or karate. or kung fu.
>>>or stick
>>>fighting. :^)))) For years I had a hard time deciding whether those
>>>books were deliberate jokes or not. I think I'd better be careful what
>>>I say in front of some of these judo guys, though.
>>>
>>>Mike
>>
>> Ah! This explains Mike's ignorant comments about "early" Judo books. He
>> simply doesn't know what early Judo books *were*.
>>
>> The first one published in English was from 1905, and predates any of
>> Tegner's books by a few years... :)
>>
>> And it's far from a "simplistic runthough of some of the basic
>> techniques".
>
>I have to admit, Ben... you are perhaps the *dumbest* person I have *ever*
>seen posting on martial arts who claims to be a"qualified" expert.
Another ad hominem attack...
>You haven't been on-topic or exact in any assertions, rebuttals, etc., that I
>can think of. And if this constant nastiness is your normal personality,
>you should *NOT* be a teacher of any sort. Get a life. I've already marked
>you as below-acceptable-IQ for any discussions I'm willing to get into, so
>post your inanities to someone else.
>
>Mike Sigman
Please don't think that it was un-noticed - that you didn't mention a *single*
book title in defense of your assertion. You assert that early Judo books give
a "simplistic runthough of some of the basic techniques". Yet you can't support
that assertion with reference to exact title and publish date.
Once again, true to form, you assert things with *zero* supporting statements.
And rather than try to support your assertions, you merely provide more personal
insults.
The truth of the matter is that once again, Mike, you've stuck your foot in your
mouth. Perhaps if you'd stick to discussing things you *do* know, people won't
get the wrong impression of you.
TK Sung
>
> If I'm arguing a
> historical precedent, which is all I did, then "superiority" has nothing
to
> do with it.
>
culture but not everything east asian is originated from china, and settle
the issue? That's probably best deal you can get since you are not convince
anybody by extrapolating your superficial "historical precedence" to shuai
chiao-judo.
Mike Sigman
One of the interesting things about all these debates is that there is no
Japan history about Japan until suddenly it appears for the first time.....
written in *Chinese* by Japanese historians. So in other words, the
telling of Japanese history does not begin until the Chinese and Chinese
influence have already been there. Commerce and cultural exchange were
massive between Japan and China. Japan is considered by some people to be a
repository of old Chinese customs and is admired for that by some Chinese.
What has interested me greatly is the lack of Japan-originated sites that
mention much about Chinese influence. Looking at Judo history sites, I
found mostly western versions of Judo history that appear to be derived from
a few Japanese sources which don't really mention any Chinese influence.
One of several judo "history sites" which mention Chinese influences had the
following paragraph (this paragraph is commonly repeated on western sites)
about Chen Yuan Yun (aka Chen Yuan Ping; aka Chin Gempin) included in a
commentary by Allen Gordon:
"A word may be added about the legend that jujitsu was originally introduced
to japan by a chinese named Chen Yuan-ping, approximately in 1644-48, or in
1627 according to the 'Kokushoji' document. However, a large amount of
authentic evidence disproves this. For instance, we have reliable records of
the japanese jujitsu masters, such as Hitotsubashi-Joken, or
Sekigushi-Jushin, who thrived years before the above dates. Authentic
descriptions of jujitsu are found in documents such as
'Yukisenjo-`Monogatari', 'Kuyamigusa', and the old jujitsu 'Densho', which
also predate the legend. This is not necessarily to deny that Chen Yuan-Ping
introduced chinese boxing, 'kempo', to japan. Indeed, it is more or less
reasonable to assume that 'kempo' has some influence on jujitsu."
"Kempo" is the Japanese pronunciation of the Chinese term "chuan fa", which
essentially just means "martial arts" and can be applied to a wide range of
different fighting styles.... so Allen Gordon's simplistic history appears
to be superficial in this bit of commentary.
A fairly typical version widely known among Chinese shuai jiao proponents is
typified by the following comment on www.combatshuaijiao.com :
**********************
The origins of Shuai-Chiao are as old as these of Chinese civilization
itself. Since time immemorial, man has fought, and his most basic fighting
instinct has always been to grapple. This is evidenced by ancient artwork
from cultures around the world, depicting combat through some sort of
grappling.
Chin Dynasty (246 BC ~ 207 BC)
The earliest recorded dynasty, the Chin (or Qin) Dynasty lasted from 246 BC
to 207 BC. It was also the shortest Chinese Dynasty, lasting only during the
reign of one monarch - the legendary Chin Shih-Huang Di. Chin Shih-Huang was
known for his remarkable cruelty and ironhanded rule. He ordered the first
burning of books, the construction of the Great Wall (which protected
China's Northern borders from the invasion of barbarians), and the legalist
school of Chinese philosophy.
Chin Shih-Huang kept his military strong, and combat training was emphasized
during his short reign.
Yuan Dynasty (1277 ~ 1367)
The Mongol hordes were the great Asian Conquerors of early history, leaving
their mark on cultures from Eastern Europe to the Pacific Ocean. These great
conquerors had a nomadic lifestyle that promoted combat skills for all
males. Their tribal games revolved around the so-called 3 Masculine Sports:
Horsemanship, archery, and wrestling.
Mongolian Wrestling, also known as Boke, or Bokh in the Mongol tongue, is a
rugged hand-to-hand sport, relying more on raw physical power than a wide
variety of techniques. Historically, Mongolian Wrestling is reputed to have
influenced Chinese wrestling with its power techniques.
The basic premise behind Bokh is to force an opponent to touch any part of
their body other than the feet to the ground, placing them in a position of
inferiority. This kind of training served the Mongol hordes well in their
conquests, earning them a reputation as fierce soldiers on foot and on
horseback. It was this type of military might that allowed Ganghis Khan to
Conquer China at the end of the Sung Dynasty in 1127.
Ming Dynasty (1277 ~ 1367)
The Ming Dynasty was the re-establishment of Chinese Sovereignty, following
the Mongol conquest. During this time, some of China's martial arts began to
flourish abroad, and Shuai-Chiao also made its presence felt overseas.
Chen Yuan-Ping is credited for bringing Shuai-Chiao to Japan. His intimate
knowledge of Shuai-Chiao's joint locks, controls, takedowns, and throws
formed the basis of what became Jiu-Jitsu, which later evolved into Judo and
Aikido.
***************************
A more detailed commentary using Japanese perspective on the sources for
Jigoro Kano's "Judo" is developed by Steven Cunningham at "A Brief Look at
the "Root Arts" of Judo" on the webpage
http://members.aol.com/Cunningham/ju01002.htm In this history,
Cunningham lays out the relationship of Judo to Jiujitsu and the Chinese
arts.
Rather than get bogged down in a "westerners say" versus "Chinese say"
argument, I looked for something purely Asian to present and I found the
following at a website reporting a meeting:
East Asian Archives -- The Third General Conference of Eastica (a4-17
October 1997, Tokyo, Japan)
At that meeting, Japan, China, R.O.Korea, Mongolia, Macao, and Hong Kong
discussed the national archives and some of the ancient archives they all
maintain. In one report by Japan, I found that they have the following:
**********************************************
Writings by Chinese Immigrants to Ancient Japan
"One category of materials which must be mentioned as symbolic of
Japanese-Chinese cultural exchanges is the writings by Chinese who emigrated
to Japan to avoid the civil strife in China during the transition from the
Ming to the Ch'ing dynasty. Examples include the collected letters and the
book Shoan Shiwa by Chen Yuan Yun (1587-1671), who is known for introducing
various techniques of ceramics, jujutsu (one kind of martial arts), and
other arts to this country."
(A websearch for "Eastica" and "East Asian Archives" should turn up the
site)
**********************************************
So Japan actually has a book by Chen and the "ju" arts are credited among
Asians as deriving from what Chen taught. Of course this is not to say
that Japan had NO martial arts prior to this, but the importance of Chen's
contributions apparently is beyond question for the development of jujitsu.
The importance is recorded in the "Collection of Ancestor's Conversations,
Volume 2, Biography of Chen, Yuan Yun". Still available.
Of course, as I've stated before, if someone watches both Shuai Jiao and
Judo (or related ju arts), the relationship is obvious.
FWIW
Mike Sigman
Ben Holmes
No. Kodokan Judo was first published in 1955, and republished with new material
in 1986.
The book I had in mind was this one:
http://www.bestjudo.com/brjudosakujiroyokoyama.shtml
And, I can't recall where I got the 1905 date... that may be the date it was
*written*, as I do recall that this book was written a number of years before it
was translated into English. (I'm not at home where I can simply pull it off my
shelf and look!)
While there are certainly books on Judo that are "simplistic run-throughs of
some basic technique", it's not necessarily the earliest books as Mike asserted.
Strangely enough, I run a website dedicated to Judo book reviews, and I can't
imagine that Mike was unaware of this. He surely had to know that I'd "bite" on
this inaccuracy.
Ben Holmes
<mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Of course, as I've stated before, if someone watches both Shuai Jiao and
>Judo (or related ju arts), the relationship is obvious.
A statement that you continue to duck providing *any* supporting
statements for.
>FWIW
>
>Mike Sigman
Peter Claussen
<mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> What has interested me greatly is the lack of Japan-originated sites that
> mention much about Chinese influence. Looking at Judo history sites, I
> found mostly western versions of Judo history that appear to be derived from
> a few Japanese sources which don't really mention any Chinese influence.
> One of several judo "history sites" which mention Chinese influences had the
> following paragraph (this paragraph is commonly repeated on western sites)
> about Chen Yuan Yun (aka Chen Yuan Ping; aka Chin Gempin) included in a
> commentary by Allen Gordon:
> "A word may be added about the legend that jujitsu was originally introduced
> to japan by a chinese named Chen Yuan-ping, approximately in 1644-48, or in
> 1627 according to the 'Kokushoji' document. However, a large amount of
> authentic evidence disproves this. For instance, we have reliable records of
> the japanese jujitsu masters, such as Hitotsubashi-Joken, or
> Sekigushi-Jushin, who thrived years before the above dates. Authentic
> descriptions of jujitsu are found in documents such as
> 'Yukisenjo-`Monogatari', 'Kuyamigusa', and the old jujitsu 'Densho', which
> also predate the legend. This is not necessarily to deny that Chen Yuan-Ping
> introduced chinese boxing, 'kempo', to japan. Indeed, it is more or less
> reasonable to assume that 'kempo' has some influence on jujitsu."
