A "Jistory" of Judo
Mike Sigman
apparently in 1962. The promising thing is that Hu seems to go into the
etymology, indicating that he has the ability to at least work in the old
characters with *some* (total extent unknown) proficiency. I'll make a few
comments in relation to earlier discussions.
> A Jistory of Judo
> by W. C. C. Hu
>
>
>
> Jigoro Kano systematized and modified the martail art of Jujutsu. This has
> become the basis of Kodokan Judo.
> The Recent rapid expansion of the Judo bibliography in the West has been
> astronomical. However, the failure of writers to include a history of that
> art or sport in their books has been unanimous. The fact is, in order to
> completely understand this art, a close examination of its history is
> essential. It must be pointed out, though, that reliable printed books
> exclusively devoted to this subject are scarce. The volumes of manuscripts
> and carved plaques which are treasured by many old schools of Judo are
often
> contradictory and unsatisfactory. Frequently history was distorted to suit
> special purposes. Nevertheless, ardent adherents of various schools often
> held these misconceptions sacred and never questioned them.
ahem. And many westerners bought into some of those stories. Hence the
diverse "traditions" about the origins of jujitsu, judo, etc. And hence a
good reason to question the ability of any "historian" to read and research
his own material.
> The task of
> providing an unbiased and truthful presentation of the historical
> development of Judo becomes a most tedious, painstaking, and yet
challenging
> one.
> An examination of the terms, Jujutsu and Judo, finds that they are modern
> terminologies. The first term, Jujutsu, literally meaning an art of
pliancy,
> is the older of the two terms. This term can be traced back to the
> mid-Seventeenth century in books like the Bugei Shoden and the Kempohisho.
> The second, Judo, is a Twentieth century term which was most probably
> invented by Jigoro Kano, the founder of the Kodokan, the Mecca of
> present-day Judoists. Literally, it means the way or principle of pliancy
or
> gentleness.
> Further research into the terminology of this art yields such terms as
> Yawara, Taijutsu, Kogusokuj Kempo, Wajutsu, hakushu, Kumiuchi,
Roikumiuchi,
> Hakuda, Koshimawari, Torite, and Shuhaku. Many of these terms are merely
> popular names referring to physical arts generally, and bear no historical
> development. ***Some of the terms relate to ancient Chinese forms;
however, a
> Japanese reading was rendered.***
In other words, Chinese martial arts were reasonably common in Japan prior
to the arrival of Chen Yuan Yun.
> All of these terms, including Jujutsu, fall
> into the major category of Ken, or fists, a distinction being exclusive of
> hand or unarmed arts as opposed to wielding of weapons and armed methods.
So it's obvious that western "historians" who thought "Ken Po" (or "Kem Po")
referred only to striking and kicking arts didn't have a clue. Their books
are immediately suspect. As I stated in an earlier post, "ken po" or "chuan
fa" (the Chinese pronunciation) in the early usage refers to martial arts in
general, not just to kicking and striking arts.
> However two terms, Kumiuchi and Roikumiuchi, should be excluded as they
> involve armed methods as well as unarmed methods, and are usually
associated
> with a general category of varied military skills.
> It is the popular contention that Judo stems from an early practice of
the
> ancient art called Yawara. This may have been true. However, in my
research,
> I have found no evidence of this. From a linguistic and historical
approach,
> with the checking of the bask Japanese dictionaries of word usage and
> origin, the Dai Nippon Kokugo jiten, Daigenkai, and the Gensen, there is
an
> absence of this term relating it with any physical art. The Daijiten lists
> Yawara as being another reading for the term Jujutsu, and dates it as
being
> a Seventeenth Century terminology.
> It seems that in the Japanese language, more than one meaning for a gnen
> word or character is usually rendered. One reading, the "Kun,"
pronunciation
> is the so-called Japanese reading, and the other, the "On", is the adapted
> Chinese reading. The word "ju", the prefix of the terms Judo and Jujutsu,
is
> the "On" pronunciation while the "Kun" pronunciation for this same
character
> is Yawara. Therefore, the terms Jujutsu and Yawara are analogous. The
> misconception may have been that the literati used one term and the masses
> the other. If Yawara had been an ancient sport, there would definitely
have
> been, in most cases, an assigned Chinese character, Kanji, for this term,
> instead of a syllabary reading in the Kana system, or the Japanese
> alphabetical or phonetical reading.
So the term "ju jutsu" actually is a Chinese term; "Yawara" is a Japanese
term. The question I asked about "which ryu's used the term "ju jutsu"
prior to Chen Yuan Yun is answered here. None of record.
> The term Kogusoku is one that is most interesting. In the Bugei Shoden,
> which is a compilation of biographical sketches of famous masters of
various
> military arts, there is mentioned the art of Kogusoku which is ascribed to
a
> person named Takenouchi Nakatsukasadaiyu of Sakushu. It relates that in
the
> first year of Tenmon, 1532, a magician or sorcerer unexpectedly and
> mysteriously appeared before Takenouchi and taught him five methods of
> seizing a man, after that, he disappeared. This legendary account,
although
> interesting and amusing, cannot be used as valid proof as it bears no
> historical significance.
> The terms Shuhaku, Hakushu, and Hakuda are ancient Chinese terms with a
> Japanese translation. The terms Taijutsu, Wajutsu, Torite, and Kempo are
> popular terms relating to a general category of physical arts and
exercises.
> The term Koshimawari is an alternate term for Kogusoku. Nevertheless, from
a
> more specific analysis of that term, Koshimawari appears to be the general
> term for physical exercises.
> Since only the term Jujutsu has an historical basis sufficient to relate
it
> directly to Judo, a closer examination is justified. The term Jujutsu, can
> be traced back as far as the Seventeenth Century. Closely associated with
> this term is the name, Ch'en Yuan-pin, pronounced in Japanese as "Chin
> Gempin." To this man is ascribed the introduction of Jujutsu into Japan.
ahem.
> There are, to be sure, many theories that support the invention or
> introduction of Jujutsu. However, the thesis relating to Ch'en Yuan-pin is
> substantiated by documents, scholarly works, and reference books, eg.
> dictionaries, and encyclopediae.
ahem.
> Ch'en Yuan-pin was born in the year 1587 in Hangchow in the province of
> Chekiang.
Here Mr. Hu's scholarship with the old characters shows up. The closest
other western histories all get hung up on trying to translate this part of
the records, but Hu goes right to it.
> He received a traditional education and was deeply interested in
> philosophy and art. In the spring of 1621, he accompanied Shan
Feng-hsiang,
> an official of his native province, on a trip to Japan to lodge a protest
> against piratical (Wok'ou or Wako) activities along the South China coast.
> During his sojourn in Japan, he composed many verses with many Japanese
> scholars including Hayashi Nobukatsu. He went back to China but returned
to
> Japan in 1638 to escape from the troubles in China and the invading
Manchus.
> Upon his arrival in Nagasaki, he fell ill. Nevertheless, he managed to
> secure a position with the Lord of Owari at a stipend of 60 koku of rice
per
> annum in recognition of his artistic and scholastic skills.
Scholastically,
> he produced a treatise on Lao-tzu entitled Roshi tsuko or Lao-tzu t'ung
> k'ao. Together with a Buddhist priest named Gensei, he composed and
> published a volume of poems under the title, Gen Gen shawa shu. By
> introducing the poems of the Sixteenth Century Chinese poet, Yuan
Hung-tao,
> to his friend, Gensei, he indirectly made a valuable contribution to the
> development of Japanese poetry.
> Ch'en Yuan-pin was also recognized as a great potter. A type of ware
named
> after him called Gen-pin-yaki. He died in 1671 at the age of 85 years and
> his remains were interred at the Kenchu monastary at Nagoya. On his
> tombstone is the inscription, "Dai Minkoku burinki Hakuzan kogaku Chin
> Gempin" which in translation reads: "The highly learned Ming (Chinese)
from
> Chekiang, Chen Yuan-pin styled Chi-pai- san.
> It was during the time of his close friendship with the Buddhist priest,
> Gensei, and while residing at Kokusei monastery in Azabu in Edo, as Tokyo
> was then called, that references are made in establishing him with the
> introduction of Jujutsu.
> In the Bugei Shoden, there is a passage under the heading of "Ken" that:-
> What is called Yawara today in Kempohisho is also called Ken. According
to
> Bubishi, this term evolved from the ancient term Shuhaku.
> Recently, Chin Gempin (Ch'en Yuan-pin) came to Japan and stayed at the
> Kokusa monastery, where he met three ronin (lordless Samurai) Fukuno
> Hichiroemon, Isogai Jirozaemon, and Miura Yojiemon. Chin Gempin told them
> that in China, there is an art of seizing a man, which he had seen
practised
> and that it was practised in such and such a fashion, however, he had not
> learned all the principles. On hearing this, they made investigations and
> afterward became skillful and founded the Kitoryu school of Jujutsu:
So in accordance with Kito Ryu statements, Chen Yuan Yun is the progenitor.
Kito is recognizes as at least one of the founding jujutsu ryu's of judo.
> This same story is mentioned in other books as the Honcho Seji Danki,
> Bujutsu Ryusoroku, Ryoi Shintoryo Hisho, Kitoryu Kempohi, and the Kitoryu
> Toka Mondo.
That's 5 books.
> In the Owan Meisho Zue and the Zoin Kinsei Kijinden the same passage or
> story is entered.
2 more.
>The Kokushi Daijiten, Japanese historical dictionary,
> published by Yoshikawa Kobunkan in discussing the history and origin of
> Jujutsu, states that:
> Jujutsu started when the naturalized Japanese Chin Gempin from Ming
(China)
> taught it to his students in Edo during the Shoho period. Fukuno
> Hichiroemon, Miura Yojiemon and Isogai Jirozaemon learned it from him and
> studied the principles with him.
1 more.
> This same passage is quoted in the Daijimmei-Jiten, Japanese biographical
> dictionary, published by Heibonsha.
And another 1.
> There are, to be sure many writers who
> deny that Ch'en Yuan-pin introduced Jujutsu into Japan on the ground that
> "it is a shame to our country to credit the origin of Jujutsu to China!"
> This passage, taken from the Taiiroku was followed by many other writers
as
> is found in the Jibutsu Kigen jiten, which states:
> It is believed that Chin Gempin gave a suggestion or hint of Jujutsu. He
> came from Ming (China) and stayed in the Kokusei monastery in Edo. He told
> three Ronin that "There is a technique of seizing people, however, I do
not
> know the techniques, nevertheless, I have seen it." The three ronin took
the
> hint and devised their own schools. Hence it was the origin of Jujutsu.
This is the pro-Japan line of the judoka on RMA.
> The Kokumin Hyakka Daijiten, in another effort, perhaps to display
national
> pride, records that:
> It is assumed that Jujutsu originated in China. Jujutsu called "Ken" in
> Bubishi, is thought to have been introduced by Chin Gempin in a
conversation
> with three ronin . . . after Chin Gempm's conversation, the three ronins
> devised their own techniques and established their own schools.
Another trivialization of the Chinese input.
> These super patriotic approaches, although admirable as an example of
> national pride, contain no substantial evidence invalidating the Chen
> Yuan-pin thesis. Many "examples" are misquotes and passages taken out of
> context. It should not be a blot on national pride to concede that
Jujutsu,
> and therefore Judo, was developed from a foreign import.
> The fall of the Ming dynasty in China produced a flow of refugees mho
> Japan. The presence of these Chinese in the Japanese empire would have
> contributed no more than the merest driblet to the stream of Chinese
> influence that had already made its impact on Japanese ethical and
> intellectual life. What this exiguous immigrant, Ch'en Yuan-pin
contributed
> was merely a small morsel.
> Inasmuch as Jujutsu, and therefore Judo, was of Chinese origin, credit
must
> be given to the Japanese for adapting, revising, systematizing, and
> spreading the art and sport of Judo so that it has become a common
household
> word throughout the entire world.
Mike Sigman
Kyuzo Mifune:
"While Chen@ was in Edo (present Tokyo) he resided temporarily at the
Kokuseiji Temple at Azabu and one day incidentally lectured a Chinese origin
of feats similar to Ju to Fukuno Hichirouemon, Isomi Iirozaemon, Miura
Yojiuemon and others, lordless samurai residing at the non-converts'
dormitory. Stimulated by the story, the three samurai devised various ways,
especially Fukuno studied, contrived and opened a new branch, Fukuno Branch,
which sometimes was called Ryoi-shinto Branch and remained with Miura Branch
originated by Miura Yojiuemon, while from Fukuno Branch was founded Kito
Branch later or Terada Masashige, started Kito Branch and Yoshimura Hyosuke,
Terada's disciple and Horiuchi Jidaku, Yoshimura's disciple, were all
celebrated Judo-men, especially Horiuchi who never got married but
endeavored to promulgate Jujutsu all his life, and his senior pupils Terada
Ichiemon of Kyoto and Takino Yugyo of Edo were reknowned all over Japan.
Hamano held an arena at Misuji-machi, Asakusa, and his disciples numbered
3,000. Thenceforth Kito Rranch was widely spread."
Ah, those were the good ole days..... after a "lecture" where Chen Yuan Yun
casually mentioned Chinese feats "similar to Ju", 3 Japanese were able to
devise 3 basic schools of jujutsu. I bet this is a story that the Japan
National Archives will go to great lengths to avoid mentioning due to
complete absurdity. Goodness, that must have been a pithy lecture.
Mike
Weirdwolf
"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vd7t462...@corp.supernews.com...
called his "style" judo.
<snip>
> So the term "ju jutsu" actually is a Chinese term; "Yawara" is a Japanese
> term. The question I asked about "which ryu's used the term "ju jutsu"
> prior to Chen Yuan Yun is answered here. None of record.
Ju Jutsu was used as a term prior to Chen Yuan Yun, but not as a major part
of the ryu. These were bugei ryu, and Ju Jutsu is a minor part of a
traditional style, but the use of a sword and grappling in armour is seen in
huge amounts of the techniques of Ju Jutsu. The two are related, now are we
expected to believe that the rather specialised skills that wielding a
katana takes were not used as part of an empty handed system for when you
were disarmed until a Chinese none katana user showed them??
It doesn't matter if the art was kumitachi, yawara or any one of the other
names. What matters is if those skills now known as Ju Jutsu were practised
before Chen Yuan Yen, just as before the empty hand art of karate,you had
the Chinese hand, the art is similar but the name has changed.
I think that your source is reading to much into the on/kun-yomi just
because a Chinese reading is given doesn't have to mean that the art it
refers to is Chinese. My ministry of education 881 approved characters list
has an example of Da and u(tsu) sanrui-da, three base hit. From this are we
to believe that baseball is a Chinese derived sport and not from the
English?
Ted
--
Evil is such a negative term........
I prefer differently moraled.
\ /
0 0
°
~
Y
Mike Sigman
"Weirdwolf" <weirdwolf@ntl(hatespam)world.com> wrote in message
news:bb0vkf$4ldp9$1...@ID-169368.news.dfncis.de...
Interesting. What's the rest of the quote?
Well, if you want me to reiterate some things I've said before in a
different way..... let me try...:
The basic techniques of engagement (say "o-goshi" as a simple example) I
wouldn't quarrel with who started what first. I think those go back into
pre-history for every culture on earth. I know what you're trying to say
about a katana and kote-gaeshi (for example) and frankly I could argue
either side of it since I think kote-gaeshi to any held weapon is not an
obscure logic. Where did the kote-gaeshi come from? I would bet some chips
on China if I *had* to bet, but that's not my main focus. What I think is
that Japan had reasonably effective hand-to-hand-combat techniques *before*
Chen Yuan Yun, so what he showed was something truly revolutionary. In
other words, the judo guys are all thinking techniques, numbers of
techniques, etc., but I'm thinking they had "techniques" already, whether
from indigenous Japanese sources or from Chinese import at earlier times....
I don't really care. The question is *what* did Chen Yuan Yun show that was
so important.... and I think the only obvious answer is the "ki"
body-technology that is still fairly closely guarded in both Japan and
China. So in a sense, I'm arguing that Chen showed something crucial that
may have indeed been the important progenitor of jujitsu and from there
judo. What I sort of bet is that what Kano knew and envisioned as "judo" is
not what most of these "judoka" are really doing, even though they're doing
"judo" techniques, even though they know Japanese words, and even though
they think they're experts.
FWIW
Mike
Weirdwolf
a warning. Judo isn't a twentieth century term, it was being used by Kano
back in the 1800's and before him by the Kito ryu as far back as 1830.
But you have no evidence for this, my four year old daughter did pretty
much the same movement of my wrist trying to get a plastic sword out of my
hand when we were playing.
>but that's not my main focus. What I think is
> that Japan had reasonably effective hand-to-hand-combat techniques
*before*
> Chen Yuan Yun, so what he showed was something truly revolutionary. In
> other words, the judo guys are all thinking techniques, numbers of
> techniques, etc., but I'm thinking they had "techniques" already, whether
> from indigenous Japanese sources or from Chinese import at earlier
times....
> I don't really care. The question is *what* did Chen Yuan Yun show that
was
> so important.... and I think the only obvious answer is the "ki"
> body-technology that is still fairly closely guarded in both Japan and
> China.
Which is strange because ki is not a huge component in most traditional ryu.
If he did teach the ki mechanics to the Japanese it would have influenced
their movements, something for which there is no evidence of, the principle
of Ju has been dated to before Chen, and the techniques of sumo an
acknowledged source for Ju Jutsu shows no sign of this but is closely
related to the principles used in Ju Jutsu.
So in a sense, I'm arguing that Chen showed something crucial that
> may have indeed been the important progenitor of jujitsu and from there
> judo. What I sort of bet is that what Kano knew and envisioned as "judo"
is
> not what most of these "judoka" are really doing, even though they're
doing
> "judo" techniques, even though they know Japanese words, and even though
> they think they're experts.
Hmm, I should think they are closer to it in some respects than most Tai
chi players >;-)
Judo is a widely known sport and there is a documented path back from the
people who are the BIG names in Judo back to Kano. For example, in Britain
the Budokwai has a long history, started in 1918 I believe it has had as its
instructors Gunji Koizumi and Yukio Tani as well as hosting visits by Dr.
Kano. They send people back to Japan to study, I believe Neil Adams is an
example of this exchange. I find it hard to believe that the principles
would have changed so vastly. Admittedly there are changes,(you should have
seen the reactions to my seionage at one club) but the ideal appears to be
remarkably resilient.
Mike Sigman
>
> >
> > Interesting. What's the rest of the quote?
> Erm, OK for a supposedly reputable source to get this simple fact wrong
is
> a warning. Judo isn't a twentieth century term, it was being used by Kano
> back in the 1800's and before him by the Kito ryu as far back as 1830.
If that's the case, then most of the Judo posters have got it wrong, too.
If you mean Kano used it in 1895, I'm not to moved by it since the author is
still basically correct.... however, if Kito Ryu used it back in 1830, it's
another story. IF that's true. The problem is going to be sources. For
instance, if it's an obscure but OK source then it's possible that Hu missed
it, since he only quoted (as far as I could see) big-name sources. On the
other hand, if your sources are closely-held documents of a given ryu, they
could be not only suspect as sources but would obviously not have been under
the purview of the article. If you see the question.
>
> >
> > Well, if you want me to reiterate some things I've said before in a
> > different way..... let me try...:
> >
> > The basic techniques of engagement (say "o-goshi" as a simple example) I
> > wouldn't quarrel with who started what first. I think those go back
into
> > pre-history for every culture on earth. I know what you're trying to
> say
> > about a katana and kote-gaeshi (for example) and frankly I could argue
> > either side of it since I think kote-gaeshi to any held weapon is not an
> > obscure logic. Where did the kote-gaeshi come from? I would bet some
> chips
> > on China if I *had* to bet,
> But you have no evidence for this, my four year old daughter did pretty
> much the same movement of my wrist trying to get a plastic sword out of my
> hand when we were playing.
>
I hope there's more to kote-gaeshi in the style you study with, however. I
see your point, but you see mine, also.
> Which is strange because ki is not a huge component in most traditional
ryu.
> If he did teach the ki mechanics to the Japanese it would have influenced
> their movements, something for which there is no evidence of, the
principle
> of Ju has been dated to before Chen, and the techniques of sumo an
> acknowledged source for Ju Jutsu shows no sign of this but is closely
> related to the principles used in Ju Jutsu.
Well, you're arguing one of the "derivation" stories of jujitsu which Hu
argues against. The big problem everyone keeps running into is the pretty
much unanimous admission that Chen Yuan Yun did *something* that was
big-time, but the exact "what" is not clear. And I've noticed a couple of
western historians keep coming back to that very point.... there's
*something* that CYY contributed that was very important or they wouldn't
have written it in books and inscribed it on tablets that he did *something*
that was the start of the "ju" arts.
You're basically saying he did nothing and that they did all the monuments
and writings for one Chinese out of many for no particular reason. I
disagree with that.
> What I sort of bet is that what Kano knew and envisioned as "judo"
> is
> > not what most of these "judoka" are really doing, even though they're
> doing
> > "judo" techniques, even though they know Japanese words, and even though
> > they think they're experts.
> Hmm, I should think they are closer to it in some respects than most Tai
> chi players >;-)
Good thing you said "most". If you'd like to go to a workshop in England
and take your teacher to show a Taiji teacher the real stuff, I can arrange
it. However, I get to arrange the teacher. :^)
> Judo is a widely known sport and there is a documented path back from the
> people who are the BIG names in Judo back to Kano. For example, in Britain
> the Budokwai has a long history, started in 1918 I believe it has had as
its
> instructors Gunji Koizumi and Yukio Tani as well as hosting visits by Dr.
> Kano. They send people back to Japan to study, I believe Neil Adams is an
> example of this exchange. I find it hard to believe that the principles
> would have changed so vastly. Admittedly there are changes,(you should
have
> seen the reactions to my seionage at one club) but the ideal appears to be
> remarkably resilient.
>
Well... you offered your take and I offered mine. In the long run it
doesn't matter. It would only matter to me if you knew enough of the "ki"
stuff to talk intelligently about it. :^)
Mike
Weirdwolf
>
> "Weirdwolf" <weirdwolf@ntl(hatespam)world.com> wrote in message
> news:bb12ul$4llrc$1...@ID-169368.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > >
> > > Interesting. What's the rest of the quote?
> > Erm, OK for a supposedly reputable source to get this simple fact wrong
> is
> > a warning. Judo isn't a twentieth century term, it was being used by
Kano
> > back in the 1800's and before him by the Kito ryu as far back as 1830.
>
> If that's the case, then most of the Judo posters have got it wrong, too.
> If you mean Kano used it in 1895, I'm not to moved by it since the author
is
> still basically correct.... however, if Kito Ryu used it back in 1830,
it's
> another story. IF that's true. The problem is going to be sources.
For
> instance, if it's an obscure but OK source then it's possible that Hu
missed
> it, since he only quoted (as far as I could see) big-name sources. On the
> other hand, if your sources are closely-held documents of a given ryu,
they
> could be not only suspect as sources but would obviously not have been
under
> the purview of the article. If you see the question.
>
>
> > >
> > > Well, if you want me to reiterate some things I've said before in a
> > > different way..... let me try...:
> > >
> > > The basic techniques of engagement (say "o-goshi" as a simple example)
I
> > > wouldn't quarrel with who started what first. I think those go back
> into
> > > pre-history for every culture on earth. I know what you're trying
to
> > say
> > > about a katana and kote-gaeshi (for example) and frankly I could argue
> > > either side of it since I think kote-gaeshi to any held weapon is not
an
> > > obscure logic. Where did the kote-gaeshi come from? I would bet some
> > chips
> > > on China if I *had* to bet,
>
>
> > But you have no evidence for this, my four year old daughter did pretty
> > much the same movement of my wrist trying to get a plastic sword out of
my
> > hand when we were playing.
> >
>
> I hope there's more to kote-gaeshi in the style you study with, however.
I
> see your point, but you see mine, also.
>
>
> > Which is strange because ki is not a huge component in most traditional
> ryu.
> > If he did teach the ki mechanics to the Japanese it would have
influenced
> > their movements, something for which there is no evidence of, the
> principle
> > of Ju has been dated to before Chen, and the techniques of sumo an
> > acknowledged source for Ju Jutsu shows no sign of this but is closely
> > related to the principles used in Ju Jutsu.
>
> Well, you're arguing one of the "derivation" stories of jujitsu which Hu
> argues against. The big problem everyone keeps running into is the pretty
> much unanimous admission that Chen Yuan Yun did *something* that was
> big-time, but the exact "what" is not clear. And I've noticed a couple
of
> western historians keep coming back to that very point.... there's
> *something* that CYY contributed that was very important or they wouldn't
> have written it in books and inscribed it on tablets that he did
*something*
> that was the start of the "ju" arts.
>
> You're basically saying he did nothing and that they did all the monuments
> and writings for one Chinese out of many for no particular reason. I
> disagree with that.
Hmm I'm not saying he did nothing, influenced the beginnings of three ryu.
but I'm sure it wasn't an introduction of Ju to the arts. Hell If you
believe some of the myths I could learn from tengu and split a rock with my
sword. We all have stories to tell about our teachers and how they seem
pretty damn impressive, hyperbole is a huge,gigantic,enormous,elephantine
part of martial arts.
> > What I sort of bet is that what Kano knew and envisioned as "judo"
> > is
> > > not what most of these "judoka" are really doing, even though they're
> > doing
> > > "judo" techniques, even though they know Japanese words, and even
though
> > > they think they're experts.
> > Hmm, I should think they are closer to it in some respects than most
Tai
> > chi players >;-)
>
> Good thing you said "most".
Care to talk about percentages >:-Þ
> If you'd like to go to a workshop in England
> and take your teacher to show a Taiji teacher the real stuff, I can
arrange
> it. However, I get to arrange the teacher. :^)
Humph, I'm having trouble standing up at the moment, went to pick up a tree
at the garden centre and popped the bloody knee.
>
> > Judo is a widely known sport and there is a documented path back from
the
> > people who are the BIG names in Judo back to Kano. For example, in
Britain
> > the Budokwai has a long history, started in 1918 I believe it has had as
> its
> > instructors Gunji Koizumi and Yukio Tani as well as hosting visits by
Dr.
> > Kano. They send people back to Japan to study, I believe Neil Adams is
an
> > example of this exchange. I find it hard to believe that the principles
> > would have changed so vastly. Admittedly there are changes,(you should
> have
> > seen the reactions to my seionage at one club) but the ideal appears to
be
> > remarkably resilient.
> >
>
> Well... you offered your take and I offered mine. In the long run it
> doesn't matter. It would only matter to me if you knew enough of the
"ki"
> stuff to talk intelligently about it. :^)
Which doesn't really make any difference because I've had some experience
in various styles of Ju Jutsu and as ki doesn't play a major part in them
and your saying it was a major part added by Chen somebody must be wrong
>;-)
We're always to busy trying to neatly remove the opponents head from his
body.
Mark Goldberg
>...Ah, those were the good ole days..... after a "lecture" where Chen Yuan Yun
>casually mentioned Chinese feats "similar to Ju", 3 Japanese were able to
>devise 3 basic schools of jujutsu. I bet this is a story that the Japan
>National Archives will go to great lengths to avoid mentioning due to
>complete absurdity. Goodness, that must have been a pithy lecture.
>
>Mike
>
If they were as imaginiative as the chinese... they would have
re-invented a story about the samurai,
discussing the lecture, then watching a snake battle a crane... and
VOILA, insight and creation of a new
art.
mark
Peter Claussen
<mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Weirdwolf" <weirdwolf@ntl(hatespam)world.com> wrote in message
> news:bb0vkf$4ldp9$1...@ID-169368.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:vd7t462...@corp.supernews.com...
> > However, Kano himself stated that the term Judo had been used before he
> had
> > called his "style" judo.
>
> Interesting. What's the rest of the quote?
>
<snip>
The question is *what* did Chen Yuan Yun show that was
> so important.... and I think the only obvious answer is the "ki"
> body-technology that is still fairly closely guarded in both Japan and
> China. So in a sense, I'm arguing that Chen showed something crucial that
> may have indeed been the important progenitor of jujitsu and from there
> judo.
This is not arguing, this is sheer conjecture. To argue, you need some
basis in fact to start.
> What I sort of bet is that what Kano knew and envisioned as "judo" is
> not what most of these "judoka" are really doing, even though they're doing
> "judo" techniques, even though they know Japanese words, and even though
> they think they're experts.
>
If you don't know that Kano credited Jikishin-ryu with the origin of
the term "judo", how can you presume to know enough about Kano's vision
to make any kind of blanket statement about whether judoka are doing
Kano judo?
So let's just see if you have the expertise, common to most judoka, to
judge how judoka practice. What where Kano's key principles of judo;
that is, Kano's contribution to the study of judo/jujutsu techniques?
Peter Claussen
Mike Sigman
> > If that's the case, then most of the Judo posters have got it wrong,
too.
> > If you mean Kano used it in 1895, I'm not to moved by it since the
author
> is
> > still basically correct.... however, if Kito Ryu used it back in 1830,
> it's
> > another story. IF that's true. The problem is going to be sources.