> "Kempo" is the Japanese pronunciation of the Chinese term "chuan fa", which
> essentially just means "martial arts" and can be applied to a wide range of
> different fighting styles.... so Allen Gordon's simplistic history appears
> to be superficial in this bit of commentary.
I would say it's your reading that is superficial - a few paragraphs
above your quote is this:
> > The origin of jujitsu is lost in the mists of antiquity. The 'Nihon
> > Shoki', "The Chronicle of Japan", a history, compiled by Imperial
> > command in 720 AD, refers to a tournament of 'Chikara- Kurabe', the
> > contest of strength, which was held in the 7th year of the Emperor
> > Suinin, 230 BC. This is regarded by some historians as the beginning
> > of Sumo, or japanese wrestling, which has something in common with
> > jujitsu. Although it is questionable, whether the said Chikara-Kurabe
> > bore any relation either the Sumo or Jujitsu of later days, the event
> > is recorded as an important authentic historical proof showing the
> > embryonic stage of both sumo and jujitsu in the remote past.
> > According to Draeger and Smith (page 133), the claim that the
> > Takenouchi Ryu was the core jujutsu ryu from which all jujutsu sprang
> > has been shown to be less than accurate. However, the combat
> > techniques from this ryu can be considered a turning point from which
> > various systems came to be identified. This ryu was founded in 1532
> > and borrowed substantially from sumo. Takenouchi devised combat method
> > from various sources that came to be known as 'kogusoku'. This method
> > and others were later classified under the common heading of jujutsu.
http://www.sharpjujitsu.com/history.htm
Peter Claussen
Mike Sigman
I'm not sure you understand.... my point was that I don't consider Allen
Gordon to be accurate. His "Kempo" idea shows that he is in disagreement
with everyone else, including members of the national archives of Japan...
PLUS he doesn't understand the generic application of "kempo". Are you
suggesting that anyone who doesn't agree with your view and Gordon's (who is
demonstrably wrong, by official accounts) is a "superficial" reader? Your
scholarship continues to astound me. Maybe you should get in touch with
Gordon and ask why his view doesn't seem accurate? I think you got smoked
by a "WB" who tossed historical terms around the same way you toss japanese
terms in the hope of impressing others.
Mike Sigman
Matthew Weigel
"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Eric D. Berge" <eric_berge @ hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:8m95cv4m4aal32sb6...@4ax.com...
>
> >
> > Well, the lineages of the Tenshin Shinyo, Fusen, and Kito ryu are all
> > available for study; no Shuai Chiao there.
> >
>
> Hmmm... I don't think anyone posited that they had.
Well, if there's no shuaijiao there, where's the shuaijiao in judo
coming from? Are you dismissing the notion that judo is primarily a
fusion of tenshin shinyo ryu, fusen ryu, and kito ryu?
I pointed this out before, in that fusen ryu was mostly ground
technique, stems from a history of mostly ground technique, and had a
great deal of influence on judo (being the only traditional ryu that
performed well against judo in challenges, they were pretty quick to
adopt it).
That said, it certainly appears that groundwork doesn't exist in any
sophisticated form in shuaijiao, and that leads us to think that fusen
ryu does not stem from shuaijiao. Which ultimately leads to 'one of the
three jiujitsu ryu that had the greatest influence on judo does not stem
from judo,' which ultimately leads us to question the extent to which
you can support any claim that judo is 'obviously' from shuaijiao.
> > Kano is not, to the best of my knowledge, thought to have had any
> > contact with Shuai Chiao.
>
> I don't know of any written documents saying Kano studied, etc., shuai jiao,
> and I don't think that was posited.
It would explain how Kano managed to introduce the judogi to jiujitsu
ryuha and pull it from shuaijiao at the same time, though.
It wouldn't explain the shaolin->Okinawa karategi link, though.
> of it. Again, I have to mention that I have been fairly surprised at the
> "histories" of Japan I've been encountering that make no mention of China or
> Chinese influence when they read, talk, write, cure, and wear Chinese
> everyday.....
And I've been fairly surprised in your claims that this is so, given
that every history text I've ever read on the subject draws pretty clear
links between China and Japan. I certainly can't think of anyone
reputable or experienced in karate who doesn't think karate was clearly
influenced by CMA (and that's ignoring the ones who have seen their kata
performed by CMA stylists).
It's the complete and total assignment of everything Japanese to a
Chinese origin that is not common belief.
> that non-mentioning of Chinese influence *may* have been a
> factor in why the China thing is such a surprise to a lot of people.
What 'non-mentioning'? I have books on karate kata that list the
Chinese styles and forms the kata clearly appear to have stemmed from.
I have books on karate history that spend chapters and chapters on what
came over from China. My judo library is much less extensive, but what
I have makes clear mention that at least some jiujitsu ryuha were
historically known to be derived from CMA.
But that doesn't mean that the ryuha that Kano studied, or largely
adopted into judo, came from CMA. Or that the judogi, which *every*
judo authority I've ever heard asserts -- according to primary sources
-- as having originated in the early 20th century in judo, originated in
shuaijiao. Or that the karategi, which is pretty clearly documented as
having been adopted in the 20th century out of desire to be recognized
by the Dai Nippon Butokai as a real budo art (whose requirements
included adoption of a judogi-like uniform and a judo-like ryu/dan rank
system and attendant belt), came from shaolin in a completely separate
transmission from the shuaijiao->judo gi transmission.
You are asking us to discount every Japanese source on all of these
topics in favor of Chinese sources. That's Chinese chauvinism, pure and
untempered.
--
Matthew Weigel
hacker or something
no longer posting from work
Matthew Weigel
"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> One of the interesting things about all these debates is that there is no
> Japan history about Japan until suddenly it appears for the first time.....
> written in *Chinese* by Japanese historians. So in other words, the
> telling of Japanese history does not begin until the Chinese and Chinese
> influence have already been there.
No question.
> What has interested me greatly is the lack of Japan-originated sites that
> mention much about Chinese influence.
So we've got lots of Chinese sites citing lots of Chinese influence on
JMA, and lots of Japanese sites citing not much Chinese influence on JMA.
And the clear, and obvious winner is... Chinese sites?
Looking at Judo history sites, I
> found mostly western versions of Judo history that appear to be derived from
> a few Japanese sources which don't really mention any Chinese influence.
Then they must be lying?
> "Kempo" is the Japanese pronunciation of the Chinese term "chuan fa", which
> essentially just means "martial arts" and can be applied to a wide range of
> different fighting styles.... so Allen Gordon's simplistic history appears
> to be superficial in this bit of commentary.
It appears to display a superficial knowledge of Chinese and CMA, but
does that say anything about his knowledge of Japanese and JMA?
> A fairly typical version widely known among Chinese shuai jiao proponents is
> typified by the following comment on www.combatshuaijiao.com :
Can you explain why their view is any more authoritative than the
documents this Allen Gordon guy has disputing their claims?
> A more detailed commentary using Japanese perspective on the sources for
> Jigoro Kano's "Judo" is developed by Steven Cunningham at "A Brief Look at
> the "Root Arts" of Judo" on the webpage
> http://members.aol.com/Cunningham/ju01002.htm In this history,
> Cunningham lays out the relationship of Judo to Jiujitsu and the Chinese
> arts.
Yes. Specifically, he lists a lot of ryuha that had an influence on
judo, some of which experienced themselves a Chinese influence, some of
which did not, one of which he claims is directly descended from Chen
Yuan-Ping and shuaijiao.
Yup, *one* influence on judo - admittedly a sizable one - came from
shuaijiao, according to Steven Cunningham. Other influences were
Chinese, but probably not shuaijiao, and a fair number had no clear
origin in China at all.
This, then, from a Japanocentric Western source. Where's that "no
admission of Chinese influence" claim, again?
> book Shoan Shiwa by Chen Yuan Yun (1587-1671), who is known for introducing
> various techniques of ceramics, jujutsu (one kind of martial arts), and
> other arts to this country."
>
> (A websearch for "Eastica" and "East Asian Archives" should turn up the
> site)
>
> **********************************************
>
> So Japan actually has a book by Chen and the "ju" arts are credited among
> Asians as deriving from what Chen taught.
Whereas other sources seem to think Chen was to be credited for just
one, very influential, jiujitsu ryu. I frankly find it much more
believable that general historians' understanding of jiujitsu ryuha is
limited to well-known influential styles.
> Of course this is not to say
> that Japan had NO martial arts prior to this, but the importance of Chen's
> contributions apparently is beyond question for the development of jujitsu.
And these are scholars on general Japanese and Asian history, and
probably shouldn't be expected to pay too much attention (much less be
able to clearly distinguish differences) in martial arts of a similar
bent.
> Of course, as I've stated before, if someone watches both Shuai Jiao and
> Judo (or related ju arts), the relationship is obvious.
Yes, in part based upon how obvious it is that the shuaijiao and judo
uniforms are related. A relationship that one shuaijiao site has
claimed originated with judo.
Mike Sigman
"Matthew Weigel" <wei...@libcom.toomuchspamalready.com> wrote in message
news:weigel-952C58....@news.libcom.com...
>
> > What has interested me greatly is the lack of Japan-originated sites
that
> > mention much about Chinese influence.
>
> So we've got lots of Chinese sites citing lots of Chinese influence on
> JMA, and lots of Japanese sites citing not much Chinese influence on JMA.
>
> And the clear, and obvious winner is... Chinese sites?
I think you missed some of the subtleties of my wording. Actually, you
have 3 or 4 things. Japanese sites. Japanese *originated* sites by
westerners who are presenting their secondary views of Japan and Japanese
history. Chinese sites. Chinese sites which are developed by westerners
whose ideas (right or wrong) originated in China. The problem is the
number of Japanese originated sites that make no real mention of Chinese
influence in history, religion, art, alphabet, food, dress, etc., etc. So
leaving your attitude aside, the idea of "clear and obvious winner" is a
little absurd and beside the point of what appears to be happening.
>
> Looking at Judo history sites, I
> > found mostly western versions of Judo history that appear to be derived
from
> > a few Japanese sources which don't really mention any Chinese influence.
>
> Then they must be lying?
Not necessarily. It's sort of like the same thing that happens with most
Chinese-derived sites/information by westerners... it's more a parody of the
actual information. If you want to see this at work, go look at some of the
"FAQs" you so dutifully post about martial arts. Is it "lying"? No. No
one said that.
>
> > "Kempo" is the Japanese pronunciation of the Chinese term "chuan fa",
which
> > essentially just means "martial arts" and can be applied to a wide range
of
> > different fighting styles.... so Allen Gordon's simplistic history
appears
> > to be superficial in this bit of commentary.