> For
> > instance, if it's an obscure but OK source then it's possible that Hu
> missed
> > it, since he only quoted (as far as I could see) big-name sources. On
the
> > other hand, if your sources are closely-held documents of a given ryu,
> they
> > could be not only suspect as sources but would obviously not have been
> under
> > the purview of the article. If you see the question.
> >
> Eep, I'll have to try and drag up where I read that peice of info.
Yeah, if you would. I've never heard of it, but then again I've read some
weird but factual-sounding stuff that I couldn't remember where I saw it.
>> >
> >
> > You're basically saying he did nothing and that they did all the
monuments
> > and writings for one Chinese out of many for no particular reason. I
> > disagree with that.
> Hmm I'm not saying he did nothing, influenced the beginnings of three
ryu.
> but I'm sure it wasn't an introduction of Ju to the arts. Hell If you
> believe some of the myths I could learn from tengu and split a rock with
my
> sword. We all have stories to tell about our teachers and how they seem
> pretty damn impressive, hyperbole is a huge,gigantic,enormous,elephantine
> part of martial arts.
Yeah, but hyperbole is almost always by the students of an art *for* their
art and for their teacher or founder. This is an odd one because it's
about a guy that the Chinese say was a shuai jiao practitioner (i.e., *not*
of their art at all) and the Japanese play it as "he didn't know much" (but
it was enough start 3 of 'em running to found their own styles).
> >
> > Good thing you said "most".
> Care to talk about percentages >:-Ş
I think "most" covers the percentage that can't really do Taiji. :^) I
don't know of any westerner who really does and damn' few Chinese.
>
> Which doesn't really make any difference because I've had some experience
> in various styles of Ju Jutsu and as ki doesn't play a major part in them
> and your saying it was a major part added by Chen somebody must be wrong
> >;-)
> We're always to busy trying to neatly remove the opponents head from his
> body.
Fair enough.
Mike
Mike Sigman
"Peter Claussen" <dakot...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:270520032142437489%dakot...@mac.com...
>
> The question is *what* did Chen Yuan Yun show that was
> > so important.... and I think the only obvious answer is the "ki"
> > body-technology that is still fairly closely guarded in both Japan and
> > China. So in a sense, I'm arguing that Chen showed something crucial
that
> > may have indeed been the important progenitor of jujitsu and from there
> > judo.
>
> This is not arguing, this is sheer conjecture. To argue, you need some
> basis in fact to start.
>
It has some basis in fact. As I've pointed out, the "ki" things (to some
extent) reside in the Jujitsu schools, but seem to dilute from there,
*except* in some of the karate schools... but the "ki" things there are of
the Shaolin variety. Aha.
> > What I sort of bet is that what Kano knew and envisioned as "judo" is
> > not what most of these "judoka" are really doing, even though they're
doing
> > "judo" techniques, even though they know Japanese words, and even though
> > they think they're experts.
> >
>
> If you don't know that Kano credited Jikishin-ryu with the origin of
> the term "judo", how can you presume to know enough about Kano's vision
> to make any kind of blanket statement about whether judoka are doing
> Kano judo?
Same way I don't doubt you know some techniques in Judo but you didn't know
about the size and depth of the CYY connection.
>
> So let's just see if you have the expertise, common to most judoka, to
> judge how judoka practice. What where Kano's key principles of judo;
> that is, Kano's contribution to the study of judo/jujutsu techniques?
Tell me first what the elements of "ki" practice are that are found in the
ryu from which judo supposedly derives. If you don't know, then you must
not know judo, right?
Mike
Matthew Weigel
"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Here's a copy of the article from Black Belt Magazine that WCC Hu did,
> apparently in 1962. The promising thing is that Hu seems to go into the
> etymology, indicating that he has the ability to at least work in the old
> characters with *some* (total extent unknown) proficiency. I'll make a few
> comments in relation to earlier discussions.
<snip>
> So in accordance with Kito Ryu statements, Chen Yuan Yun is the progenitor.
> Kito is recognizes as at least one of the founding jujutsu ryu's of judo.
"at least one"? Try "one".
> This is the pro-Japan line of the judoka on RMA.
No, it isn't. I'm perfectly willing to agree, to the extent that I have
knowledge of the matter, that he had an impact on jiujitsu, and that it
extended beyond the Japanese hearing about an idea and creating it from
whole cloth. It's the "judo is wholly derived from CMA" bit that's
stretching things, though.
> Another trivialization of the Chinese input.
Boo-fucking-hoo.
> > Inasmuch as Jujutsu, and therefore Judo, was of Chinese origin, credit
Out of curiosity, may I safely assume that someone with a name like "WCC
Hu" is Chinese? Would you mind, if that's true, discussing your opinion
on the extent to which Hu lacked a pro-Chinese bias, and the extent to
which Japanese historians possess a pro-Japanese bias? Thanks.
--
Matthew Weigel
hacker or something
no longer posting from work
Matthew Weigel
> ahem. And many westerners bought into some of those stories. Hence the
> diverse "traditions" about the origins of jujitsu, judo, etc. And hence a
> good reason to question the ability of any "historian" to read and research
> his own material.
Heh.
Including you.
But seriously...
Care to explain the similarity of the kimono and obi - these things, I
hope you'll agree, existed prior to the 17th century - with the judogi
and obi?
I'm particularly interested in how the judogi's obi is tied, and the
similarity with how the kimono's obi is tied, and the similarity to the
shuaijiao uniform's belt and how *that* is tied, if you don't mind,
because I think it would be an enlightening experience.
Ben Holmes
<mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"Weirdwolf" <weirdwolf@ntl(hatespam)world.com> wrote in message
>news:bb12ul$4llrc$1...@ID-169368.news.dfncis.de...
>>
>> > Interesting. What's the rest of the quote?
>> Erm, OK for a supposedly reputable source to get this simple fact wrong
>is
>> a warning. Judo isn't a twentieth century term, it was being used by Kano
>> back in the 1800's and before him by the Kito ryu as far back as 1830.
>
>If that's the case, then most of the Judo posters have got it wrong, too.
>If you mean Kano used it in 1895, I'm not to moved by it since the author is
>still basically correct.... however, if Kito Ryu used it back in 1830, it's
>another story. IF that's true.
It wasn't Kito Ryu, it was Jikishin Ryu that used the term 'Judo'.
>The problem is going to be sources.
I agree.
>For instance, if it's an obscure but OK source then it's possible that Hu missed
>it, since he only quoted (as far as I could see) big-name sources.
Absolutely. I'm with you on this one...
>On the other hand, if your sources are closely-held documents of a given ryu,
>they could be not only suspect as sources but would obviously not have been
>under the purview of the article. If you see the question.
Yeah, this was a closely guarded secret that can be found on page 9 of
the only version of "Illustrated Kodokan Judo" that Hu would have had
access to (the 1955 edition... the 1982 edition was obviously
published after 1962)
For someone who wrote an article about Judo, and didn't bother to
acquaint himself with the "Bible" of Judo, doesn't say much for his
'scholarship'.
Interestingly, this version of Kodokan Judo also has this to say:
"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
Hito-tsubashi-Joken, or Sekiguchi-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 had some influence on
Jujitsu."
Seems that Hu missed all of that as well. Great scholarship...
Wrote a history of Judo, and forgot that Jigoro Kano had written
anything on the subject...
He COULDN'T have "started" the "ju" arts... they were pre-existing.
Learn to live with this simple fact.
>You're basically saying he did nothing and that they did all the monuments
>and writings for one Chinese out of many for no particular reason. I
>disagree with that.
You also apparently continue to disagree with native-born Japanese who
are fluent in reading Japanese and experienced in martial arts who
tell a white-boy like you, Mike, that there is documentary evidence of
Jujutsu PREDATING CYY.
Richard F. Man
Mike Sigman wrote:
> .... The question is *what* did Chen Yuan Yun show that was
> so important.... and I think the only obvious answer is the "ki"
> body-technology that is still fairly closely guarded in both Japan and
> China. So in a sense, I'm arguing that Chen showed something crucial that
> may have indeed been the important progenitor of jujitsu and from there
> judo. What I sort of bet is that what Kano knew and envisioned as "judo" is
> not what most of these "judoka" are really doing, even though they're doing
> "judo" techniques, even though they know Japanese words, and even though
> they think they're experts.
> ....
Hi Mike
Heh, I see. So you are trying to tie it all back together with your favorite
subject of internal strength and jin skills. Interesting.... Are there more
biography of Chen Yuan Yun saying that he is an internal martial artist? In the
"pro Japan lines," as you called them :-) he only mentions seeing "techniques of
seizing people," presumably Chin-na and other techniques. How do you go from
that to the Chi stuff? Or are you saying that since the Japanese knew about lots
of techniques already, if some Chinese dude were to shaken them up enough to
introduce new systems of martial arts, it must have been something truly
groundbreaking?
--
// richard
http://www.imagecraft.com
Weirdwolf
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:pij8dv87ftkhr4812...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 May 2003 19:38:28 -0600, "Mike Sigman"
> <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >"Weirdwolf" <weirdwolf@ntl(hatespam)world.com> wrote in message
> >news:bb12ul$4llrc$1...@ID-169368.news.dfncis.de...
> >>
> >> > Interesting. What's the rest of the quote?
> >> Erm, OK for a supposedly reputable source to get this simple fact
wrong
> >is
> >> a warning. Judo isn't a twentieth century term, it was being used by
Kano
> >> back in the 1800's and before him by the Kito ryu as far back as 1830.
> >
> >If that's the case, then most of the Judo posters have got it wrong, too.
> >If you mean Kano used it in 1895, I'm not to moved by it since the author
is
> >still basically correct.... however, if Kito Ryu used it back in 1830,
it's
> >another story. IF that's true.
>
> It wasn't Kito Ryu, it was Jikishin Ryu that used the term 'Judo'.
and one of the books by Harrison?
I definitely know it's quoted as Kito ryu in a book by Nicholas Soames.
Weirdwolf
>
> "Peter Claussen" <dakot...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:270520032142437489%dakot...@mac.com...
>
> >
> > The question is *what* did Chen Yuan Yun show that was
> > > so important.... and I think the only obvious answer is the "ki"
> > > body-technology that is still fairly closely guarded in both Japan and
> > > China. So in a sense, I'm arguing that Chen showed something crucial
> that
> > > may have indeed been the important progenitor of jujitsu and from
there
> > > judo.
> >
> > This is not arguing, this is sheer conjecture. To argue, you need some
> > basis in fact to start.
> >
>
> It has some basis in fact. As I've pointed out, the "ki" things (to some
> extent) reside in the Jujitsu schools, but seem to dilute from there,
> *except* in some of the karate schools... but the "ki" things there are of
> the Shaolin variety. Aha.
example of a ryu that it haas some influence on is Daito ryu and its
descendents.
<snip>
> > So let's just see if you have the expertise, common to most judoka, to
> > judge how judoka practice. What where Kano's key principles of judo;
> > that is, Kano's contribution to the study of judo/jujutsu techniques?
>
> Tell me first what the elements of "ki" practice are that are found in the
> ryu from which judo supposedly derives. If you don't know, then you must
> not know judo, right?
Chen is correct and that he did indeed bring the principles of ki into the
various ryu. That's a big supposition, as I've tried to point out to you,
the principle of Ju predates Chens visit and ki doesn't play a major part in
most Bugei arts, with the noted exception of Daito ryu. The fact that ki
isn't a major part of Judo but the idea of ju is, would just point out that
Chen didn't influence the ryu in that way, have a large part in developing
the ryu or that Judo has lost it's ki elements. Of these the last would be
the easiest to prove with the writings of Kano still around you'd just have
to check how big a part it played in his idea of judo.
Ted
--
Evil is such a negative term........
I prefer differently moraled.
\ /
0 0
°
~
Y
Mike Sigman
"Matthew Weigel" <wei...@libcom.toomuchspamalready.com> wrote in message
news:weigel-987421....@news.libcom.com...
>
> No, it isn't. I'm perfectly willing to agree, to the extent that I have
> knowledge of the matter, that he had an impact on jiujitsu, and that it
> extended beyond the Japanese hearing about an idea and creating it from
> whole cloth. It's the "judo is wholly derived from CMA" bit that's
> stretching things, though.
I dunno... I just reiterated about 2 days ago that *I* have never said that
"judo is wholly derived from CMA" and yet here it is again. Show me a quote
where I have ever said judo is 'wholly' derived from CMA. And I've never
argued against techniques being introduced from other sources. However, I
say that judo is evolved or 'derived' (just not "wholly") from CMA. It's
these false side arguments that make me wonder what's going on.
>
> > Another trivialization of the Chinese input.
>
> Boo-fucking-hoo.
>
> > > Inasmuch as Jujutsu, and therefore Judo, was of Chinese origin,
credit
>
> Out of curiosity, may I safely assume that someone with a name like "WCC
> Hu" is Chinese? Would you mind, if that's true, discussing your opinion
> on the extent to which Hu lacked a pro-Chinese bias, and the extent to
> which Japanese historians possess a pro-Japanese bias? Thanks.
I don't know who he is, but the name is obviously of Chinese origin, just
like we may presume your name and mine are of German origin. He obviously
can read Japanese reasonably well; modern Japanese as well as old Japanese,
at least to some practical degree. I'm assuming he is American or British,
based on some things he has written, probably American (if I had to guess).
I would put his slant at a "somewhat" pro-Chinese, but I realize that he
could argue very effectively he didn't, so I would be reluctant to get into
it based on that one article. He mentions the history in better and more
coherent detail than most western writers and he has *massive* source
material backing him up, for such a short article (granted some of the
sources are repetitious). He discusses the fairly obvious Japanese
nationalistic slant of some "histories" (like the idea those ryu's were
actually almost fully of Japanese origin because they only accepted a "hint"
from CYY), but in return he points out that a lot of the growth and
modification of the ju arts is purely the result of the Japanese efforts.
It's difficult to discuss China and Japan without *some* slant simply for
the reason that Japan adopted so much of the artifacts of Chinese culture
(if someone wants to argue that "it was a 2-way street", let's see some
facts for a change).
FWIW
Mike
Mike Sigman
>
> But seriously...
>
From you?
> Care to explain the similarity of the kimono and obi - these things, I
> hope you'll agree, existed prior to the 17th century - with the judogi
> and obi?
I don't have time to get into another extended tangent. Have you done any
research on the origins of the kimono? It might help you to do that.
Mike
45kj
legendary syd hoare.
I seem to remember that he said the term "ju-do" was first used in 500BC for
the style of some wrestler at and imperial tournament or something..!
---
This mail is certified Virus Free AVG PE 6.0
www.avg.com
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.350 / Virus Database: 196 - Release Date: 17/04/02
Mike Sigman
"Richard F. Man" <ric...@imagecraft.com> wrote in message
news:3ED46F34...@imagecraft.com...
> Heh, I see. So you are trying to tie it all back together with your
favorite
> subject of internal strength and jin skills. Interesting.... Are there
more
> biography of Chen Yuan Yun saying that he is an internal martial artist?
In the
> "pro Japan lines," as you called them :-) he only mentions seeing
"techniques of
> seizing people," presumably Chin-na and other techniques. How do you go
from
> that to the Chi stuff? Or are you saying that since the Japanese knew
about lots
> of techniques already, if some Chinese dude were to shaken them up enough
to
> introduce new systems of martial arts, it must have been something truly
> groundbreaking?
Well, the Chinese didn't share information (if they know it) easily; that's
a given. Yet at some time, someone showed a fair amount of the soft "ki"
data to the Japanese because you can find that information threaded in some
of the jujitsu ryu. Morihei Ueshiba learned his "ki" things apparently from
Sokaku Takeda and perhaps some through one of the Shinto religions he
practiced. For years I fixated on the Shinto religious practices until I
finally had enough data that Takeda knew these things. So Jujitsu is the
source. I have to be careful with the CYY thing because it's too
convenient to use him as a handy explanation for too many things, but I
suspect that he had to have some of those skills if he really studied shuai
jiao or a related martial art, since virtually every Chinese martial art
uses some variant of "qi" training.
Incidentally, "shuai jiao" is a stand-alone art, but shuai-jiao techniques
are used in most Chinese martial arts. It's like saying Judo is a
stand-alone martial art, but every good martial art will use judo techniques
in order to be complete. So CYY could have been a "shuai jiao practitioner"
or he could have been a Chinese martial arts practitioner with good
shuai-jiao skills.
I'm simply speculating, but the Japanese histories are too obviously playing
down what CYY showed or told.... a "hint" or a "lecture" won't do it. The
question to me is "was CYY a highly skilled shuai jiao practitioner such
that he wow'ed the Japanese with his skills" (this is what the Chinese try
to say) or "was CYY an acceptable shuai jiao practitioner who also used
awe-inspiring 'ki' additions to his techniques and *that* was what wow'ed
the Japanese". Who knows for sure.. it's just conversation at this point.
But he had to introduce *something* impressive or he wouldn't be named in
all those books.
FWIW
Mike
Mike Sigman
> To a very minor extent, ki is not mentioned in most ryu, probably the
best
> example of a ryu that it haas some influence on is Daito ryu and its
> descendents.
> <snip>
Yeah, that's the impression I have been getting, too. Murky, ain't it?
> If the schools had ki as a major influence, which presupposes your link to
> Chen is correct and that he did indeed bring the principles of ki into the
> various ryu. That's a big supposition, as I've tried to point out to you,
> the principle of Ju predates Chens visit and ki doesn't play a major part
in
> most Bugei arts, with the noted exception of Daito ryu. The fact that ki
> isn't a major part of Judo but the idea of ju is, would just point out
that
> Chen didn't influence the ryu in that way, have a large part in developing
> the ryu or that Judo has lost it's ki elements. Of these the last would be
> the easiest to prove with the writings of Kano still around you'd just
have
> to check how big a part it played in his idea of judo.
>
Well, that's one of the discussion cards still in my hand. "Ju" in the
Chinese sense implies the use of "qi". In other words, external techniques
are considered OK, but sort of primitive. Full techniques use the external
technique plus qi skills.
Besides, I've seen some histories that indicate the Japanese also used the
Chinese nomenclature of "external" and "internal", implying that the only
problem really is that tons of stuff has been forgotten and present-day
practitioners simply think they know all there was to know. To me it's
just an interesting puzzle, because I don't focus on the Japanese as a
source of the "qi" things, which is my main interest.
FWIW
Mike
Mike Sigman
"45kj" <b...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:bb2dgg$ncr$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> There's a very good chapter on this in the "Teach yourself judo" book by
the
> legendary syd hoare.
> I seem to remember that he said the term "ju-do" was first used in 500BC
for
> the style of some wrestler at and imperial tournament or something..!
>
I'll pass this info along to Ben Holmes. He can add it to his source
material. Thanks!
Mike
Ben Holmes
I'll take a look at Soames when I get home, but the Jikishin Ryu reference is
from "Kodokan Judo". I tend to accept that as more authoritative than most
others on the subject of Judo...
Matthew Weigel
"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I dunno... I just reiterated about 2 days ago that *I* have never said that
> "judo is wholly derived from CMA" and yet here it is again. Show me a quote
> where I have ever said judo is 'wholly' derived from CMA. And I've never
> argued against techniques being introduced from other sources. However, I
> say that judo is evolved or 'derived' (just not "wholly") from CMA.
*shrug* same thing.
> It's
> these false side arguments that make me wonder what's going on.
Oh, false arguments like:
>>> This is the pro-Japan line of the judoka on RMA.
I just want to be clear here.
> it based on that one article. He mentions the history in better and more
> coherent detail than most western writers
And how does his scholarship compare to Japanese historians, and their
pro-Japanese slant?
Matthew Weigel
"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Care to explain the similarity of the kimono and obi - these things, I
> > hope you'll agree, existed prior to the 17th century - with the judogi
> > and obi?
>
> I don't have time to get into another extended tangent.
Good point, I don't want to rehash this again either.
> Have you done any
> research on the origins of the kimono? It might help you to do that.
Unless its origins are the shuaijiao uniform, I'm not sure what support
for your claims you'll be able to draw from it.
YoJimbo
>
>
>
>Mike Sigman wrote:
>
>> .... The question is *what* did Chen Yuan Yun show that was
>> so important.... and I think the only obvious answer is the "ki"
>> body-technology that is still fairly closely guarded in both Japan and
>> China. So in a sense, I'm arguing that Chen showed something crucial that
>> may have indeed been the important progenitor of jujitsu and from there
>> judo. What I sort of bet is that what Kano knew and envisioned as "judo" is
>> not what most of these "judoka" are really doing, even though they're doing
>> "judo" techniques, even though they know Japanese words, and even though
>> they think they're experts.
>> ....
>
>Hi Mike
>Heh, I see. So you are trying to tie it all back together with your favorite
>subject of internal strength and jin skills. Interesting.... Are there more
>biography of Chen Yuan Yun saying that he is an internal martial artist? In
the
>"pro Japan lines," as you called them :-) he only mentions seeing "techniques
of
>seizing people," presumably Chin-na and other techniques. How do you go from
>that to the Chi stuff?
He can't.
It's the dreaded "white wonnabe" disease, and Mikey is trying to infect
everybocy else with it :-)))).
Fact is, Mike's theory about "ju" techniques coming from China to the
ignorant Japanese (they always are ignorant in Mikey's version) are a
complete misrepresentation of the record.
It's silly to attribute to Chin Gempin any kind of "internal martial
arts" anyway. There's not a shred of evidence Gemp-baby did anything
other than the generic shaolin of his time, which would probably
include some joint-locking as well as hitting and striking typical
of shaolin (however it looked back then).
To extrapolate from his "kempo" a **direct link** (tm) to what are
known today as the internal chinese martial arts is sheer conjecture.
Only Mikey is not afraid to take such a leap, with absolutely
nothing to back up his crazy white-man reconstruction of history.
Here's some from the site I mentioned in another reply, check it out:
"Confusion begins first when modern-day practitioners think that the
current kempo ("fist-method") is somehow related to what was considered
kempo in the ancient annals.
They're not.
There is also no small amount of misinformation when such beliefs are
further compounded by a misreading of other English texts. This has led
to some people claiming that all Japanese martial arts had their roots in
China, or that a variation of modern-day kempo was taught in very ancient
times in Japan, and that modern adherents of what is called kempo are
therefore the inheritors of an ancient legacy. Again, this just ain't so.
Let us take a deeper look at the historical record. First, the passage by
Donn F. Draeger. He notes that Chin Gempin (Ch'en Yuan-pin; 1587-1674) was a:
Chinese-born, naturalized Japanese. . .traditionally believed to have taught
three ronin in Edo three tactics (not methods) of ch'uan-fa.
The three were Fukuno Shichiroemon, Miura Yojiemon, and Isogai Jirozaemon.
The claim that Chinese martial arts were the sole basis of early Japanese
unarmed systems, Draeger writes, is ". . . as valid as implying that the
inventor of the wheel was the developer of the modern automobile."
Records show that jujutsu systems existed full-blown before Chin Gempin's
time, and the three ronin also had, according to Draeger, jujutsu skills
prior to meeting Gempin. But Gempin did, obviously, have a tremendous impact
on the development of Chinese-style striking and boxing methods in jujutsu.
Chinese Ch'uan-fa, boxing and striking methods developed for unarmed combat,
were referred to by the Japanese as hakuda or shuhaku, "to beat by hand,"
or kempo ("fist methods"), a term applied to all methods used to fight in a
boxing manner.
Draeger probably drew on the most famous reference to Chin Gempin (or Genpin),
found in the Honcho Bugei Shoden, retranslated into understandable colloquial
modern Japanese by Watatani Kiyoshi.
The original Honchi Bugei Shoden was one of the first compilations of extant
martial ryu of Japan, by an expert of the Toda-ryu, Hinonatsu Shigetaka,
written in Shotoku 4 (1714 A.D.) and published and distributed in 1716.
It was also called the Kanjo Shoden.
Watatani Kiyoshi deciphered the text, written originally in kanbun (all
Chinese characters), along with a translation of the Shinsen Bujutsu Ryuso
Mokuroku. He added considerable footnotes and explanations in the publication
Nihon Bugei Shoden (1962; published by Jinbutsu Oraisha, Tokyo, Japan).
In the tenth scroll of the Honcho Bugei Shoden, there is a section attempting
to describe the history of the arts of kempo. Draeger apparently drew greatly
from the Watatani source, and let us see what he and the original author of the
Honcho Bugei Shoden have to say.
In the aforementioned section of the Honcho Bugei Shoden, Hinonatsu Shigetaka
writes that:
...A person named Chin Gempin came to our country and for a time was at
the Azabu Kokushoji temple in Edo (present day Tokyo).
Three ronin visited the temple on occaision, met with Gempin and discussed
various issues. Gempin told them, "In China,, there are methods in which
you can subdue other people. It's not that I know those particular techniques,
but I've had many chances to observe and hear about them."
Gempin described the methods to the three ronin, who tried to reconstruct the
techniques, thereby formulating their own methods. This, the Honcho Bugei
Shoden
writes, "is the origins of yawara (jujutsu). These three spread the knowledge
throughout the rest of Japan."
The discrepancies are obvious. Even in the same Honcho Bugei Shoden, there are
lists and records of various jujutsu systems that existed long before the era
of the three ronin and Chin Gempin.
But let us continue with the text. Hinonatsu further states:
The philosophy of this method is that you do not fight directly with an
opponent,
rather you are flexible and pliable, not even seeking victory, but to search
for peace. . . thereby subduing the opponent.
Watatani goes further, drawing on various sources to discuss the errors
inherent
in the document and adding other facts drawn from other sources about the
origins
and development of boxing-type martial arts in the West and Asia. He has a very
interesting paragraph about the Buddhist monk Boddhidharma's legacy as well as
the difference between what the Japanese (and Chinese) call (in Japanese) the
gaike ("external" styles) and naike ("internal" styles) of Chinese martial
arts.
Watatani discusses the known history of unarmed combative systems in Japan.
Then he returns to a more detailed research of Chin Gempin based on
extrapolating
information in the Honcho Bugei Shoden, the Bujutsu Ryusoroku, Honcho Seijidan,
Kokushi Daijiten and so on. Chin, Watatani writes, originally was from the
Kaolin
(?) district of China, and the first time he came to Japan was in the spring of
Genna 7 (1621), at the age of 35. Some years later, he returned to China,
underwent
the civil service examinations, and for a time served in the government.
Because
of wars and unrest, Chin returned to Japan with three other companions in
Kan'ei
15 (1638), for a while residing in the port town of Nagasaki. He later moved to
Edo. In Manji 2 (1659), upon orders from the Shogun government, the four were
assigned to various fiefs.
Chin went to the han (feif) of Owari, ruled by a branch of the Tokugawa family.
He moved to the city of Nagoya and was granted a stipend of 60 koku, which is
a measure of wealth based on rice bales. In later years, Chin resided in
Kodoken Machi, Owari. He was known as a skillful calligrapher and artist,
and created a particular style of tea ceremony ceramics using Seto clay, called
Gempin-yaki. Sources say that he was very skilled in Japanese and betrayed no
trace of a Chinese accent in his Japanese conversations. Gempin died at the age
of 85 in Kambun 11 (1671).
Apparently, Gempin must have stayed in Azabu Kokushiji temple before he was
relocated to Nagoya.
Based on these books and other documentations, Watatani believes that there are
some discrepancies. For one, the Kokushoji temple was not yet built at Azabu;
its
reconstruction at the Azabu site was after a great fire destroyed the original
temple building. However, notes in other scrolls of that period place Fukuno
Shichirouemon as having lived earlier than that; i.e., Fukuno reached his
maturity
circa the Genwa era (1615-1623) and was known by then for his jujutsu methods,
called the Ryoi Shinto Yawara. It was also called the Fukuno-ryu in scrolls of
the
Kito-ryu and Shinshin-ryu. The other ronin, Miura Shinjiuemon, according to
the Bujutsu Ryusoroku, made a mark during the Eiroku period (1558-1560),
and therefore was in his prime much earlier than the last coming of Chin
Gempin. Sekiguchi Jushin, as well, lived much earlier than the last arrival
of Chin.
Watatani notes that such unarmed combative forms originated in Japan long
before Chin's arrival in peacetime Edo, and especially indicates that the
Takeuchi-ryu (or Takenouchi-ryu), founded by Takeuchi Nakazudaiyu Hisamori
has koshi no mawari and kogusoku methods that predate Chin's arrival by
several hundred years.
He adds that records exist that indicate Miyamoto Musashi, the famous swordsman
and author of Gorin No Sho (Book of Five Rings) lived some decades prior
to Gempin's arrival, and he, too, wrote and developed an unarmed system of
combat, although it seems that the system has not survived intact to this day.
Do we therefore discount entirely all of the accounts of Chin Gempin?
I would be of the opinion that we take Draeger's analysis, note it and
then consider that Chin Gempin might indeed have had a marked influence
on the development of Edo-period jujutsu, but that whatever influence he
had, it certainly didn't mean Gempin was the "father" of Japanese unarmed
combative arts." [end of quote]
Jim:
Notice we have real Japanese scholars quoted here.
Take yer pick, folks.
Mikey the white wonnabe or Japanese scholars who could (and did) actually
translate the feudal Japanese records?
JS
YoJimbo
says...
>
>Here's a copy of the article from Black Belt Magazine that WCC Hu did,
>apparently in 1962.