>
> It appears to display a superficial knowledge of Chinese and CMA, but
> does that say anything about his knowledge of Japanese and JMA?
Yes, it does. We're talking about Japanese martial arts and he didn't know
what a general term meant. In fact, he appears to have a pre-set "pooh
pooh" attitude, much like yours, so that adds to the problem. As I
indicated above, this is not a problem unique to Japanese martial arts.
Chinese martial arts suffer exactly the same problem. Most Chinese martial
arts and history books written by westerners are so skewed and superficial
as to be useless. They repeat stories that they've heard and in far too
many cases, those stories turn out to be wrong or simply localized beliefs
that a more knowledgeable native will just laugh at.
>
> > A fairly typical version widely known among Chinese shuai jiao
proponents is
> > typified by the following comment on www.combatshuaijiao.com :
>
> Can you explain why their view is any more authoritative than the
> documents this Allen Gordon guy has disputing their claims?
Who claimed it is "any more authoritative"? It was given as a typical
example in reply to the typical usage of Gordon's dismissal of Chen.
>
> > A more detailed commentary using Japanese perspective on the sources for
> > Jigoro Kano's "Judo" is developed by Steven Cunningham at "A Brief Look
at
> > the "Root Arts" of Judo" on the webpage
> > http://members.aol.com/Cunningham/ju01002.htm In this history,
> > Cunningham lays out the relationship of Judo to Jiujitsu and the Chinese
> > arts.
>
> Yes. Specifically, he lists a lot of ryuha that had an influence on
> judo, some of which experienced themselves a Chinese influence, some of
> which did not, one of which he claims is directly descended from Chen
> Yuan-Ping and shuaijiao.
>
> Yup, *one* influence on judo - admittedly a sizable one - came from
> shuaijiao, according to Steven Cunningham. Other influences were
> Chinese, but probably not shuaijiao, and a fair number had no clear
> origin in China at all.
>
> This, then, from a Japanocentric Western source. Where's that "no
> admission of Chinese influence" claim, again?
Why would you couch it in those terms when obviously I presented the datum?
You keep reaching for something to nail me with rather than look at the
layout of the argument. It's like Holmes taking my words about early books
(including Tegner) and changing it into a long tirade meaning the "earliest"
books. If you look at my words, I've always used "most" or "mostly" not
mentioning Chinese influence and you throw them back at me with the
implication that I said "all". And this is the sort of crap I have seen
from the judo side.
>
> > book Shoan Shiwa by Chen Yuan Yun (1587-1671), who is known for
introducing
> > various techniques of ceramics, jujutsu (one kind of martial arts), and
> > other arts to this country."
> >
> > (A websearch for "Eastica" and "East Asian Archives" should turn up the
> > site)
> >
> > **********************************************
> >
> > So Japan actually has a book by Chen and the "ju" arts are credited
among
> > Asians as deriving from what Chen taught.
>
> Whereas other sources seem to think Chen was to be credited for just
> one, very influential, jiujitsu ryu. I frankly find it much more
> believable that general historians' understanding of jiujitsu ryuha is
> limited to well-known influential styles.
What's your evidence????????????????????????? Or do you mean that you
would *rather* believe what you will? Tell me what your found or "find"
that makes it much more believable. I personally think you're simply
partisan. Not even a maybe in relation to a talk by Asians among other
Asians involving original source material seems to have much affect on your
"beliefs".
But you're at the point where you're admitting a *partial* influence, but
admitting it in such a way as to discredit the concession. And note that I
never said that all parts of judo come from shuai jiao... I just said judo
derives from shuai jiao, which is not an uncommon idea at all when you begin
looking. Yet it was completely and absolutely denied by a number of judo
"experts" of western origin. This was only a quick post that took me about
30 minutes to search and write. The material was quickly and easily
available to anyone searching. It's not in-depth, but it satisfactorily
lays out the general thesis, yet no research was done by any of the judo
crowd which seems, as you do, to be more interested in winning some imagined
battle against the imagined sanctity of "their judo".
Incidentally, there is a parallel comparison in the Chinese arts, but the
facts are less clear and definitive facts are not available. However, it
appears that the body technology of the cute "qi" training came to China via
India as part of the spread of Buddhism. This body technology was like the
advent of nuclear technology because it was so startling. All of the
Chinese martial arts appear to base, at a certain level, there training
around this "qi" technology and so these martial arts could be said to
originate from information derived from India. However, it's obvious that
China had some martial arts prior to the advent of the body technology so it
is certainly valid to say "not all of Chinese martial arts came from India".
And that's a truism, but it misses the point, in the larger picture.
Mike Sigman
Mike Sigman
> In article <vc5cfdh...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "Eric D. Berge" <eric_berge @ hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:8m95cv4m4aal32sb6...@4ax.com...
> >
> > >
> > > Well, the lineages of the Tenshin Shinyo, Fusen, and Kito ryu are all
> > > available for study; no Shuai Chiao there.
> > >
> >
> > Hmmm... I don't think anyone posited that they had.
>
> Well, if there's no shuaijiao there, where's the shuaijiao in judo
> coming from? Are you dismissing the notion that judo is primarily a
> fusion of tenshin shinyo ryu, fusen ryu, and kito ryu?
>
No, I'm simply saying that no one (me) stated or inferred that those ryu
involved direct study of shuai jiao. That was the topic.
> I pointed this out before, in that fusen ryu was mostly ground
> technique, stems from a history of mostly ground technique, and had a
> great deal of influence on judo (being the only traditional ryu that
> performed well against judo in challenges, they were pretty quick to
> adopt it).
>
> That said, it certainly appears that groundwork doesn't exist in any
> sophisticated form in shuaijiao, and that leads us to think that fusen
> ryu does not stem from shuaijiao.
Why does that "lead us to think" that? I can think of several
possibilities like the focus of the art, the addition of material, you may
have your facts wrong and are parrotting something some westerner wrote
mistakenly, etc., etc., any of which could possibly explain your point which
you say "appears" to be.... but having expressed a possibility, you firm it
into a "fact":
> Which ultimately leads to 'one of the
> three jiujitsu ryu that had the greatest influence on judo does not stem
> from judo,' which ultimately leads us to question the extent to which
> you can support any claim that judo is 'obviously' from shuaijiao.
>
> > > Kano is not, to the best of my knowledge, thought to have had any
> > > contact with Shuai Chiao.
> >
> > I don't know of any written documents saying Kano studied, etc., shuai
jiao,
> > and I don't think that was posited.
>
> It would explain how Kano managed to introduce the judogi to jiujitsu
> ryuha and pull it from shuaijiao at the same time, though.
I agree. And it tends to be more or less my own thought, however, since I
"don't know of any written documents" relating to this, I simply said it
wasn't posited.
>
> It wouldn't explain the shaolin->Okinawa karategi link, though.
Well, I didn't want to be drawn too off-topic on that one, but if you look
at the old pictures of old Chinese clothes...including the stuff worn by
Chinese martial artists.... I don't think you'd be disappointed. The
problem is that the natural thought-comparison is more modern Chinese dress
versus modern Japanese gi's, etc. and saying there is no relationship.
>
> > of it. Again, I have to mention that I have been fairly surprised at
the
> > "histories" of Japan I've been encountering that make no mention of
China or
> > Chinese influence when they read, talk, write, cure, and wear Chinese
> > everyday.....
>
> And I've been fairly surprised in your claims that this is so, given
> that every history text I've ever read on the subject draws pretty clear
> links between China and Japan. I certainly can't think of anyone
> reputable or experienced in karate who doesn't think karate was clearly
> influenced by CMA (and that's ignoring the ones who have seen their kata
> performed by CMA stylists).
There's an error on my part. I meant to clarify several times, and I
didn't, that the pure history sites are not unclear of the relationship.
The "histories" I was referring to were the histories that accompany various
sites on Japanese dress, martial arts, bonsai, etc. However, the pure
history sites (I looked through a bunch of them looking for accuracy AND try
ing to find some that were not "Japanese derived") are almost purely
clinical history sites not influenced by "study in Japan" as so many of the
martial "histories".
> My judo library is much less extensive, but what
> I have makes clear mention that at least some jiujitsu ryuha were
> historically known to be derived from CMA.
>
> But that doesn't mean that the ryuha that Kano studied, or largely
> adopted into judo, came from CMA.
Does it mean they didn't? Can you give me a statistical (percentage) idea
of what you think didn't derive from shuai jiao?
> Or that the judogi, which *every*
> judo authority I've ever heard asserts -- according to primary sources
> -- as having originated in the early 20th century in judo, originated in
> shuaijiao. Or that the karategi, which is pretty clearly documented as
> having been adopted in the 20th century out of desire to be recognized
> by the Dai Nippon Butokai as a real budo art (whose requirements
> included adoption of a judogi-like uniform and a judo-like ryu/dan rank
> system and attendant belt), came from shaolin in a completely separate
> transmission from the shuaijiao->judo gi transmission.
>
> You are asking us to discount every Japanese source on all of these
> topics in favor of Chinese sources. That's Chinese chauvinism, pure and
> untempered.
Look at the disparity in view from the statements in the national archives
of China, inscriptions on the tablets at the tomb, comments by Japanese
about the origin of the "ju" arts from Chen Yuan Yun versus the almost
complete dismissal of shuai jiao influence by this rma group. In other
words, look at the evidence on my side, including the massive adaptation of
Chinese culture into Japan, and look at the complete and vicious denial from
most of the judo crowd. Tell me again how this is "Chinese chauvinism,
pure and untempered". I argued the history and you're at best weaseling
now with a "well maybe some of it came via shuai jiao"... but even that
weaseling puts you at odds with knowledgeable Japanese sources (which you
hurry to discount while not discounting any knowledge you may have). My
original comments were about the "slap" in ukemi being more hazardous on
pavement, that judo derives from shuai jiao, and a side comment about the gi
(which you focused on not so much out of interest in the topic but in
looking for something substantive to "show me wrong").
Personally, I still say that it is more hazardous to "slap" on the ground
than on a mat, I still say judo derives from shuai jiao and there is
powerful historical evidence to back me up, and I still *think* the judogi
is copied after the shuai-jiao gi in a scenario almost exactly like the one
you laid out although I have an alternative that I thinks is equally
probable.
What has been interesting was watching the reaction from "experts".
Mike
Badger North
hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>Stay away from Bruce Tegner's books on Judo and Karate.
>>>
>>>His Tai Chi book is probably great, though, since Siggy likes him.
>>
>>Ick. Tegner gets props for being a pioneer, but his knowledge of the
>>Chinese styles is just horrible. They were still pretty closed when
>>he was writing, and considering what he did with public styles like
>>Judo and Karate, it was unavoidable how bad a job he did with Tai Chi
>>and Kung Fu.
>
>What the web needs is a good glyph for sarcasm.
I understood your sarcasm - my nervous system reacted to the idea of
suggesting his book, sent me into a seizure, and when I recovered, the
message had been posted.
And I remember in high school, they had a damn near complete set of
his books in the library. I'm not one for book burning, but there's
times...
Badger Jones
http://members.rogers.com/badger
www.geocities.com/marxistdetective/taunting.htm
Peter Claussen
<mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
If you read other histories, you will see that the term "Chinese
boxing" is a generic term applied to a broad range of Chinese martial
arts, which is understandable if you realize that "chuan fa" directly
translated means "fist method", a literal meaning most Westerners would
understand as boxing.
So your quibble that Gordon misuses kempo is rather shallow.
But that's not the important point. To discredit Gordon you would need
to, for example, show that the individuals Hitotsubashi-Joken and
Sekigushi-Jushin were not jujutsu proponents active prior to Chen
Yuan-Ping in Japan.
) > Are you
> suggesting that anyone who doesn't agree with your view and Gordon's (who is
> demonstrably wrong, by official accounts) is a "superficial" reader?
No, I'm suggesting you are a superficial reader, desperately searching
for some tidbit to support you untenable position, without taking in
the breadth of a reference.
Why superficial? Note that Gordon gives the dates of Chen Yuan-Ping
visit to Japan as 1644-48. The portion I posted references Draeger and
Smith (of which I have a copy and reviewed the relevant portion) that
the jujutsu ryu, Takenouchi, can be documented to exist from 1532,
substantially prior to Chen Yuan-Ping. I don't think you even read the
whole web page that you cite - you just skimmed for the part you
wanted. That is poor scholarship.
Why superficial? There are a host of references both pro and con with
respect to Chen Yuan-Ping's influence on Japanese jujutsu, and the
influence of kempo on jujutsu (and even that is superficial - we need
to discuss the relation between kempo and certain jujutsu schools -
jujutsu itself is a very vague term), yet you manage to provide only a
few skimmings from the internet.
> Your
> scholarship continues to astound me.
Well, if you want to make this a pissing contest, I can tell you that
I've graded student papers and reports on many occasions, and your
scholarship on this issue so far rates about a C. Go back to the
library.
Peter Claussen
Mike Sigman
"Badger North" <young_...@hotmail.REEEMOVEcom> wrote in message
news:3ec4e949....@news21.bellnet.ca...
> >>Ick. Tegner gets props for being a pioneer, but his knowledge of the
> >>Chinese styles is just horrible. They were still pretty closed when
> >>he was writing, and considering what he did with public styles like
> >>Judo and Karate, it was unavoidable how bad a job he did with Tai Chi
> >>and Kung Fu.
> >
> >What the web needs is a good glyph for sarcasm.
>
> I understood your sarcasm - my nervous system reacted to the idea of
> suggesting his book, sent me into a seizure, and when I recovered, the
> message had been posted.
>
> And I remember in high school, they had a damn near complete set of
> his books in the library. I'm not one for book burning, but there's
> times...
Like I said, I thought his books were something of a joke. However, in that
early market of U.S. books on various martial arts he apparently made an OK
living with the superficial info that was in them (no books of that time had
a lot of info in them). Last I heard, some of the books were still being
printed and his heirs are reportedly sensitive to criticisms of the books.
I've got the one on Taiji right beside my book on "Nude Tai Chi" and a few
other collectors items. :^) If you have a "set", it's probably worth
some dough.
Mike
Mike Sigman
>
> > His "Kempo" idea shows that he is in disagreement
> > with everyone else, including members of the national archives of
Japan...
> > PLUS he doesn't understand the generic application of "kempo".
>
> If you read other histories, you will see that the term "Chinese
> boxing" is a generic term applied to a broad range of Chinese martial
> arts, which is understandable if you realize that "chuan fa" directly
> translated means "fist method", a literal meaning most Westerners would
> understand as boxing.
>
Exactly my point. Gordon has the understanding of a lay westerner, not a
complete enough martial arts expert to be writing complete histories.
> So your quibble that Gordon misuses kempo is rather shallow.
Really? Then you think Gordon's use was expert? Or did you bother to
think before you wrote?
>
> But that's not the important point. To discredit Gordon you would need
> to, for example, show that the individuals Hitotsubashi-Joken and
> Sekigushi-Jushin were not jujutsu proponents active prior to Chen
> Yuan-Ping in Japan.
No I don't. There could have been all sorts of martial styles, groups, and
clans before Chen Yuan Yun in China doing all sorts of things. If they
embraced a large part of what he revealed to them into their arts, which is
probably what happened, my point is valid. To discredit Gordon, all I have
to do is point to the archives and a number of supporting sources. Gordon
is in the position of having to defend his shrugging off of Chen using his
glaring error about "Kempo"... he's in the soup.
>
> ) > Are you
> > suggesting that anyone who doesn't agree with your view and Gordon's
(who is
> > demonstrably wrong, by official accounts) is a "superficial" reader?
>
> No, I'm suggesting you are a superficial reader, desperately searching
> for some tidbit to support you untenable position, without taking in
> the breadth of a reference.
Heh. You're sitting there arguing against the national archives of Japan
and saying that I'm a superficial reader. You apparently aren't even a
reader if you didn't bother to research, as I have suggested to you a few
times.
>
> Why superficial? Note that Gordon gives the dates of Chen Yuan-Ping
> visit to Japan as 1644-48. The portion I posted references Draeger and
> Smith (of which I have a copy and reviewed the relevant portion) that
> the jujutsu ryu, Takenouchi, can be documented to exist from 1532,
> substantially prior to Chen Yuan-Ping. I don't think you even read the
> whole web page that you cite - you just skimmed for the part you
> wanted. That is poor scholarship.
You think I'm a superficial reader and I think you have superficial
knowledge. I have addressed the fact that there were schools prior to
Chen, however, I haven't gone into it a lot because the discussion is about
shuia jiao being the progenitor of the "ju" arts... something acknowledged
in formal Japanese archives, the temple to Chen, widespread Asian knowledge,
etc. I do not discuss those schools and what *exactly* they did prior to
Chen for the simple reason that neither you nor I know *exactly* what they
did and what, if any, parts of what they did may have represented indigenous
Japanese developments OR *previous* introductions of Chinese arts. Hence, I
table that part of the discussion. You are shallow for not having seen the
obvious.
>
> Why superficial? There are a host of references both pro and con with
> respect to Chen Yuan-Ping's influence on Japanese jujutsu, and the
> influence of kempo on jujutsu (and even that is superficial - we need
> to discuss the relation between kempo and certain jujutsu schools -
> jujutsu itself is a very vague term), yet you manage to provide only a
> few skimmings from the internet.
I provided "skimmings" enough. Official Japanese documents coupled with
Austin's commentary is enough. You're reduced to opinion and speculation
now.
>
> > Your
> > scholarship continues to astound me.
>
> Well, if you want to make this a pissing contest, I can tell you that
> I've graded student papers and reports on many occasions, and your
> scholarship on this issue so far rates about a C. Go back to the
> library.
Really? Did I submit a paper to you to be graded? You pompous ass... this
constant "I'm the expert" crap and "I will judge you" crap from you guys is
beyond belief. What would you rate a judo "expert" who denied the role of
Chen Yuan Yun in the development of judo? I bet it's "A+" if it's you and
the other Judo White Boys and "F-" if it's me. Tell me again what Dai
Nikkyo is.
Mike
Badger North
<mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I've got the one on Taiji right beside my book on "Nude Tai Chi" and a few
>other collectors items. :^)
Heh. I've got a collection like that too, has a couple of Ashida
Kim's, Carradine's Spirit of Shaolin, Chee Soo's Feng Shou Kung Fu,
and a couple of other winners.
Damnation, I need to write a book.
YoJimbo
says...
>
>
>"YoJimbo" <Seagul...@LowBudget.com> wrote in message
>news:ba11o2$qda$1...@Crestone.UCHSC.edu...
>>
>> But you're hanging desperately on the chinese superiority thing here,
>> and it's playing fast and loose with the facts.
>
>No, Jim... you're desperately trying another put-down for the embarrassment
>of getting caught with your back-stabbing before. You, the "expert" of all
>martial arts and quantum theory, the ex-anonymous put-down artist.
Ha ha
Back-stabbing? This is rich, coming from a source that lives on
making negative comments behind peoples' backs.
You've got me beat by 20 years on the personality problems, Mike.
In fact, you've burned so many bridges they come to me and tell me
about it, I don't go to them.
I guess that's the legacy you're interested in leaving.
JS
Mike Sigman
"Badger North" <young_...@hotmail.REEEMOVEcom> wrote in message
>
> Heh. I've got a collection like that too, has a couple of Ashida
> Kim's, Carradine's Spirit of Shaolin, Chee Soo's Feng Shou Kung Fu,
> and a couple of other winners.
Although it's a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor about "White Boys", I always
think of David Carradine as the ultimate "White Boy Kung Fu". Part of the
problem is how hard someone works, etc., but there are also some other
considerations like how good one's teacher is. I saw Carradine's "Tai Chi"
tape and it turns out that his teacher, Lam, doesn't know Tai Chi and
Carradine never learned it anywhere, so essentially they made up a "form"
and sold it on tapes. The teacher shows a brick-break that my little
sister could have done. I mean... honestly, a lot of this stuff just blows
my mind. Chee Soo made up a lot of his stuff, including his Taiji form.
When you add the students of these sorts of people into the general
population, you can see why there is a lot of "White Boy" kung fu and other
martial arts.
One of the best things that has happened in western martial arts has been
the BJJ/MMA growth that puts everyone on a realism notice (and sent a lot of
wannabe martial artists to the gun stores when they saw the light). I
believe there is now a world-wide growth in good martial arts, based on the
level of competition that is out there. That can't be anything but
positive. While I laugh at David Carradine's conceit, it had its time and
place and did a little toward motivating a lot of people to go study real
martial arts. And I don't think the apex of martial arts has been arrived
at yet, despite what some of the MMA crowd think. :^)
Mike
Kyle Brown
Seagul...@LowBudget.com (YoJimbo) wrote:
> The rest of us know bad history when we see it.