Number one, Hu is chinese, not Japanese. The thoughtful person (i.e., not
Mikey- Mikey and common sense seem to be at odds) will look for particular
chinese biases in the "research", if it's obvious.
Number two, Hu was never considered a "scholar" of Japanese martial arts.
He was a chinese bookworm type that had an interest in old chinese legends and
used to have a column in Black Belt mag talking about subjects like
"the origin of taijiquan", "origin of the Bodhidharma legend", etc. etc.
I remember his columns. Evidently, if it's
in Black Belt magazine, it's the gospel to Mikey :-))))
LOL
This is the "research" that's supposed to blow us away, folks...
Let's check it out.
>The promising thing is that Hu seems to go into the
>etymology, indicating that he has the ability to at least work in the old
>characters with *some* (total extent unknown) proficiency.
You MORON, Mike, the guy is chinese :-))
It's nothing more than that.
Now he's suddenly an "etymology" expert on martial terms??
Nice leap of faith here...
> I'll make a few
>comments in relation to earlier discussions.
Translaton: "I'll make a lot of completely unwarranted assertions here
from scant material, so watch me make up dumb associations on the
spot".
[snip]
>> It is the popular contention that Judo stems from an early practice
>>of the ancient art called Yawara. This may have been true. However,
>>in my research, I have found no evidence of this. From a linguistic
>>and historical approach, with the checking of the bask Japanese
>>dictionaries of word usage and origin, the Dai Nippon Kokugo jiten,
>>Daigenkai, and the Gensen, there is an absence of this term relating
>>it with any physical art. The Daijiten lists Yawara as being another
>>reading for the term Jujutsu, and dates it as being a Seventeenth Century
>>terminology. It seems that in the Japanese language, more than one
>>meaning for a gnen word or character is usually rendered. One reading,
>>the "Kun," pronunciation is the so-called Japanese reading, and the other,
>>the "On", is the adapted Chinese reading. The word "ju", the prefix of
>>the terms Judo and Jujutsu, is the "On" pronunciation while the "Kun"
>>pronunciation for this same character is Yawara. Therefore, the terms
>>Jujutsu and Yawara are analogous. The misconception may have been that
>>the literati used one term and the masses the other. If Yawara had been
>>an ancient sport, there would definitely have been, in most cases,
>>an assigned Chinese character, Kanji, for this term,
>> instead of a syllabary reading in the Kana system, or the Japanese
>> alphabetical or phonetical reading.
Mike "Wonnabe Extrapolator" Sigman:
>So the term "ju jutsu" actually is a Chinese term; "Yawara" is a Japanese
>term. The question I asked about "which ryu's used the term "ju jutsu"
>prior to Chen Yuan Yun is answered here. None of record.
"Ju" is a simply a chinese character used by the Japanese, Mikey.
It's like saying "the sky is blue". It tells us nothing.
Hu is trying to find a historical chinese character (kanji) for
"yawara", and merely says, "I can't find any evidence yawara is an
old term for a physical art". Whoopie ding.
What if the Japanese called it other terms?
Of course they did.
Your extrapolation from this that "ju jitsu" didn't exist before Chen
Yuan Pin(g) (notice you can't even spell his name right if you're not quoting)
plays fast and loose with the actual facts.
C.C. Hu goes on to say:
>> Since only the term Jujutsu has an historical basis sufficient to relate
>> it directly to Judo, a closer examination is justified. The term Jujutsu,
can
>> be traced back as far as the Seventeenth Century. Closely associated with
>> this term is the name, Ch'en Yuan-pin, pronounced in Japanese as "Chin
>> Gempin." To this man is ascribed the introduction of Jujutsu into Japan.
Now here is a direct refutation of Hu's speculations:
"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."
In other words, what really is the case here is that yer buddy C.C.Hu
didn't have access to many of the Japanese records he needed in order to
form a more accurate rendering of Japanese history.
[big snip of interesting but irrelevant comments, here's C.C. Hu again:]
>> Recently, Chin Gempin (Ch'en Yuan-pin) came to Japan and stayed at the
>> Kokusa monastery, where he met three ronin (lordless Samurai) Fukuno
>> Hichiroemon, Isogai Jirozaemon, and Miura Yojiemon. Chin Gempin told them
>> that in China, there is an art of seizing a man, which he had seen
>> practised and that it was practised in such and such a fashion, however, he
>> had not learned all the principles. On hearing this, they made
investigations
>> and afterward became skillful and founded the Kitoryu school of Jujutsu:
Mike "amateur historian" Sigman:
>So in accordance with Kito Ryu statements, Chen Yuan Yun is the progenitor.
>Kito is recognizes as at least one of the founding jujutsu ryu's of judo.
???
All this is saying is there seems to be some connection between Chin Gempin
and the Kitoryu jujitsu school
Whoopie ding.
Everybody already knows the record is that Chin Gempin brought his style
to Japan and made some coverts, Mikey. We don't really care about that.
What you consistantly FAIL to PROVE is whether HE STARTED JUJITSU AS
AN ART IN JAPAN. Read it again. I know it's over your head.
>> This same story is mentioned in other books as the Honcho Seji Danki,
>> Bujutsu Ryusoroku, Ryoi Shintoryo Hisho, Kitoryu Kempohi, and the Kitoryu
>> Toka Mondo.
>
>That's 5 books.
Yeah, five books telling the story of the Kitoryu style. Whoopie ding.
>> There are, to be sure many writers who
>> deny that Ch'en Yuan-pin introduced Jujutsu into Japan on the ground that
>> "it is a shame to our country to credit the origin of Jujutsu to China!"
WARNING!!!!!!! RED FLAG ALERT!!!!! CHINESE PROPOGANDA ABOUT TO START!!!
>> This passage, taken from the Taiiroku was followed by many other writers
>> as is found in the Jibutsu Kigen jiten, which states:
>> It is believed that Chin Gempin gave a suggestion or hint of Jujutsu. He
>> came from Ming (China) and stayed in the Kokusei monastery in Edo. He told
>> three Ronin that "There is a technique of seizing people, however, I do
>> not know the techniques, nevertheless, I have seen it." The three ronin took
>> the hint and devised their own schools. Hence it was the origin of Jujutsu.
>> The Kokumin Hyakka Daijiten, in another effort, perhaps to display
>> national pride, records that:
>> It is assumed that Jujutsu originated in China. Jujutsu called "Ken" in
>> Bubishi, is thought to have been introduced by Chin Gempin in a
>conversation
>> with three ronin . . . after Chin Gempm's conversation, the three ronins
>> devised their own techniques and established their own schools.
>> These super patriotic approaches, although admirable as an example of
>> national pride, contain no substantial evidence invalidating the Chen
>> Yuan-pin thesis. Many "examples" are misquotes and passages taken out of
>> context. It should not be a blot on national pride to concede that
>> Jujutsu, and therefore Judo, was developed from a foreign import.
>> The fall of the Ming dynasty in China produced a flow of refugees mho
>> Japan. The presence of these Chinese in the Japanese empire would have
>> contributed no more than the merest driblet to the stream of Chinese
>> influence that had already made its impact on Japanese ethical and
>> intellectual life. What this exiguous immigrant, Ch'en Yuan-pin
>> contributed was merely a small morsel.
>> Inasmuch as Jujutsu, and therefore Judo, was of Chinese origin, credit
>> must be given to the Japanese for adapting, revising, systematizing, and
>> spreading the art and sport of Judo so that it has become a common
>> household word throughout the entire world.
William CC Hu obviously didn't have many Japanese records to draw on. Hence his
conclusions that jujitsu "must have come from China".
Since we DO have *Japanese* records which indicate prior in-country arts,
Hu's attempts to systemize what he had can be dismissed fairly easily.
Here's a much more accurate picture than Hu's:
"For several hundred years before the Meiji era, throughout the feudal
age, class distinction was rigidly enforced between the warrior and
the commoner,the latter being ordinarily forbidden to wear any sword.
Naturally for self-defence purposes commoners had to learn the art of
bare-handed fighting. The basic circumstances described above that led
to the development of jujitsu are closely interlocked and cannot be clearly
separated one from another. But, from the extent 'Densho' the manuscriptal
instruction and records of secrets by the founders of various schools,
we may readily perceive their respective characteristics.
For instance, in some 'Densho', there are minute instructions,
together with pictorial illustrations, on how to capture a ruffian and
bind him with rope.
Such details, though they may lie outside the scope of jujitsu proper,
are profoundly interesting where they serve to show concretely the kind
of soil out of which a particular jujitsu technique has grown. For a
historical study of jujitsu there are two sources:
(1) historical and literary works in general, and
(2) the various 'Densho' mentioned before. History books contain
comparatively few references to jujitsu, but there are more to be found in
the miscellaneous writings of each period. As for the documents of individual
schools, each school in its eagerness to add lustre to itself and to enhance
its own prestige adorned its origin and records with flowery rhetoric, so
that their contents in some cases will have to be taken with a grain of salt.
Moreover, some 'Densho', while of antique origin, are manuscript copies of
later hands, so that a high degree of authenticity is doubtful. Nevertheless,
it may be safely deduced from the records available today
that ***JUJITSU BEGAN TO TAKE A SYSTEMATIZED FORM IN THE LATTER HALF OF THE
16TH CENTURY*** and that the various schools came into being in the centuries
from the 17th to about the beginning of the 19th."
In other words, we're talking the 1500s as probably when
a ***systemized*** form of native jujitsu developed (and various arts
existed much earlier than this). Chin Gempin (Cheng
Yuan Pin) came to Japan, at the earliest, in ****1621****.
The entire account of Chin Gempin's arrival in Japan and subsequent
contributions has been summarized quite nicely by Wayne Murumoto,
editor of the serious magazine "Furyu". Here's the site, which
Mikey should read if he wants to get out of his white wonnabe
history-buff mode and dig into some *real* research. Of course,
Mikey won't, because he's the "white expert" and some half-baked
study in Black Belt magazine seems to be enough for him.
For everybody else, however, check out this article:
http://www.furyu.com/archives/issue8/Chin.html
'Nuff said.
Pure crap here from Mikey, as is expected.
JS
Ben Holmes
Since Mike hasn't deigned to respond... one could presume that Mike doesn't want
to deal with Hu's apparent lack of credibility when it comes to basic
research...
Mike Sigman
"YoJimbo" <Seagul...@LowBudget.com> wrote in message
news:bb2ndg$gat$1...@Crestone.UCHSC.edu...
>
>
> >The promising thing is that Hu seems to go into the
> >etymology, indicating that he has the ability to at least work in the old
> >characters with *some* (total extent unknown) proficiency.
>
> You MORON, Mike, the guy is chinese :-))
> It's nothing more than that.
> Now he's suddenly an "etymology" expert on martial terms??
> Nice leap of faith here...
Where did you get the word "expert" from???? More of your made-up crap
that you then criticize.
Storey, why don't you go write some poison pen letters somewhere else and
quit dogging me all over RMA????
Mike Sigman
Mike Sigman
"YoJimbo" <Seagul...@LowBudget.com> wrote in message
> >
> Mikey the white wonnabe or Japanese scholars who could (and did) actually
> translate the feudal Japanese records?
> JS
So, still following me around, Storey??? You seem to have a real
psychological problem that you can't seem to drag yourself away from me.
Is it in the faint hope that everyone will forget that you were caught
writing poison pen letters and following me around RMA to boot? Maybe if
you could just leg go...........
Get some help. Why is a supposedly grown man following someone around
and writing poison-pen letters in private emails to people for the last 4
years????
Mike Sigman
Mike Sigman
>
> Since Mike hasn't deigned to respond... one could presume that Mike
doesn't want
> to deal with Hu's apparent lack of credibility when it comes to basic
> research...
>
I don't want to deal with a half-wit, Ben. You're a half-wit. When you get
your act together and/or accumulate some IQ points, we'll talk.
Mike Sigman
Ben Holmes
Here's the post that Mike is afraid to answer. It's becoming clear that he's
yellow as well as being a liar. Perhaps this is as close as he can get to being
Chinese...
********************************************************
Since Mike hasn't deigned to respond... one could presume that Mike doesn't want
to deal with Hu's apparent lack of credibility when it comes to basic
research...
YoJimbo
says...
>Storey, why don't you go write some poison pen letters somewhere else and
>quit dogging me all over RMA????
>Mike Sigman
Funny, these were ONLY about the alleged history of your hero, Chin Gempin,
who brought salvation to the Japanese...
Here's another quote from your favorite "historian", Dr. William C.C. Hu,
talking about the life of Cheng Manching:
http://w3.blackbeltmag.com/halloffame/achievers/cheng.html
"..After a short stay in Shanghai he returned to Peking, and with an
introductory
note from his old master, Liu Yung-tao, he became a student of the famous
taichi-chuan master, Yang Ch'eng-pu. He studied very seriously under the
grand old master and diligently perfected each movement. During this period of
study under Master Yang, Mrs. Yang became seriously ill. Cheng Man-ch'ing,
utilizing his knowledge of Chinese medicine, cured her of the ailment,
and thus won great admiration from the old master. Feeling obligated to
his student, Yang Ch'eng-pu taught Cheng privately all of the secrets of
taichi-chuan."
Since you push Dr. Hu as an impeccable source of martial arts history,
Mike, are you ready to take back all the stuff about CMC supposedly
only studying under Yang Chengfu a short time?
Here, Dr. Hu says Cheng "diligently perfected each movement" under
YCF, and furthermore, Yang "taught Cheng privately all the secrets
of taichi-chuan."
So, which is it, Mike? If Hu is the impeccable historian, you need
to revise a number of statements you've made about CMC over the
years...
JS
"
George Stewart
The only thing that leaps to mind re. MA is that article in the Chen
Style Research Journal (?) about how General Qi studied the long
Katana (forget the exact term) the pesky Japanese coastal raiders
used, and tried to train his troops in it. It didn't seem to "stick"
though - it seems to have died out pretty quickly after General Qi.
Interesting little side-light though.
(Wasn't that roundabout the same time as the CYY's first visit to
Japan?)
- George Stewart
********************************************************
"Certainly, the workers might envy the capitalists; but such emotions simply could not supply the gigantic impetus required to overthrow a structure as massive as the capitalist system. Before the workers of a capitalist society could unite, they had to feel that they had literally nothing to lose - nothing to lose but their proverbial chains. For if they had homes and cars and boats and rvs to lose as well, then it became quite another matter." - Lee Harris
Weirdwolf
look,thank you. It's bugging the hell out of me I'm sure I've read that the
Kito ryu used the term but I can't really remember where. Let's face it Judo
isn't my art so I'm fumbling around in the dark >;-Þ
TK Sung
>
> Here's the post that Mike is afraid to answer. It's becoming clear that
he's
> yellow as well as being a liar. Perhaps this is as close as he can get to
being
> Chinese...