Some of us know shameless rhetorical misstatement of an opponent's
arguments when we see it, too. ;-)
Kyle
Mike Sigman
"YoJimbo" <Seagul...@LowBudget.com> wrote in message
>
> Ha ha
> Back-stabbing? This is rich, coming from a source that lives on
> making negative comments behind peoples' backs.
> You've got me beat by 20 years on the personality problems, Mike.
> In fact, you've burned so many bridges they come to me and tell me
> about it, I don't go to them.
Gee.... are you talking about people who are/were "teachers" and are still
sore because it turns out they don't know enough to teach? Sort of like you
and your "expert" commentaries on all martial arts and the shock and anger
you seem to have when people mention it to you? Sounds like a grudge,
Jimbo. You just run along with your little sore pals.... you and they are
discussed, not just by me, for what they are. The idea of "run someone
down because he blew your cover as a bullshit artist" is cool, but I think
you and your pals need to look elsewhere for entertainment... and find out
what real experts really are.
> I guess that's the legacy you're interested in leaving.
I'm not interested in leaving a legacy, Jimmy. Never have been. If I was I
would have approached it differently and shmoozed with all the wannabe
"teachers" and "experts" and been their pal. And I would have "taught" or
practiced some kind of bullshit and worn all kinds of exotic clothes and
dropped all the words of a language that I don't really speak. Or I might
have tried to set myself up as an oracle on RMA and used a pseudonym from
behind which I expounded knowledgeably on all the martial arts, like you
did. I didn't do any of those things, Jimbo. I've said it up front that I
don't know enough Taiji to teach. I don't know enough of any martial art to
do an adequate job of teaching.... I know damn few people who do, but that
doesn't seem to stop them. You just continue with your role playing and
run along now.
Mike
Olaf
Mike Sigman wrote:
> "Peter Claussen" <dakot...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:160520030932479563%dakot...@mac.com...
> >
>
>
> >
> > But that's not the important point. To discredit Gordon you would need
> > to, for example, show that the individuals Hitotsubashi-Joken and
> > Sekigushi-Jushin were not jujutsu proponents active prior to Chen
> > Yuan-Ping in Japan.
>
> No I don't. There could have been all sorts of martial styles, groups, and
> clans before Chen Yuan Yun in China doing all sorts of things. If they
> embraced a large part of what he revealed to them into their arts, which is
> probably what happened, my point is valid. To discredit Gordon, all I have
> to do is point to the archives and a number of supporting sources. Gordon
> is in the position of having to defend his shrugging off of Chen using his
> glaring error about "Kempo"... he's in the soup.
>
How can you differentiate between what was in the Japanese martial arts before
Chen from what they might have incorporated from him? There's already
alot of evidence of independent evolution of many techniques across the
globe, including in North America and Australia. Despite this you seem
to by implying that any techniques common to Chen and the Japanese
In this case its clear that what is needed is a description of the techniques
in the Japanese styles before and after their contace with Chen.
-Olaf
Mike Sigman
"Olaf" <ol...@I.Hate.Spam.com> wrote in message
news:3EC50C7B...@I.Hate.Spam.com...
Again, there is a *large* corpus of records on Chinese martial arts and the
techniques, postures, etc., etc., used. And these records go back pretty
far. If the Japanese archives contain and acknowledge that material from
Chen Yuan Yun was **the basis for the ju arts from whence judo and Aikido
come**, then you have a problem with denying anything other than peripheral
details. Particularly when you see the incidence in Japan of similar or
same throws and throw sets, locks and lock-groups, etc., being taught with
the same logic as traditional Chinese throws, locks, etc. Once you
acknowledge, as Japan and many others do, BTW, that Chen was pivotal in the
development of the ju arts and once the similarity of Japan techniques
copies a large number (NOT "all"; I never said that) of the Chinese stuff,
then you're up a logical creek.
FWIW
Mike
Mike Sigman
>
> "YoJimbo" <Seagul...@LowBudget.com> wrote in message
> >
>>
> > There's simply no way
> > modern judo is some simple derivation of shiao jiao, the two have
> > evolved completely separately.
>
> "The two have evolved completely separately"? How much would you like
to
> bet????? And let's at least make it into the thousands of dollars.
Where's the bet, Jimbo??????
Mike Sigman
@hotmail.com.invalid Eric D. Berge
<dakot...@mac.com> wrote:
>Well, if you want to make this a pissing contest, I can tell you that
>I've graded student papers and reports on many occasions, and your
>scholarship on this issue so far rates about a C. Go back to the
>library.
You're being very generous. His "scholarship" consists of reasoning
from the conclusion that Jujutsu is derived from Shuai Chiao, and he
excercises considerable, and clearly deliberate, intellectual
dishonesty in pursuing that conclusion - he conflates Shuai Chiao, the
collective term for all Chinese Wrestling, with Shuai Chiao, the term
for a modern style of Chinese Wrestling; he similarly conflates,
Jujutsu, the collective term for a plethora of Japanese styles that
more or less share some tactical principles, some of which share
common ancestry and some of which don't, with those individual styles
of Jujutsu that were the antecedents of Judo; He argues that Chen
Yuan-Ping's teachings are a significant influence on the development
of Jujutsu, but dodges the question of whether or not Chen knew
anything at all about Shuai Chiao, and whether or not Chen taught
anyone who is a direct antecedent of Judo; He dodges ('cause he
doesn't actually know) the question of what the connection is between
what is currently practiced under the rubric of Shuai Chiao with what
was practiced in various historical periods (for instance, if Chen
Yuan-Ping practiced "Shuai Chiao", was that style in any way connected
with what currently goes by that name?).
He gets an "F" from me, for deliberate dishonesty, never mind the
shoddy reasoning and sloppy research.
@hotmail.com.invalid Eric D. Berge
>The book I had in mind was this one:
>
>http://www.bestjudo.com/brjudosakujiroyokoyama.shtml
>
>And, I can't recall where I got the 1905 date... that may be the date it was
>*written*, as I do recall that this book was written a number of years before it
>was translated into English. (I'm not at home where I can simply pull it off my
>shelf and look!)
Mine is copyright 1915.
@hotmail.com.invalid Eric D. Berge
<wei...@libcom.toomuchspamalready.com> wrote:
>I pointed this out before, in that fusen ryu was mostly ground
>technique, stems from a history of mostly ground technique, and had a
>great deal of influence on judo (being the only traditional ryu that
>performed well against judo in challenges, they were pretty quick to
>adopt it).
>
>That said, it certainly appears that groundwork doesn't exist in any
>sophisticated form in shuaijiao, and that leads us to think that fusen
>ryu does not stem from shuaijiao.
Fusen is from the Takenouchi Ryu lineage, founded 1530-ish. There's a
longish article in Serge Mol's book on it.
Mike Sigman
"Eric D. Berge" <eric_berge @ hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:0b3acv0o2lol6ujj5...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 May 2003 09:32:47 -0500, Peter Claussen
> <dakot...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >Well, if you want to make this a pissing contest, I can tell you that
> >I've graded student papers and reports on many occasions, and your
> >scholarship on this issue so far rates about a C. Go back to the
> >library.
>
> You're being very generous. His "scholarship" consists of reasoning
> from the conclusion that Jujutsu is derived from Shuai Chiao,
So, Berge.... you've been showing your ass in this all along. Explain why
the Japanese have said this and said in formally. Can you do it and
discredit their "scholarship"?
and he
> excercises considerable, and clearly deliberate, intellectual
> dishonesty in pursuing that conclusion - he conflates Shuai Chiao, the
> collective term for all Chinese Wrestling,
I'm sorry.... WHAT did you say? You think Shuai Jiao is the *collective
term for all Chinese Wrestling*??????????? Since you're "grading", how
about explaining that one. It's not true. Tell me more about
"scholarship", Berge.
> He argues that Chen
> Yuan-Ping's teachings are a significant influence on the development
> of Jujutsu, but dodges the question of whether or not Chen knew
> anything at all about Shuai Chiao,
Show me the quote of where I dodged that. I want some scholarship, Berge.
> and whether or not Chen taught
> anyone who is a direct antecedent of Judo; He dodges ('cause he
> doesn't actually know) the question of what the connection is between
> what is currently practiced under the rubric of Shuai Chiao with what
> was practiced in various historical periods (for instance, if Chen
> Yuan-Ping practiced "Shuai Chiao", was that style in any way connected
> with what currently goes by that name?).
>
> He gets an "F" from me, for deliberate dishonesty, never mind the
> shoddy reasoning and sloppy research.
OK. I got an "F" from someone who totally denied the shuai jiao connection
to judo... a connection that is supported by formal Japanese documents and
inscriptions. Are you still saying there is no connection?
Mike Sigman
Badger North
<mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>One of the best things that has happened in western martial arts has been
>the BJJ/MMA growth that puts everyone on a realism notice (and sent a lot of
>wannabe martial artists to the gun stores when they saw the light). I
>believe there is now a world-wide growth in good martial arts, based on the
>level of competition that is out there. That can't be anything but
>positive.
True - the Chee Soo's and Carradine's of the world got away with a
whole lot of crap. FINALLY the rent has come due.
> While I laugh at David Carradine's conceit, it had its time and
>place and did a little toward motivating a lot of people to go study real
>martial arts.
I remember watching the pilot episode of Kung Fu, back when I was six
or so. It was memorable for more than just the fact that I contracted
hives that evening (Fact! I blame Carradine), it introduced me to the
concept of CMA.
TK Sung
>
> > > The origin of jujitsu is lost in the mists of antiquity. The 'Nihon
> > > Shoki', "The Chronicle of Japan", a history, compiled by Imperial
> > > command in 720 AD, refers to a tournament of 'Chikara- Kurabe', the
> > > contest of strength, which was held in the 7th year of the Emperor
> > > Suinin, 230 BC. This is regarded by some historians as the beginning
> > > of Sumo, or japanese wrestling, which has something in common with
> > > jujitsu. Although it is questionable, whether the said Chikara-Kurabe
> > > bore any relation either the Sumo or Jujitsu of later days, the event
> > > is recorded as an important authentic historical proof showing the
> > > embryonic stage of both sumo and jujitsu in the remote past.
>
foundation mythology and transitions into historic chronicles of real Yamato
court. The first 14 emperors, including Sunin, is considered mythological.
Part of the legends may have some bearing of the real events leading to the
foundation, though they are subject to much interpretation, but the dates
prior to it are mostly suspects. As such, I think it is important to note
the phrase "regarded by some historians". I'd say the phrase "authentic
historical proof" is rather inaccurate, though I'd personally agree that
something must've transpired back then enough to compell Kojiki writers to
mention it.
Matthew Weigel
"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > That said, it certainly appears that groundwork doesn't exist in any
> > sophisticated form in shuaijiao, and that leads us to think that fusen
> > ryu does not stem from shuaijiao.
>
> Why does that "lead us to think" that?
I'm using 'stem from' in a specific way here: take largely from.
> mistakenly, etc., etc., any of which could possibly explain your point which
> you say "appears" to be.... but having expressed a possibility, you firm it
> into a "fact":
Nope, I'm pointing out where logic leads us, with the information
available.
> > Which ultimately leads to 'one of the
> > three jiujitsu ryu that had the greatest influence on judo does not stem
> > from judo,' which ultimately leads us to question the extent to which
> > you can support any claim that judo is 'obviously' from shuaijiao.
Im led to question the extent to which you can support any claims that
judo is 'obviously' from shuaijiao.
> > > > Kano is not, to the best of my knowledge, thought to have had any
> > > > contact with Shuai Chiao.
> > >
> > > I don't know of any written documents saying Kano studied, etc., shuai
> jiao,
> > > and I don't think that was posited.
> >
> > It would explain how Kano managed to introduce the judogi to jiujitsu
> > ryuha and pull it from shuaijiao at the same time, though.
>
> I agree. And it tends to be more or less my own thought, however, since I
> "don't know of any written documents" relating to this, I simply said it
> wasn't posited.
However, it would *fail* to take into account primary documentation on
the matter.
> > It wouldn't explain the shaolin->Okinawa karategi link, though.
>
> Well, I didn't want to be drawn too off-topic on that one, but if you look
> at the old pictures of old Chinese clothes...including the stuff worn by
> Chinese martial artists.... I don't think you'd be disappointed. The
> problem is that the natural thought-comparison is more modern Chinese dress
> versus modern Japanese gi's, etc. and saying there is no relationship.
I think I would. There is simply too much clearly refuting primary
source material to make me believe it without something beyond pictures.
> There's an error on my part. I meant to clarify several times, and I
> didn't, that the pure history sites are not unclear of the relationship.
> The "histories" I was referring to were the histories that accompany various
> sites on Japanese dress, martial arts, bonsai, etc.
I can't claim to have looked at anything on the history of Japanese
dress or bonsai, but my books on Japanese art history are quite clear on
the matter (you have to be to talk about art in the different Buddhist
sects), my books on karate history are clear on the matter, etc.
It is your specific set of claims that don't seem to be supported.
> > My judo library is much less extensive, but what
> > I have makes clear mention that at least some jiujitsu ryuha were
> > historically known to be derived from CMA.
> >
> > But that doesn't mean that the ryuha that Kano studied, or largely
> > adopted into judo, came from CMA.
>
> Does it mean they didn't? Can you give me a statistical (percentage) idea
> of what you think didn't derive from shuai jiao?
I've been saying from the get-go that I have no strong opinion on the
matter, just your claims.
> Look at the disparity in view from the statements in the national archives
> of China, inscriptions on the tablets at the tomb, comments by Japanese
> about the origin of the "ju" arts from Chen Yuan Yun versus the almost
> complete dismissal of shuai jiao influence by this rma group.
I think people are dismissing your claims, and since they haven't really
looked into it, are saying "every support I've seen for shuaijiao as an
influence on judo is bunk, so I don't buy it at all."
> In other
> words, look at the evidence on my side, including the massive adaptation of
> Chinese culture into Japan, and look at the complete and vicious denial from
> most of the judo crowd.
I'm not looking at sides here.
> Tell me again how this is "Chinese chauvinism,
> pure and untempered".
Your complete dismissal of all judo sources is Chinese chauvinism, pure
and untempered. Happy?
> I argued the history and you're at best weaseling
> now with a "well maybe some of it came via shuai jiao"...
What? I'm weaseling in that direction? How many times do I have to say
"I had no strong opinion on the matter" before you believe me? I can't
be backing up from what I said, because I refused to say anything on it!
> but even that
> weaseling puts you at odds with knowledgeable Japanese sources (which you
> hurry to discount while not discounting any knowledge you may have).
Look, the truth is, regardless of what you may accuse Japanese martial
historians of having as far as bias goes, *they* are the best sources.
Have you dealt with plain ol' historian types? They lose interest in
specifics very quickly, and tend to prefer generalities for the parts of
history that don't interest them. There's simply too much information
and too much to verify otherwise.
> My
> original comments were about the "slap" in ukemi being more hazardous on
> pavement, that judo derives from shuai jiao, and a side comment about the gi
> (which you focused on not so much out of interest in the topic but in
> looking for something substantive to "show me wrong").
Nope. I have no opinion on the slap in ukemi; I'm plenty happy with the
aikido ukemi I've done, don't think I need a slap, but don't have
anything like the experience to compare different kinds of ukemi. I am
strictly unwilling to speculate about what works best without spending
time on it, and ukemi is a small enough part of my training right now
that I'm not spending time on it.
Further, I had no strong opinion on the history of judo prior to its
formation.
What I did know about, look into myself, etc., was your claim about the
judogi. I have no interest in proving you wrong, beyond the matter of
thinking you're wrong on this.
> Personally, I still say that it is more hazardous to "slap" on the ground
> than on a mat,
Don't care.
> I still say judo derives from shuai jiao and there is
> powerful historical evidence to back me up,
Having looked into it a bit, I can support that some jiujitsu ryu that
had a strong influence on judo appear to be pretty much derived from
shuaijiao. But not all of them, much less all of the ones that strongly
influenced judo.
> and I still *think* the judogi
> is copied after the shuai-jiao gi in a scenario almost exactly like the one
> you laid out although I have an alternative that I thinks is equally
> probable.
At least it looks like you've stopped accusing me of being a Japanophile
who can give no credit to the Chinese. That's a step up.
Olaf
Mike Sigman wrote:
What's the criteria for deciding who won?
-Olaf
YoJimbo
says...
Another empty threat. You can't support a damn thing with the
dumb anecdotal stories you have, and we all know it.
And the way I see it, Mikey, you owe me a thousand from the recent
exchange we had where I shoved one of your own posts in front of
your face after you denied looking at Chen Village as the Holy
Grail of taiji tournaments.
You can't even remember crap you write two days ago, much less a
week.
You've got Alheimzers, man.
Go see a doctor.
JS
YoJimbo
says...
???
I dunno what field you're coming from, but if you think Mike has
any valid support for his theories that haven't been completely
shot down by multiple people on these shuai jiao/judo threads,
you're not worth more of my time.
Has nothing to do with any personalities, although Mike always
tries to discredit others by ataacking their personalities,
or didn't you notice that tactic either?
Mike's position is a simple but naive worship for anything that
comes out of China. It's simplistic at best.
And it's also not a good thing if some of you can't even see
that far. Not good at all.
JS
Mike Sigman
"TK Sung" <tks...@wahoo.com> wrote in message
news:sJ8xa.1229$aD3.11...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
I agree that something happened, as you do. What it was, we don't know.
And since all of that stuff was written *after* the inception of pronounced
Chinese influence, we don't know that what happened was necessarily any
indication of a purely indigenous Japanese martial art. But thanks for the
commentary... for Allen Gordon to assert it is "important authentic
historical proof" in that paragraph and for him later to reveal that he was
speculating about Chen Yuan Yun while not understanding that shuai jiao is
part of the "chuan fa" (Kem Po), that leaves us with essentially another
tome written by a westerner who really doesn't have the expertise to do it.
Even worse, a lot of these historical and factual books which seem to
impress a lot of westerners... those books get good sales and good reviews
in the western press.
FWIW
Mike
Mike Sigman
"YoJimbo" <Seagul...@LowBudget.com> wrote in message
> In article <vca4omj...@corp.supernews.com>, mikes...@earthlink.net
> says...
> >
> >
> >>
> >> "YoJimbo" <Seagul...@LowBudget.com> wrote in message
> >> news:ba11o2$qda$1...@Crestone.UCHSC.edu...
> >> >
> >>>
> >> > There's simply no way
> >> > modern judo is some simple derivation of shiao jiao, the two have
> >> > evolved completely separately.
> >>
> >> "The two have evolved completely separately"? How much would you
like
> >to
> >> bet????? And let's at least make it into the thousands of dollars.
> >
> >
> >
> >Where's the bet, Jimbo??????
> >
> >Mike Sigman
>
> Another empty threat. You can't support a damn thing with the
> dumb anecdotal stories you have, and we all know it.
What's the bet, Jimbo?????????? Hey, if they're just dumb anecdotal
stories about the Japan National Archives.... what's the
bet????????????????????
Mike Sigman
Mike Sigman
> In article <vc9qfso...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > That said, it certainly appears that groundwork doesn't exist in any
> > > sophisticated form in shuaijiao, and that leads us to think that fusen
> > > ryu does not stem from shuaijiao.
> >
> > Why does that "lead us to think" that?
>
> I'm using 'stem from' in a specific way here: take largely from.
>
> > mistakenly, etc., etc., any of which could possibly explain your point
which
> > you say "appears" to be.... but having expressed a possibility, you firm
it
> > into a "fact":
>
>
> Nope, I'm pointing out where logic leads us, with the information
> available.
You didn't show me any logic. You speculated, ignoring other possible
reasons for and outcomes to the facts at hand.
>
> > > Which ultimately leads to 'one of the
> > > three jiujitsu ryu that had the greatest influence on judo does not
stem
> > > from judo,' which ultimately leads us to question the extent to which
> > > you can support any claim that judo is 'obviously' from shuaijiao.
>
> Im led to question the extent to which you can support any claims that
> judo is 'obviously' from shuaijiao.
See the comments in relation to the National Archives of Japan and
supporting commentaries that I've provided. By itself, the statement most
often seen in relation to Chen Yuan Yun is that he brought the "soft
techniques" to Japan that led to the development of jujitsu, judo, and
Aikido. That's support enough, whether you want to admit it or not.
Unless you can trump with equal or greater you're up the creek. What's so
interesting about all this is that you and some others *still* think this is
some sort of argument where you're pitting yourself against Mike Sigman and
that if you win the point is defeated.... do you realize that I'm just
pointing out something that is fairly well known *except by the ignorant*?
It doesn't go away.
> >
> > I agree. And it tends to be more or less my own thought, however, since
I
> > "don't know of any written documents" relating to this, I simply said it
> > wasn't posited.
>
> However, it would *fail* to take into account primary documentation on
> the matter.