>
ridiculous claims about chinese things does not mean Chinese are like Mike
Sigman. I have many chinese friends, and *none* of them are like Mike.
@hotmail.com.invalid Eric D. Berge
wrote:
>So, which is it, Mike? If Hu is the impeccable historian, you need
>to revise a number of statements you've made about CMC over the
>years...
You beat me to it - I was going to ask Mental Mike if I can now start
referring to Black Belt Magazine as an authoritative reference on Tai
Chi.
Peter Claussen
<mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Peter Claussen" <dakot...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:270520032142437489%dakot...@mac.com...
>
> >
> > If you don't know that Kano credited Jikishin-ryu with the origin of
> > the term "judo", how can you presume to know enough about Kano's vision
> > to make any kind of blanket statement about whether judoka are doing
> > Kano judo?
>
> Same way I don't doubt you know some techniques in Judo but you didn't know
> about the size and depth of the CYY connection.
>
The size and depth of the CYY connection is not what you think. I'd
heard the Gempin myth before, but your own citations make the
connection to jujutsu even more tenuous than I'd thought.
But that's beside the point - there is a significant body of Kano's
writing easily available, and in English (Kano himself was reasonable
fluent in English). Kano documented his thoughts on judo philosophy and
his training.
Where is the record of CYY writings? Do we know who his teachers were?
What were his thoughts on the philosophy of ju?
That's the point - if you haven't read enough of Kano to know about the
Jikishin-ryu connection, you haven't read enough to judge whether
judoka in general are following his teachings.
> >
> > So let's just see if you have the expertise, common to most judoka, to
> > judge how judoka practice. What where Kano's key principles of judo;
> > that is, Kano's contribution to the study of judo/jujutsu techniques?
>
> Tell me first what the elements of "ki" practice are that are found in the
> ryu from which judo supposedly derives. If you don't know, then you must
> not know judo, right?
>
Don't change the subject. Kano's principles are not based on ki. Try to
follow the argument, if you could.
You say that most judoka are only learning judo techniques, but not
judo principles. To back up that assertion, I'd like to see if we can
agree upon those principles, and then we could debate whether judoka in
general follow those principles.
I have an opinion otherwise, but I'll grant that you might be making a
reasoned observation. These are simple questions, answers to which
could prove my opinion wrong.
Peter Claussen
Mike Sigman
>
> Don't change the subject. Kano's principles are not based on ki. Try to
> follow the argument, if you could.
I actually think we followed the argument exactly far enough. If you have
separated "ju" and "ki", then the discussion is at end. Once again, your
argument seems to devolve to "if Claussen has not heard of it, then it must
not exist". Come back when you have found out what "ju" means. :^)
Mike Sigman
Ben Holmes
My most abject apology... I did NOT mean any slur on Chinese culture or Chinese
people. (To be honest, I have no particular feelings one way or the other... I
consider them in my thoughts more than the native tribes of Togo Island only due
to the Chinese culture coming up more often in RMA circles...)
In attempting to pun on "yellow" coward, and "yellow" skin, I certainly crossed
a line that I'd ordinarily not cross.
Olaf
"Eric D. Berge" wrote:
Actually, all you can do is claim that Mike has accepted Hu as a
reliable authority. That this particular article of Hu's was in "Black
Belt" could be considered a coincidence unless Mike states
that he trusts "Black Belt" to carry legimate articles.
Articles are credited to the author; a magazine
can carry both reliable and unreliable articles (ie "Black Belt"
could print a letter by Kano on judo and my account
of how I won the olympic gold medal in judo).
-Olaf
Peter Claussen
> >
> > It wasn't Kito Ryu, it was Jikishin Ryu that used the term 'Judo'.
> Hmm, I thought that I'd read Kito ryu in a couple of places, maybe Dreager
> and one of the books by Harrison?
> I definitely know it's quoted as Kito ryu in a book by Nicholas Soames.
> Ted
Yes, "Judo - the Gentle Way", Fromm and Soames, p.4.
According to Mol, Jikishin was derived from Kito - he also dates the
use of "judo", w.r.t the Jikishin curriculum, to 1724.
So the use of judo by Kito-ryu may have been simple cross-over.
There is a quote in "Kodokan Judo - A Guide to Proficiency":
"As for the term "Kodokan Judo", our founder says:
'To distinquish it from the Jikishin Ryu with which I had to share the
name, I called my school the 'Kodokan Judo' - the Judo taught at the
Kodokan"
Peter Claussen
Weirdwolf
As I said in a post to Ben Holmes judo is not the art I practise and
unfortunately I know very little of it.
Tednews:280520031905455428%dakot...@mac.com...
TK Sung
>
> My most abject apology...
>
Thank you. I thought I'd bring it up just so that newbies who don't know the
regulars won't get any wrong idea :-)
Ben Holmes
Ju equals Ki. A brilliant analysis by that famous Japanese scholar who knows no
Judo, Mike Sigman!!! <applause>
TK Sung
>
> In attempting to pun on "yellow" coward, and "yellow" skin, I certainly
crossed
> a line that I'd ordinarily not cross.
>
equate them to Mike Sigman, but hey, whatever works. :-)
Mike Sigman
"Olaf" <ol...@I.Hate.Spam.com> wrote in message
news:3ED548F2...@I.Hate.Spam.com...
>
>
> Actually, all you can do is claim that Mike has accepted Hu as a
> reliable authority. That this particular article of Hu's was in "Black
> Belt" could be considered a coincidence unless Mike states
> that he trusts "Black Belt" to carry legimate articles.
> Articles are credited to the author; a magazine
> can carry both reliable and unreliable articles (ie "Black Belt"
> could print a letter by Kano on judo and my account
> of how I won the olympic gold medal in judo).
Yeah, it's interesting to watch how the deniability goes immediately to
smear each datum that reminds them the shuai jiao - judo connection exists
after all. Personally, I may have read BB magazine 4 or 5 times in my life
and I consider it and most of the U.S. martial arts mags to be fairly low
quality (there are about 2 good ones... maybe). However, to immediately
smear this guy Hu in an effort to maintain deniability... that's a bit much.
He didn't do anything to rate that sort of vitriol. I think I'm done
with the "Judo Crowd" for now.
Mike Sigman
@hotmail.com.invalid Eric D. Berge
That is, of course, correct (though Black Belt is not what anyone
would give as an example of a scholarly magazine with peer-reviewed
and fact checked articles).
On the other hand, it raises the sticky question of W. C. C. Hu's
qualifications as a historian of Judo and a linguist (could he read
Japanese, or is he just a Sigmanian "White Boy"?). I'm sure Siggy
will be happy to clarify his source's bona fides, though, since he is
so keen on knowing the details of Donn ("Illiterate White Boy")
Draeger, Serge Mol, and company's qualifications to write on Judo
history.
HehHehHeh.
mn...@netscape.net
Weirdwolf wrote:
> "Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>
>
>>others on the subject of Judo...Let's face it Judo
> isn't my art so I'm fumbling around in the dark >;-Ş
> Ted
Hey Ted,
at least you admitted it. some folk around here, can't seems to do that!
:-)))
M.
mn...@netscape.net
YoJimbo wrote:
> In arti
wooh.. Jimmy..
is that what they call hitting below the belt?;-)
I believe Mike is having a though enough time getting himself out of the
hole that he has dug with judo and "ki"
to which when ever you have time Mike, i'd like an answer to my question
don't worry no hurry!
But, do you honestly expect that he can tackle this too?
Mike has made some blunder over the years. he knows that!
but so have we all.
so i say, let us give him some breathing room.... and tackle one
blonder before he start on another!
M.
>
>
>
> "
>
>
>
Mike Sigman
"Eric D. Berge" <eric_berge @ hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:a7kadv4cg2i8c95h0...@4ax.com...
>
> On the other hand, it raises the sticky question of W. C. C. Hu's
> qualifications as a historian of Judo and a linguist (could he read
> Japanese, or is he just a Sigmanian "White Boy"?). I'm sure Siggy
> will be happy to clarify his source's bona fides, though, since he is
> so keen on knowing the details of Donn ("Illiterate White Boy")
> Draeger, Serge Mol, and company's qualifications to write on Judo
> history.
Dr. William C. C. Hu speaks nine languages and has earned degrees in law,
chemistry, library science and holds a doctorate in law. Born in the
province of Kingst, China, His education began when he was 3 years old under
the tutorship of his grandfather, who was an academician to the Emperor and
a tutor in Hanlin- the highest literary award that could be bestowed.
He served as a consultant and researcher for the Supreme Court of Hawaii
and during the Korean conflict, and served in the Central Intelligence
Agency.
He studied the martial arts (Tao School) under the court examiner o the
Monarchy. Later he became the director and instructor of Tao School which is
affiliated with the Chinese Physical Cultural Association in Hawaii.
Hu is also a collector of rare art. Some of his collection of Chinese
prints, rare porcelains and pottery date back to the Yueh T'ang dynasty
(618-960). His private library includes rare volumes which were former
possessions of the imperial family.
Mike Sigman
<mn...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:3ED563E0...@netscape.net...
>
>
> I believe Mike is having a though enough time getting himself out of the
> hole that he has dug with judo and "ki"
>
> to which when ever you have time Mike, i'd like an answer to my question
> don't worry no hurry!
It's easy to answer like this, Mario. Go see Chen Xiao Wang, Wang Hai Jun,
Chen Zheng Lei, or one of those level this year and explain to them that you
also have "ki" because you do judo. Ask them to compare. They will tell
you (and you will know, trust me) if you are talking about the same thing.
The assumption in your question is that your idea of "ki" in Judo is somehow
there idea of "ki" in Taiji. So even though Judo derives from arts
(jujitsu) in which *some* people have *some* ki skills, I haven't seen any
in Judo. But rather than believe me... go show an expert and get his
opinion. Those guys are not the Wang brothers. :^)
FWIW
Mike
Mike Sigman
"Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vdap8gd...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> Dr. William C. C. Hu speaks nine languages and has earned degrees in law,
> chemistry, library science and holds a doctorate in law. Born in the
> province of Kingst, China, His education began when he was 3 years old
under
> the tutorship of his grandfather, who was an academician to the Emperor
and
> a tutor in Hanlin- the highest literary award that could be bestowed.
> He served as a consultant and researcher for the Supreme Court of Hawaii
> and during the Korean conflict, and served in the Central Intelligence
> Agency.
> He studied the martial arts (Tao School) under the court examiner o the
> Monarchy. Later he became the director and instructor of Tao School which
is
> affiliated with the Chinese Physical Cultural Association in Hawaii.
> Hu is also a collector of rare art. Some of his collection of Chinese
> prints, rare porcelains and pottery date back to the Yueh T'ang dynasty
> (618-960). His private library includes rare volumes which were former
> possessions of the imperial family.
>
P.S. I've had someone tell me that Hu's skills in the old characters were
without question. Japanese is one of the 9 languages he speaks and reads,
BTW.
Mike
Ben Holmes
>isn't my art so I'm fumbling around in the dark >;-Ş
> Ted
I'm looking... I'm looking... it's not in his book on the Olympics,
but I didn't expect to find it there... my only other book by Soames
"Judo for Juniors" is out on loan right now.
Sorry!!
Ben Holmes
<dakot...@mac.com> wrote:
>In article <bb26ij$51b9c$1...@ID-169368.news.dfncis.de>, Weirdwolf
><weirdwolf@ntl(hatespam)world.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > It wasn't Kito Ryu, it was Jikishin Ryu that used the term 'Judo'.
>> Hmm, I thought that I'd read Kito ryu in a couple of places, maybe Dreager
>> and one of the books by Harrison?
>> I definitely know it's quoted as Kito ryu in a book by Nicholas Soames.
>> Ted
>
>Yes, "Judo - the Gentle Way", Fromm and Soames, p.4.
Ah! I don't believe I *have* that one...
Ben Holmes
<weirdwolf@ntl(hatespam)world.com> wrote:
>Thank you, I knew that I had read it somewhere.
>As I said in a post to Ben Holmes judo is not the art I practise and
>unfortunately I know very little of it.
Well, keep us on our toes!!
story
>
> Ju equals Ki. A brilliant analysis by that famous Japanese scholar who
knows no
> Judo, Mike Sigman!!! <applause>
>
Hey!!! Using that logic...since I study Goju I must therefore be a master of
Ki as well! Whaddaya know? All this time I was an internal stylist and never
even knew it! Thanks Mike. Wait...This logic will only work with Mike. It
won't work with anyone else. Forget I said that.
..................Tom......................
Ben Holmes
wrote:
>There's a very good chapter on this in the "Teach yourself judo" book by the
>legendary syd hoare.
>I seem to remember that he said the term "ju-do" was first used in 500BC for
>the style of some wrestler at and imperial tournament or something..!
Well, not in my version of it. It mentions "The earliest known school
is the Take-no-uchi-ryu, whcih was established in the mid-sixteenth
century."
>---
>This mail is certified Virus Free AVG PE 6.0
>www.avg.com
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.350 / Virus Database: 196 - Release Date: 17/04/02
>
Ben Holmes
<mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>"45kj" <b...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>news:bb2dgg$ncr$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
>> There's a very good chapter on this in the "Teach yourself judo" book by
>> the legendary syd hoare. I seem to remember that he said the term
>> "ju-do" was first used in 500BC for the style of some wrestler at and
>> imperial tournament or something..!
>
>
>I'll pass this info along to Ben Holmes. He can add it to his source
>material. Thanks!
>
>Mike
It would surprise me, Mike, if you actually offered me something about
Judo that was truely new and unknown.
Mike Sigman
"story" <storys@no spam.execulink.com> wrote in message
news:vdarf55...@corp.supernews.com...
Perfect. The 2 Stooges of RMA go from "Ju has Ki" to "Ju *equals* Ki" and
congratulate themselves on the clever observation. Holmes is too dumb to
dress himself, Story, and you're the "Oliver" to his "Stan". :^)
However, I like it.... I will always have the 2 of you in my mind's eye
together..... The 2 Judo experts. I'll use the mnemonic that your
combined IQ's hit 100.
Mike
Ben Holmes
Of *course* you are, Mike... it's finally gotten to the point where
there are simply too many unanswerable facts. You end up snipping too
much out of all the posts, and some posts you simply cannot answer at
all. It starts to become noticeable.
Nobody had to "smear" Hu. As I previously stated, Hu does it to
himself.
When I pointed out, for example, that Hu had not bothered to read
"Illustrated Kodokan Judo", which is considered the "Bible" of Judo,
and has much material from Jigoro Kano in it... any *true* scholar
couldn't possibly have made such a mistake.
You not only had no answer for that - you were forced to ignore the
post, and snip everything when you *did* answer. Cowardly.