Not necessarily. "Primary documentation" isn't necessarily complete. And
what "primary documentation" do you have?????? Do you have "primary", i.e.,
"source" documents in Japanese and/or Chinese???? And think about this as
a possibility.... the shuai jiao uniform is a traditional uniform in China.
It's not something new, as much as some people would like to pose that
thought. So if it's not new, then it was existent when the Japanese were
introduced to shuai jiao. In other words, knowledge of the shuai jiao
uniform has been around from the start (as vague as that is). If you see my
reasoning.
> > > It wouldn't explain the shaolin->Okinawa karategi link, though.
> >
> > Well, I didn't want to be drawn too off-topic on that one, but if you
look
> > at the old pictures of old Chinese clothes...including the stuff worn by
> > Chinese martial artists.... I don't think you'd be disappointed. The
> > problem is that the natural thought-comparison is more modern Chinese
dress
> > versus modern Japanese gi's, etc. and saying there is no relationship.
>
> I think I would. There is simply too much clearly refuting primary
> source material to make me believe it without something beyond pictures.
>
You keep saying "primary source material". Do you have original Japanese -
Chinese books on the subject?
>
> It is your specific set of claims that don't seem to be supported.
>
OK.... show me a number of judo websites that mention the importance of the
Chinese connection, then. Accept Steven Austin's site as one example; show
me others.
>
> > Look at the disparity in view from the statements in the national
archives
> > of China, inscriptions on the tablets at the tomb, comments by Japanese
> > about the origin of the "ju" arts from Chen Yuan Yun versus the almost
> > complete dismissal of shuai jiao influence by this rma group.
>
> I think people are dismissing your claims, and since they haven't really
> looked into it, are saying "every support I've seen for shuaijiao as an
> influence on judo is bunk, so I don't buy it at all."
Sure..... but look at what that says about the "knowledge" of the members of
the judo community doing the arguing. :^)
>
>
> Your complete dismissal of all judo sources is Chinese chauvinism, pure
> and untempered. Happy?
>
Never happened. Show me the "complete dismissal". I've said numerous times
that I accept that there were other techniques, etc., so you can't honestly
state "complete dismissal". I'll be "happy" when you show my complete
dismissal or you retract.
> Look, the truth is, regardless of what you may accuse Japanese martial
> historians of having as far as bias goes, *they* are the best sources.
> Have you dealt with plain ol' historian types? They lose interest in
> specifics very quickly, and tend to prefer generalities for the parts of
> history that don't interest them. There's simply too much information
> and too much to verify otherwise.
OK. Fair enough. I've seen it countless times with the Chinese,
Indonesian, Indian, etc., sources as well. My point I'm driving home here
is that there is a too-large amount of bogus information in the "histories"
that westerners write about a lot of places, but particularly the Orient.
>
> Having looked into it a bit, I can support that some jiujitsu ryu that
> had a strong influence on judo appear to be pretty much derived from
> shuaijiao. But not all of them, much less all of the ones that strongly
> influenced judo.
>
Yeah, but you can't definitively tell me that a lot of the curricula of
those ryu wasn't dropped in favor of shuai jiao stuff after Chen (I'm not
making a stand, just pointing out why you can't support your stance) and/or
you can't tell me what, if any, percentage of pre-ChenYuanYun information
may have been Chinese derived already. In other words, you're saying "these
ryu had an influence on judo, but I'm guessing some of the stuff they
practiced didn't come from China". We don't know; hence we can't comment
intelligently.
> > and I still *think* the judogi
> > is copied after the shuai-jiao gi in a scenario almost exactly like the
one
> > you laid out although I have an alternative that I thinks is equally
> > probable.
>
> At least it looks like you've stopped accusing me of being a Japanophile
> who can give no credit to the Chinese. That's a step up.
Send my some dough and you'll be my pal. :^)
Mike
Mike Sigman
"YoJimbo" <Seagul...@LowBudget.com> wrote in message
> Mike's position is a simple but naive worship for anything that
> comes out of China. It's simplistic at best.
Show it. I've argued historical precedent and there are plenty of posts
showing it's a timeline thing. Show the posts of "naive worship". I say
you're a complete liar.
Mike Sigman
Mike Sigman
He made a statement that judo and shuai jiao "evolved completely
separately". If I can show that there is a relationship, for instance
simply using quotes from the Japan National Archives, then I win. And
since I posted the Japan Archives connection after I asked him to bet, Jimbo
MaxMouth is in a pickle. He's got his foot wedged in his mouth and he's not
man enough to admit it. :^)
Mike
YoJimbo
Exactly.
Mike's idea of "proof" is to bring up some vague commentary and argue an
idiosyncretic personal take on the comments. You've already seen that
tactic on the "Judo and Japan History" thread...
Very obvious, but Mike's ego won't let him back out of silly statements
about judo; he'll argue you to death on it.
It's silly to try to "bet" Mike because he'll always fall back on this
tactic as his "proof", doesn't matter what material the other guy brings
in.
If anybody here doubts Mike has a rather odd worship of the chinese,
here's an amusing quote out of an old interview done with Mike with
Ian Young, talking about who does best in his seminars:
"Does everybody take the material on board to the same extent?"
"In my experience, the people who do best have actually been Chinese, and/or
Chinese-Americans, who have enough of a background in the vernacular of the
martial arts and the histories of the stories that they are not confused and
lost with the peripheral issues. They see what's going on and they approach it
quite logically, so they tend to be the best. After them tend to be people who
are athletically well co-ordinated and yet have had no martial training."
Everybody is entitled to an opinion (in Mike's world, you aren't, but I allow
Mike
his anyway), so people take take these comments above however they want.
To me, it's illustrative of Mike's particular bias.
I read this, and it makes absolutely no sense.
Enough from me. Mike will come back with 50 rejoinders to mine, inevitably
some attempts at personal digs, but 'nuff said.
FWIW,
JS
Ben Holmes
And here is where your theory breaks down.
The groupings used in Judo and in Shuai Chiao have no comparisons with each
other, and the techniques themselves don't appear to have any unique
similarities that cannot *also* be explained by simple human movement.
Techniques that evolved separately in *many* countries and cultures cannot be
used as "proof" of a particular tie to China by Judo.
This is why, I suspect, that Mike doesn't want to go into detail technique by
technique. Since this is largely where his theory breaks down.
>Once you
>acknowledge, as Japan and many others do, BTW, that Chen was pivotal
"Pivotal"... I don't think so...
If this were true, JMA's would look much more similar to CMA's. And the sad
fact is, they're instantly recognizable, one from the other... in far too many
instances. It would, in fact, be rather rare (if not impossible) to be unable
to determine where a particular art originated.
This wouldn't be true, if Mike's theory had a more solid basis.
>in the
>development of the ju arts and once the similarity of Japan techniques
>copies a large number (NOT "all"; I never said that) of the Chinese stuff,
Since the "Chinese stuff" is missing what JMA contain, this is puzzling...
>then you're up a logical creek.
Only if you have the narrow viewpoint that China is the foundation of
everything.
>FWIW
>
>Mike
Ben Holmes
Yes... it *was* written quite earlier... (see the translator's introduction) I
may, however, have been thinking of the Yamanaka book when I spouted off 1905.
That's a book I haven't obtained yet.
And, Eric, do you suppose that this book is "simplistic" or only shows "basic"
techniques?
Mike Sigman
"YoJimbo" <Seagul...@LowBudget.com> wrote in message
> In article <3EC51FB2...@I.Hate.Spam.com>, ol...@I.Hate.Spam.com
says...
> >
> >
> >
> >Mike Sigman wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > "YoJimbo" <Seagul...@LowBudget.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:ba11o2$qda$1...@Crestone.UCHSC.edu...
> >> > >
> >> >>
> >> > > There's simply no way
> >> > > modern judo is some simple derivation of shiao jiao, the two have
> >> > > evolved completely separately.
> >> >
> >> > "The two have evolved completely separately"? How much would you
like
> >> to
> >> > bet????? And let's at least make it into the thousands of dollars.
> >>
> >> Where's the bet, Jimbo??????
> >>
> >> Mike Sigman
> >
> >What's the criteria for deciding who won?
> >
> >-Olaf
>
> Exactly.
> Mike's idea of "proof" is to bring up some vague commentary and argue an
> idiosyncretic personal take on the comments. You've already seen that
> tactic on the "Judo and Japan History" thread...
What's the bet, Jimbo??????????? "Vague commentary" by the Japan National
Archives????????????????
WHAT'S THE BET, SLIMEBALL?
>
> Very obvious, but Mike's ego won't let him back out of silly statements
> about judo; he'll argue you to death on it.
I'm not backing out.........WHAT'S THE
BET??????????????????????????????????????????????????????
>
> If anybody here doubts Mike has a rather odd worship of the chinese,
> here's an amusing quote out of an old interview done with Mike with
> Ian Young, talking about who does best in his seminars:
>
> "Does everybody take the material [[THE MATERIAL IS TRADITIONAL TAIJI
MATERIAL]] on board to the same extent?"
>
> "In my experience, the people who do best have actually been Chinese,
and/or
> Chinese-Americans, who have enough of a background in the vernacular of
the
> martial arts and the histories of the stories that they are not confused
and
> lost with the peripheral issues. They see what's going on and they
approach it
> quite logically, so they tend to be the best. After them tend to be people
who
> are athletically well co-ordinated and yet have had no martial training."
>
> Everybody is entitled to an opinion (in Mike's world, you aren't, but I
allow
> Mike
> his anyway), so people take take these comments above however they want.
I bet a number of people will take it that you tried to slip in a quote that
has nothing to do with Chinese-Japanese, but you were careful not to mention
that.... in other words, you're a slimeball, Storey.
> To me, it's illustrative of Mike's particular bias.
> I read this, and it makes absolutely no sense.
>
> Enough from me. Mike will come back with 50 rejoinders to mine, inevitably
> some attempts at personal digs, but 'nuff said.
> FWIW,
> JS
You're getting weirder and weirder, Storey. Why don't you resurrect your
old "Quark" pseudonym so people won't know that it's Jim Storey who is a
lying retard with the ethics of a salamander?
Mike Sigman
Mike Sigman
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:ba3ba...@drn.newsguy.com...
> And here is where your theory breaks down.
>
> The groupings used in Judo and in Shuai Chiao have no comparisons with
each
> other, and the techniques themselves don't appear to have any unique
> similarities that cannot *also* be explained by simple human movement.
> Techniques that evolved separately in *many* countries and cultures cannot
be
> used as "proof" of a particular tie to China by Judo.