>Mike Sigman
story
>
>>
> Perfect. The 2 Stooges of RMA go from "Ju has Ki" to "Ju *equals* Ki"
and
> congratulate themselves on the clever observation.
I believe YOU were the one who said it & not me or Ben.
> However, I like it.... I will always have the 2 of you in my mind's eye
> together..... The 2 Judo experts. I'll use the mnemonic that your
> combined IQ's hit 100.
>
For the LAST frigging time ( I hope & pray ) I AM NOT A JUDOKA. I KNOW
ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT JUDO. I STUDIED A VERY ECLECTIC FORM OF JUJITSU. I AM
NOT A JUDO EXPERT. At this late date I rather doubt I ever will be.
..................Tom.............................
mn...@netscape.net
Mike Sigman wrote:
> <mn...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:3ED563E0...@netscape.net...
>
>
>>I believe Mike is having a though enough time getting himself out of the
>>hole that he has dug with judo and "ki"
>>
>>to which when ever you have time Mike, i'd like an answer to my question
>> don't worry no hurry!
>
>
>
> It's easy to answer like this, Mario. Go see Chen Xiao Wang, Wang Hai Jun,
> Chen Zheng Lei,
mike, really, you gotta believe me. i don't care anything about them,
none, nothing.. and it's not personal.
i have seen all the tai chi folk i care to see.
if one happens to come my way, then will see.
but i'm no longer going to them...
been there got the T-shirt!
Mike, i have been to japan, i have had the pleasure to be shown a thing
or too, from some excellent judo champions..
i even had the luck to hang with sumo folk! i am satisfied
> or one of those level this year and explain to them that you
> also have "ki" because you do judo.
i have nothing to explain to them, it is *you* who makes "Ki"(body
technology) and judo connections and heck i agree with you!!! :-))
> Ask them to compare. They will tell
> you (and you will know, trust me) if you are talking about the same thing.
> The assumption in your question is that your idea of "ki" in Judo is somehow
> there idea of "ki" in Taiji.
o.k. tell us where the core principle differ?
> So even though Judo derives from arts
> (jujitsu) in which *some* people have *some* ki skills,
some???..we are talking about body-technology right?
Mike I told you once, that army judo is not *judo* go and play with the
best and you'll maybe see that those boys are the real stuff! standing
up or on the ground!!!
> I haven't seen any
> in Judo. But rather than believe me... go show an expert and get his
> opinion. Those guys are not the Wang brothers. :^)
yeah, i keep hearing that ..i also remember hearing the same thing about
the Wang's, before i went to see them...
and heck i'm a terrible player!!!
o.k. maybe not so terrible just o.k. maybe.:-)
ciao,
M.
>
> FWIW
>
> Mike
>
>
Mark Goldberg
> ...Here, Dr. Hu says Cheng "diligently perfected each movement" under
>
>YCF, and furthermore, Yang "taught Cheng privately all the secrets
>of taichi-chuan."
>
>So, which is it, Mike? If Hu is the impeccable historian, you need
>to revise a number of statements you've made about CMC over the
>years...
>JS
>
Well... your quoting more out of context than you're admitting too.
I remember over the years, Mike saying many things in this regard, also
noting on many occasions...
" CMC was probably better than his detractors, and worse than his
dutiful proponents" or something like that. I'm paraphrasing.
The dialectic is what you're really skipping over here.
It was not that CMC was a fraud- he never meant that; it was that the
schools of his teachings were so afflicted
as to be in that theatre.
And to be fair to Mike- he once recommended to me, to study with RGY-
and when I found my studying with that one, 17 yrs after studying very
briefly with Lou Kleinsmith and the CMC gang in NYC, and finding that
the vaunted chen village purity was not
extant in RGY's exposition- he never, ever insulted my opinions, never
ever treated me as some worthless character for opining
that six of one...
That is because his modus was the dialectic, the act, art, or an
exercise of one's powers of argument, for a firmer understanding of the
principles that needed to be 'taught', the 'mechanics that needed to be
taught.
Not alluded too, but taught.
As for Hu, I doubt that his history will stand up to his polite
interpretation of CMC. CMC may have been that diligent student for
under two years- he got damm good, but...
and I think some of the outward bound Chen stylists may have problems
with their place in history also. I recall Mike mentioning that many of
them, like to hang on Chen Fa Ke's coat, but few can really...
Frankly, his wry assessments have been more than helpful in
understanding myth from reality about the subject.
Many people also feel this way.
I don't practice taiji- I don't owe him anything, nor he, to me.
But his frankness, and honesty seems about one head above the yapping
mob, throughout this thread; furiously trying to
bwaahhaaa their way out of some nasty cul de sac's they walked
themselves into.
Mark
Mike Sigman
>
> When I pointed out, for example, that Hu had not bothered to read
> "Illustrated Kodokan Judo", which is considered the "Bible" of Judo,
> and has much material from Jigoro Kano in it... any *true* scholar
> couldn't possibly have made such a mistake.
>
You honestly don't realize how dumb you are, do you?
Mike
Mike Sigman
>
> "Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:vdarvmf...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >>
> > Perfect. The 2 Stooges of RMA go from "Ju has Ki" to "Ju *equals* Ki"
> and
> > congratulate themselves on the clever observation.
>
> I believe YOU were the one who said it & not me or Ben.
>
It's easy to look. You're wrong. Holmes made it up. You didn't read what
I wrote and you didn't catch Holmes but instead tried to carry the lie
further.
>
> For the LAST frigging time ( I hope & pray ) I AM NOT A JUDOKA. I KNOW
> ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT JUDO. I STUDIED A VERY ECLECTIC FORM OF JUJITSU. I AM
> NOT A JUDO EXPERT. At this late date I rather doubt I ever will be.
Yeah, but at least you admit it. Holmes won't admit he's not an expert. So
you're about equal.
Mike
Mike Sigman
<mn...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:3ED574CB...@netscape.net...
>
>
> Mike Sigman wrote:
> > <mn...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3ED563E0...@netscape.net...
> >
> >
> >>I believe Mike is having a though enough time getting himself out of the
> >>hole that he has dug with judo and "ki"
> >>
> >>to which when ever you have time Mike, i'd like an answer to my question
> >> don't worry no hurry!
> >
> >
> >
> > It's easy to answer like this, Mario. Go see Chen Xiao Wang, Wang Hai
Jun,
> > Chen Zheng Lei,
>
> mike, really, you gotta believe me. i don't care anything about them,
> none, nothing.. and it's not personal.
> i have seen all the tai chi folk i care to see.
> if one happens to come my way, then will see.
> but i'm no longer going to them...
> been there got the T-shirt!
>
> Mike, i have been to japan, i have had the pleasure to be shown a thing
> or too, from some excellent judo champions..
> i even had the luck to hang with sumo folk! i am satisfied
>
>
Mario, you can't keep saying you want to know or want to see and then at the
same time say you don't want to see. Make up your mind. You haven't seen
anything. I've even offered to pay your way several times and you won't
even go. What more can I do???
>
>
> o.k. tell us where the core principle differ?
They use the dantien to control the ki. Judo doesn't. Taiji uses the
"store and release" power all the time for every move. Judo doesn't.
Taiji uses the "qi" (I mean a specific thing here, Mario, but I'm not going
to explain it... takes too long) to move the arms, legs, etc., but judo uses
the shoulders and leg muscles. There's a lot of difference. Taiji experts
use very shocking "shaking power"; judo doesn't. If judo moved the same
way Taiji did, they'd have the shaking power, too. They don't.
>
>
> some???..we are talking about body-technology right?
> Mike I told you once, that army judo is not *judo* go and play with the
> best and you'll maybe see that those boys are the real stuff! standing
> up or on the ground!!!
>
Why don't you go see the best Taiji? They come to New York, but you won't
go. I don't understand how you could miss a chance to check out your theory
that judo is Taiji. :^)
>
> yeah, i keep hearing that ..i also remember hearing the same thing about
> the Wang's, before i went to see them...
> and heck i'm a terrible player!!!
> o.k. maybe not so terrible just o.k. maybe.:-)
You never heard me say anything big about the Wangs. Even a year before you
went the low-level of that tournament was discussed on both RMA and the
Neijia list. Sorry.... it wasn't me that told you they were good. The
rules in that tournament aren't designed for Taiji but more for the sort of
tournament that anyone can enter and have a good time without really getting
hurt. It was changed from the previous rules because some Wu and Yang
stylists complained about the previous rules being too harsh. People got
hurt and bones were broken. Those are all facts. Just like the fact that
there was a meeting with the government officials (who originally made Chen
Village change the rules to be more "friendly") during the same tournament
you were at in an effort to get the rules changed back so that real Taiji
could be used. At least 3 people reported that meeting on the Neijia List
and 2 of the people (Chinese speakers) were at the meeting and reported what
was said.
The Wang's never even won a provincial level tournament. There were no
big-dog Chen Villagers like Chen You Tze or Wang Hai Jun (national level
winners) at the tournament you were at. BUT.... they come to the U.S. and
I keep encouraging you to go see them. If you haven't seen the best, you
can't keep telling me about the "best" in Judo and how Judo will beat Taiji.
You haven't seen Taiji, yet. :^)
FWIW
Mike
Ben Holmes
Hmmm... so it appears that his horrible mistakes with research had
nothing to do with language ability.
>Mike
Any reasoning why someone writing about Judo's history wouldn't bother
to read what Judo said on the topic? (And thereby make mistakes that
no-one else would make?)
Mike Sigman
Well, duh.......... why do you think he was setting the record
straight??????????????? Have you ever thought of the very thing that he
mentions in the article.... some schools sort of fabricate a little of their
history, Ben? Those fabrications... usually what the people *want* to
hear about themselves... get perpetrated by many martial arts schools, even
well-meaning ones. Hu was looking at the early history, not the modern
stories. Why you would suggest that he read the modern stories if he wanted
to know the history... I admit it, I had to laugh. Again.
Mike
Mike
Peter Claussen
<mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Peter Claussen" <dakot...@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:280520031828059871%dakot...@mac.com...
>
> >
> > Don't change the subject. Kano's principles are not based on ki. Try to
> > follow the argument, if you could.
>
> I actually think we followed the argument exactly far enough. If you have
> separated "ju" and "ki", then the discussion is at end. Once again, your
> argument seems to devolve to "if Claussen has not heard of it, then it must
> not exist". Come back when you have found out what "ju" means. :^)
>
Again, you change the subject. Why are you injecting "ki" into the
debate? "Ki" is a noun, "ju" is a verb - do you understand what the two
mean? You can use ki to perform many actions, that are not ju, and you
can perform ju actions without ki.
I suspect you are projecting your view of what martial practice should
be onto judo, and not looking for what Kano intended for judo.
I'm not asking what you think ju means. What I'm asking if you
understand Kano's interpretation of ju, and how it applied to judo.
More importantly, I'm trying to learn if you understand Kano's key
principles of judo (which is not ju, nor ki).
Let me help you - here's a quote from Kano (compiled by Robert Smith
in "A Complete Guide to Judo"). Let's see if you can fill in the blank.
"Again my opponent grips me from behind. I cannot release myself by
nonresistance and must either throw him, using the strength of my body
to break his grip, or slide down obliquely, releasing myself and
releasing his grip at the same time. These examples serve to show that
the principle of nonresistance is not applicable in all cases.
Is there, then, any principle which never fails of application? Yes,
there is! And that is the principle of ____________________"
And the same answer suffices for:
"The same reasoning suffices to people who are discontented.
Discontented persons are often in a sulky state of mind and blame other
people, without properly attending to their own affairs. The teaching
of Judo makes such persons understand that such conduct is against the
principle of _______________________"
I'll give you a hint - the answer is not ki.
I'd be pretty confident that any judoka competent enough to judge
Kano's intent would recognize the phrase that fits. If you don't, you
are too ignorant about the philosophy of judo to make statements about
whether judoka are practicing according to Kano's teachings. That is
the debate here - you made statements; back them up.
Peter Claussen
mn...@netscape.net
>>
>>Mike, i have been to japan, i have had the pleasure to be shown a thing
>>or too, from some excellent judo champions..
>>i even had the luck to hang with sumo folk! i am satisfied
>>
>>
>
>
> Mario, you can't keep saying you want to know or want to see and then
at the
> same time say you don't want to see. Make up your mind. You haven't
seen
> anything. I've even offered to pay your way several times and you won't
> even go. What more can I do???
Not fair Mike, you asked me twice, once, a day or two before the actual
event ( a six hour train ride to boot) and i told you, how can a
working-class man get off that easy! on a weekend? remember?
and you said cool .
and the other time i was leaving for a trip to europe a week before!
you don't want to see my ticket stub, do you?
>
>
>
>>
>>o.k. tell us where the core principle differ?
>
>
> They use the dantien to control the ki. Judo doesn't.
disagree, Judo uses it's center, cannot do anything with having your
center waist and hips correctly conditioned..
I was even told by a high level judo man, that one of the reasons for
the knot on the belt just under ones belly, is to keep you aware of that
part of your body! scary hey! ;-))
>Taiji uses the
> "store and release" power all the time for every move. Judo doesn't.
wrong again.
when one is capable of moving three dimensionally, it's all in there.
the judo expert can issue strength at anytime, while maintaining freedom
of movement.
He just wait for the proper moment. or better yet!
He waits for when the opponent sas o.k. it's time for you to throw me
the opponent even chooses the technique he wants to be thrown with!
see if you can read what i'm saying!
we are talking high level stuff!
> Taiji uses the "qi" (I mean a specific thing here, Mario, but I'm not
going
> to explain it... takes too long) to move the arms, legs, etc., but
judo uses
> the shoulders and leg muscles.
not true, the shoulder is not used, (in the detach manner that you are
referring) the shoulders stay down the body move as one!
the waist is the commander and the power gets borrowed form the ground!
> There's a lot of difference. Taiji experts
> use very shocking "shaking power"; judo doesn't.
way wrong!! try doing some uchikomi with pros, osoto-gari can be a
freighting experience. but, yes! tai chi is primarily a boxing art with
joint manipulations and some grappling in it.
and judo is primarily a grappling art( but it has strikes to and so on..
the both use the body the same way . the difference is in the execution.!
> If judo moved the same
> way Taiji did, they'd have the shaking power, too. They don't.
try letting a pro do uchimata on you, then will pick this up again..
>
>
>
>
> Why don't you go see the best Taiji? They come to New York, but you
won't
> go. I don't understand how you could miss a chance to check out your
theory
> that judo is Taiji. :^)
easy if you think that i want to waste my money and see CXW for a few
hundred dollars so he can show folk silk reealing and the be whisked off
buy some singer guy groupie.. like he a rock start ..forget it!! if i
knew of him ten years ago maybe . but now the pope is easier to get an
audience with ;-))
>
>
>
Peter Claussen
<bnho...@rain.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 May 2003 19:05:45 -0500, Peter Claussen
> <dakot...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <bb26ij$51b9c$1...@ID-169368.news.dfncis.de>, Weirdwolf
> ><weirdwolf@ntl(hatespam)world.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > It wasn't Kito Ryu, it was Jikishin Ryu that used the term 'Judo'.