You know, Ben...... you're an embarrassment to any martial art. Do you know
how stupid that sounds? No? I thought not.
Mike Sigman
@hotmail.com.invalid Eric D. Berge
>In article <m14acvo22elvkg0oi...@4ax.com>, Eric says...
>>
>>On 15 May 2003 16:56:09 -0700, Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote:
>>
>>>The book I had in mind was this one:
>>>
>>>http://www.bestjudo.com/brjudosakujiroyokoyama.shtml
>>>
>>>And, I can't recall where I got the 1905 date... that may be the date it was
>>>*written*, as I do recall that this book was written a number of years before it
>>>was translated into English. (I'm not at home where I can simply pull it off my
>>>shelf and look!)
>>
>>Mine is copyright 1915.
>
>Yes... it *was* written quite earlier... (see the translator's introduction) I
>may, however, have been thinking of the Yamanaka book when I spouted off 1905.
>That's a book I haven't obtained yet.
If that's the one I'm thinking of, it's 1918 or so, and seems largely
a plagiarism of Yokoyama's book (my copies of both are at home).
There's one by a guy named Arima from 1908 (I've also seen 1904) which
is supposed to be one of the earliest authoritative works in English
on Judo. I've never seen a copy for sale, but there is an excerpt
included in Smith's "Complete Guide", if you will recall.
>And, Eric, do you suppose that this book is "simplistic" or only shows "basic"
>techniques?
"Simplistic", no.
"Basic", yes, in the sense of "Fundamental". I'm still working to get
a few of those "Basics" down to where I can move on to the more
advanced stuff.
TK Sung
"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vcaa4be...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> And since all of that stuff was written *after* the inception of
pronounced
> Chinese influence, we don't know that what happened was necessarily any
> indication of a purely indigenous Japanese martial art.
>
your assertions. There is no reason to believe that Chikara-Kurabe did not
exist, or Chikara-Kurabe had chinese origin. All I questioned was it as an
"authentic historical proof" for embryonic sumo/jujitsu since not much is
known about it.
I think you need to get over this strange notion that Japan has been a mere
recepticle of chinese culture.
YoJimbo
says...
>> If anybody here doubts Mike has a rather odd worship of the chinese,
>> here's an amusing quote out of an old interview done with Mike with
>> Ian Young, talking about who does best in his seminars:
>>
>> "Does everybody take the material [[THE MATERIAL IS TRADITIONAL TAIJI
>MATERIAL]] on board to the same extent?"
>>
>> "In my experience, the people who do best have actually been Chinese,
>and/or
>> Chinese-Americans, who have enough of a background in the vernacular of
>the
>> martial arts and the histories of the stories that they are not confused
>and
>> lost with the peripheral issues. They see what's going on and they
>approach it
>> quite logically, so they tend to be the best. After them tend to be people
>who
>> are athletically well co-ordinated and yet have had no martial training."
>>
>> Everybody is entitled to an opinion (in Mike's world, you aren't, but I
>allow
>> Mike
>> his anyway), so people take take these comments above however they want.
>
>I bet a number of people will take it that you tried to slip in a quote that
>has nothing to do with Chinese-Japanese, but you were careful not to mention
>that.... in other words, you're a slimeball, Storey.
Congrats, you once again showed how dense you are, Siggie.
The reason I quoted that early interview above is because it
suggests you've always had a hopelessly naive worship of all things
chinese. Most everybody here sees it in your comments about "Japanophiles",
etc., don't think I'm lonesome noting this :-)).
It comes out everywhere, you can't hide it in spite of yourself.
Another illustration, you ask?
You're the guy who claimed Ueshiba "must have learned bagua" while he
was in *Manchuria* (the beacon of bagua :-))), based on your
observation that "well, aikido seems to have a lot of entering
techniques like bagua, so the connection must exist"...
It's the same shit logic you're trying to hoodwick people on RMA
with on shuai jiao being the be-all and end-all of Japanese grappling.
People are catching onto your routines, Mike.
They're getting to know your biases well, you repeat
the same stuff time and again.
Trust me, a lot of people have noticed you sticking your head
in a judo thread and making ridiculous assertions, and when
you're hammered, you start the personality attacks, on Ben, Eric,
me, Olaf, Matthew, etc. etc..
Just can't help yourself, can ya?
It's the old Mike we know and love so well.
Trouble is, this isn't the Neijia list, where you're used to
browbeating down all opposition, with 50 posts to their one
if they disagree. You're on an open forum now, spud.
People will call you on questionable information, you don't
have your little circle to deflect the criticisms.
And, man, are you standing alone on this one...
JS
Olaf
Mike Sigman wrote:
Actually it is the standard classification technique as used in biological
taxonomy and information sciences. Go back and ask your old profs
if you've forgotten. If you're positing the similarity of two groups you
have to investigate the correlations of the fundamental attributes.
This is very basic, look up any text book on classification science. In the
context of this discussion, if the two don't match in fundamental ways in
terms of their techniques then you're not left with much of an argument.
-Olaf
Olaf
Mike Sigman wrote:
Okay, let me rephrase this. Who is judging the criteria? The contestants
in a bet clearly can't be the judges; what outside panel is going to make
the decision?
-Olaf
Mike Sigman
>
> "Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:vcaa4be...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > And since all of that stuff was written *after* the inception of
> pronounced
> > Chinese influence, we don't know that what happened was necessarily any
> > indication of a purely indigenous Japanese martial art.
> >
> I'd say this particular suspicion of yours is without basis like many of
> your assertions. There is no reason to believe that Chikara-Kurabe did not
> exist, or Chikara-Kurabe had chinese origin. All I questioned was it as
an
> "authentic historical proof" for embryonic sumo/jujitsu since not much is
> known about it.
OK, so give me definitive reasons why there IS reason to believe that they
are not of Chinese origin. If you can't, then it's an unknown point and
your comment that I am "without basis" is wrong... and your addition of
"like many of your assertions" is just another asshole comment of yours. I
said "we don't know what happened", but if you can't show that those WERE
indigenous martial arts, then you're an idiot for taking the shot.
>
> I think you need to get over this strange notion that Japan has been a
mere
> recepticle of chinese culture.
Can you show me any quote that says Japan has been a "mere receptacle of
Chinese culture"? No? At best I have said there was a massive influx,
but then again I find the same sentiment on a number actual history sites.
So show me the quote, if you're attributing it to me. You guys are
essentially criminals when it comes to debating issues. You make up quotes
and assertions and then you dive when called on for the quote. Not a
single one of you has had the grace to say "oops" about the National
Archives quotes or even "maybe". You still want to have a pissing contest
because you're not men enough to admit that you were ever wrong and you
think protracting the conversation will somehow mask your screwups. If you
have Ben Holmes' IQ, you can probably even convince yourself that everyone
didn't see you do it. :^))))
Mike Sigman
Mike Sigman
Exactly. Have you read the previous posts on the topic where I was the one
that introduced that sort of comparison? Apparently Ben didn't or his lips
got so tired reading that he didn't finish the posts. The similarities are
unavoidable and I have suggested that people go look. There is no
comparison to any countries in any other parts of the world than Asia. I
want to see "many" countries that us the same sets of throws, locks,
attacks, etc., in the markedly parallel approaches that China and Japan do.
YoJimbo
says...
>
>He made a statement that judo and shuai jiao "evolved completely
>separately".
Let's look up the word "evolve" in the dictionary, shall we?
Here, I'll help you:
"to develop gradually; to come forth gradually into being;
undergo evolution".
Using a strict *dictionary* definition, I think everybody on
RMA knows you'll owe me a lot of money soon.
You can't even say jujitsu is straight from shuai jiao here,
much less modern judo :-). It's ludicrous.
Mike, you're blowing smoke. You'd make a terrible poker player.
>If I can show that there is a relationship, for instance
>simply using quotes from the Japan National Archives, then I win.
Um, what part of "evolve" didn't you get yet?
Unbelievable.
See a doctor, Mike.
>And since I posted the Japan Archives connection after I asked him to bet,
Jimbo
>MaxMouth is in a pickle. He's got his foot wedged in his mouth and he's not
>man enough to admit it. :^)
Uh, yeah, you shore made yer point.
What a pathetic psycho you are.
JS
Mike Sigman
"YoJimbo" <Seagul...@LowBudget.com> wrote in message
>
> Congrats, you once again showed how dense you are, Siggie.
> The reason I quoted that early interview above is because it
> suggests you've always had a hopelessly naive worship of all things
> chinese.
Really? That's so totally out of context that it's simply dishonest to
say, Storey.
>
> Another illustration, you ask?
> You're the guy who claimed Ueshiba "must have learned bagua" while he
> was in *Manchuria* (the beacon of bagua :-))), based on your
> observation that "well, aikido seems to have a lot of entering
> techniques like bagua, so the connection must exist"...
Show me the full quote. I don't remember saying it. HOW MUCH ARE YOU
GOING TO BET, STOREY??????????
> It's the same shit logic you're trying to hoodwick people on RMA
> with on shuai jiao being the be-all and end-all of Japanese grappling.
>
> People are catching onto your routines, Mike.
> They're getting to know your biases well, you repeat
> the same stuff time and again.
> Trust me, a lot of people have noticed you sticking your head
> in a judo thread and making ridiculous assertions, and when
> you're hammered, you start the personality attacks, on Ben, Eric,
> me, Olaf, Matthew, etc. etc..
> Just can't help yourself, can ya?
> It's the old Mike we know and love so well.
It's a pure "attack Mike" thread for you, isn't it, slimeball? :^))))
>
> Trouble is, this isn't the Neijia list, where you're used to
> browbeating down all opposition, with 50 posts to their one
> if they disagree. You're on an open forum now, spud.
> People will call you on questionable information, you don't
> have your little circle to deflect the criticisms.
> And, man, are you standing alone on this one...
> JS
Oh Jimmy... you're just oozing with hatred, aren't you? :^))))) You've
been exposed as a know-nothing and a guy who writes poison pen letters and
you don't have enough sense to shut up. You think if you talk long enough
people will think you didn't really do all those things??? :^)
Mike
Mike Sigman
> Okay, let me rephrase this. Who is judging the criteria? The contestants
> in a bet clearly can't be the judges; what outside panel is going to make
> the decision?
>
Why don't we make the bet first? The decision should be by someone
impartial but with stature. How about if I write the office of the Japan
National Archives and ask them to copy a couple of people with the answer?
All we need now is for the person who said there is NO connection to make
his bet. Eric Berge is free to join in since he essentially said the same
thing.
Mike Sigman