> >> Hmm, I thought that I'd read Kito ryu in a couple of places, maybe Dreager
> >> and one of the books by Harrison?
> >> I definitely know it's quoted as Kito ryu in a book by Nicholas Soames.
> >> Ted
> >
> >Yes, "Judo - the Gentle Way", Fromm and Soames, p.4.
>
> Ah! I don't believe I *have* that one...
>
Oooh - point for me! I guess I get to write the review.
Peter Claussen
Phil Robyn
> In article <vdahcg2...@corp.supernews.com>, Mike Sigman
> <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"Peter Claussen" <dakot...@mac.com> wrote in message
>>news:280520031828059871%dakot...@mac.com...
>>
>>
>>>Don't change the subject. Kano's principles are not based on ki. Try to
>>>follow the argument, if you could.
>>
>>I actually think we followed the argument exactly far enough. If you have
>>separated "ju" and "ki", then the discussion is at end. Once again, your
>>argument seems to devolve to "if Claussen has not heard of it, then it must
>>not exist". Come back when you have found out what "ju" means. :^)
>>
>
>
> Again, you change the subject. Why are you injecting "ki" into the
> debate? "Ki" is a noun, "ju" is a verb - do you understand what the two
> mean? You can use ki to perform many actions, that are not ju, and you
> can perform ju actions without ki.
So the Kanji character "ju" (Mandarin "rou") is a verb, huh? That's hilarious!
<<<<snip>>>>
--
Phil Robyn
Univ. of California, Berkeley
u n z i p m y a d d r e s s t o s e n d e - m a i l
Mike Sigman
<mn...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:3ED58CEF...@netscape.net...
>
>>
> Not fair Mike, you asked me twice, once, a day or two before the actual
> event ( a six hour train ride to boot) and i told you, how can a
> working-class man get off that easy! on a weekend? remember?
> and you said cool .
> and the other time i was leaving for a trip to europe a week before!
> you don't want to see my ticket stub, do you?
>
Nah, I believe you. But there's also been people in NYC and I encouraged
you to see them, too. :^)
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>o.k. tell us where the core principle differ?
> >
> >
> > They use the dantien to control the ki. Judo doesn't.
>
> disagree, Judo uses it's center, cannot do anything with having your
> center waist and hips correctly conditioned..
> I was even told by a high level judo man, that one of the reasons for
> the knot on the belt just under ones belly, is to keep you aware of that
> part of your body! scary hey! ;-))
Yeah, but what you're talking about is standard stuff. The way the dantien
is used in Taiji is different. Really experienced Taiji people (not the
U.S. kind) have a muscular knot in the muscles in that area from moving
things.
>
>
> >Taiji uses the
> > "store and release" power all the time for every move. Judo doesn't.
>
> wrong again.
> when one is capable of moving three dimensionally, it's all in there.
> the judo expert can issue strength at anytime, while maintaining freedom
> of movement.
> He just wait for the proper moment. or better yet!
> He waits for when the opponent sas o.k. it's time for you to throw me
> the opponent even chooses the technique he wants to be thrown with!
> see if you can read what i'm saying!
> we are talking high level stuff!
Well, I'm talking about people storing and releasing in their back. I don't
think judo people do that, Mario.
>
> not true, the shoulder is not used, (in the detach manner that you are
> referring) the shoulders stay down the body move as one!
> the waist is the commander and the power gets borrowed form the ground!
>
I think you're interpretting words you've heard to mean what you're already
doing. It happens all the time. I've seen you move, Mario. :^)
>
>
> > There's a lot of difference. Taiji experts
> > use very shocking "shaking power"; judo doesn't.
>
> way wrong!! try doing some uchikomi with pros, osoto-gari can be a
> freighting experience. but, yes! tai chi is primarily a boxing art with
> joint manipulations and some grappling in it.
> and judo is primarily a grappling art( but it has strikes to and so on..
> the both use the body the same way . the difference is in the
execution.!
Funny... to me Taiji is primarily a grappling art. I guess we see things
differently. The best way to solve this is for you to go see someone like
Wang Hai Jun and compare notes.
>
>
> > If judo moved the same
> > way Taiji did, they'd have the shaking power, too. They don't.
>
> try letting a pro do uchimata on you, then will pick this up again..
I think you need to see the shaking power in Taiji, Mario. It's very
different. Trust me.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Why don't you go see the best Taiji? They come to New York, but you
> won't
> > go. I don't understand how you could miss a chance to check out your
> theory
> > that judo is Taiji. :^)
> easy if you think that i want to waste my money and see CXW for a few
> hundred dollars so he can show folk silk reealing and the be whisked off
> buy some singer guy groupie.. like he a rock start ..forget it!! if i
> knew of him ten years ago maybe . but now the pope is easier to get an
> audience with ;-))
Watch out for the Pope. He does Tae Kwon Do.
Mike
Mike Sigman
> In article <vdahcg2...@corp.supernews.com>, Mike Sigman
> <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> I suspect you are projecting your view of what martial practice should
> be onto judo, and not looking for what Kano intended for judo.
>
Maybe so. I don't think so, though. Frankly, as I've said, I don't really
care much anymore.
Well, I read what you wrote. What you wrote applies, at the level you wrote
it, to a fair *number* of arts. It's nice and it's true, but it misses the
point of what I'm talking about. "Ju" means more than that. What you're
talking about is technique and strategy and misses the core of things.
Mike
Mike Sigman
"Phil Robyn" <zipp...@uclink.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:bb4ejs$5bms1$1...@ID-55492.news.dfncis.de...
> Peter Claussen wrote:
>>
> So the Kanji character "ju" (Mandarin "rou") is a verb, huh? That's
hilarious!
>
Yeah, sometimes I have to fight hard to keep my thoughts on track. I
almost said "intransitive or transitive?", but if you stop to smell all the
roses you never make it to the grocery store. :^)
Mike
YoJimbo
says...>news:bb38o...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>
>> Here's the post that Mike is afraid to answer. It's becoming clear that
>he's
>> yellow as well as being a liar. Perhaps this is as close as he can get to
>being
>> Chinese...
>>
>Now tell me you didn't mean offense to Chinese. Mike Sigman spewing
>ridiculous claims about chinese things does not mean Chinese are like Mike
>Sigman. I have many chinese friends, and *none* of them are like Mike.
Exactly.
JS
YoJimbo
>
>
>
>"Eric D. Berge" wrote:
>
>> On 28 May 2003 21:14:06 GMT, Seagul...@LowBudget.com (YoJimbo)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >So, which is it, Mike? If Hu is the impeccable historian, you need
>> >to revise a number of statements you've made about CMC over the
>> >years...
>>
>> referring to Black Belt Magazine as an authoritative reference on Tai
>> Chi.
>
>Actually, all you can do is claim that Mike has accepted Hu as a
>reliable authority. That this particular article of Hu's was in "Black
>Belt" could be considered a coincidence unless Mike states
>that he trusts "Black Belt" to carry legimate articles.
>Articles are credited to the author; a magazine
>can carry both reliable and unreliable articles (ie "Black Belt"
>could print a letter by Kano on judo and my account
>of how I won the olympic gold medal in judo).
Something a mag like Black Belt often does- print a nice article
right along with some junk...
These days, however, the junk seems to predominate.
Black Belt hasn't put out a really top-notch MA article in years,
IMO.
Be that as it may, Mikey is in yet another quandry here, which
your comments above don't address. (Eric saw it.)
Mikey desperately wants us to accept William Hu's ruiminations
on "chinese origins" (I say that loosely) of jujitsu, yet we
can easily turn to other articles written by the same man
and find some crap.
Hu obviously is proud of his own culture, and he should be.
But it comes out in his comments on things.
The almost worshipful attitude toward Cheng Manching I quoted
part of is a fine example of a guy who sometimes let objectivity
be suspended :-). But another thing is, Hu's articles on
various aspects of chinese MAs are basically fun to read, but
they're limited by the date he wrote- most of these things came
out in BB mag in the early sixties. So it's a dated perspective
at best. Look at his "origins of tai chi quan" article, for
instance (it's still available on the web, I'm too lazy
to look it up right now). Hu laments he doesn't have more
sources to determine a better history.
And so it goes.
Of course, any honest attempt to assess a guy writing like
William Hu, like the above, is quite beyond Mikey's sense
of objectivity. Mikey gets a lot of attention with this
"me vs. the pack" mentality, and you just won't shut him
up- he's on stage once again :-).
JS
YoJimbo
>Mike Sigman wrote:
>> I haven't seen any in Judo.
Sigman hasn't seen *anything* in judo.
Even being in a judo thread and insulting practicising judoka is the
height of arrogance for Mikey.
Par for the course. There ain't no martial art Mike isn't the expert
on or can't compare unfavorably to chinese arts -just ask him :-).
But rather than believe me... go show an expert and get his
>> opinion. Those guys are not the Wang brothers. :^)
>
>yeah, i keep hearing that ..i also remember hearing the same thing about
>the Wang's, before i went to see them...
>and heck i'm a terrible player!!!
>o.k. maybe not so terrible just o.k. maybe.:-)
No, you're the guy who went to an actual mainland competition and
mixed it up, while Mike has been telling everybody it was his
dream to do so, for years, and he never made it.
Dem's the facts.
JS
Olaf
YoJimbo wrote:
Weren't intended to, I've been disagreeing with Mike on most
points. Just pointing out a faulty argument.
-Olaf
YoJimbo
>
>YoJimbo wrote:
>
>> ...Here, Dr. Hu says Cheng "diligently perfected each movement" under
>>
>>YCF, and furthermore, Yang "taught Cheng privately all the secrets
>>of taichi-chuan."
>>
>>So, which is it, Mike? If Hu is the impeccable historian, you need
>>to revise a number of statements you've made about CMC over the
>>years...
>>JS
>>
>Well... your quoting more out of context than you're admitting too.
>I remember over the years, Mike saying many things in this regard, also
>noting on many occasions...
>" CMC was probably better than his detractors, and worse than his
>dutiful proponents" or something like that. I'm paraphrasing.
That in itself is probably a pretty good assessment of CMC himself,
but I'm actually talking about something else. The issue in
question is whether Cheng had "mastered" taijiquan *under Yang
Chengfu* as William Hu points out in the article. Stories
vary to how long CMC actually studied under Chengfu (you know that),
and there is no way in hell you can construe Hu's comments as
Cheng being anything other than a special student of the
master...
The pickle this puts Mikey under (notice he has entirely avoided
the issue) is if he wants people to accept Hu as a crackerjack
historian, than Hu's scholarship in other areas should be looked
at. Don't you think?
>The dialectic is what you're really skipping over here.
>It was not that CMC was a fraud- he never meant that; it was that the
>schools of his teachings were so afflicted
>as to be in that theatre.
see above
separate issue
And I agree that the hippy crowd kinda took this stuff and ran with
it, sure. But Cheng had some decent American students, too. More than Mikey
would recognize, so what if Mike is the one here who isn't being
fair?? Ask Mario about Mike's comments about CMC himself and the
CMC crowd- he'll give you an entirely different perspective, I'm sure.
>And to be fair to Mike- he once recommended to me, to study with RGY-
>and when I found my studying with that one, 17 yrs after studying very
>briefly with Lou Kleinsmith and the CMC gang in NYC, and finding that
>the vaunted chen village purity was not
>extant in RGY's exposition- he never, ever insulted my opinions, never
>ever treated me as some worthless character for opining
>that six of one...
>That is because his modus was the dialectic, the act, art, or an
>exercise of one's powers of argument, for a firmer understanding of the
>principles that needed to be 'taught', the 'mechanics that needed to be
>taught.
>Not alluded too, but taught.
Okay, pretty poetic description, even if it's debatable :-).
Mark, you have a nice way with words.
>As for Hu, I doubt that his history will stand up to his polite
>interpretation of CMC. CMC may have been that diligent student for
>under two years- he got damm good, but...
>and I think some of the outward bound Chen stylists may have problems
>with their place in history also. I recall Mike mentioning that many of
>them, like to hang on Chen Fa Ke's coat, but few can really...
*Everybody* involved in the Chen style hangs onto Chen Fa Ker's coat-
in my view, it's probably because he was the only real Chen fighter
in the last 50 years. At least that has any kind of substantial
history to that effect. Everybody talks the Chen talk, but it's
actually kind of sad they have to go back this far to find a guy
who had a rep :-)). Truth is, nobody modern *has* any rep for
putting taijiquan to use, outsite a couple anecdotal incidents
you'll hear the taichee crowd parrot once in awhile.
But it's a curious record for an art we're supposedly supposed
to take as the cat's meow as far as fightin' skills, right??
You know the grappling crowd is rolling their eyes on this
stuff...
>Frankly, his wry assessments have been more than helpful in
>understanding myth from reality about the subject.
>Many people also feel this way.
>I don't practice taiji- I don't owe him anything, nor he, to me.
>But his frankness, and honesty seems about one head above the yapping
>mob, throughout this thread; furiously trying to
>bwaahhaaa their way out of some nasty cul de sac's they walked
>themselves into.
Well, alls I can say here, Mark, is that Mikey has been guilty of
much more than his share of underhanded tactics in these threads,
and if you really pay attention to the history, you'll find Mikey
is merely parroting old chinese biases he learned from somebody.
His thesis won't hold any water, in fact it displays a naive
elevation of chinese culture way beyond what is true.
But I recognize people will differ on their opinions.
I have no problem with that. If you get mileage out of
Mike as a historian, go with it.
Most of the rest of us prefer somebody like Donn Draeger over
a white guy who likes to guess about judo in an armchair :-).
Cheers,
JS
Ben Holmes
When you simply have no response to make, try a personal insult.
But it merely points out that you're completely lost for any argument against
the point made.
That any "scholar" could miss what the founder of Judo *said* about Judo when
writing a history of Judo is simply beyond intelligent comment.
And illustrates his worth as a scholar. Or, more likely, his bias...
Ben Holmes
>
>
>"story" <storys@no spam.execulink.com> wrote in message
>news:vdasi0p...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:vdarvmf...@corp.supernews.com...
>> >
>> >>
>> > Perfect. The 2 Stooges of RMA go from "Ju has Ki" to "Ju *equals* Ki"
>> > and congratulate themselves on the clever observation.
>>
>> I believe YOU were the one who said it & not me or Ben.
>>
>
>It's easy to look. You're wrong. Holmes made it up.
Nope... I didn't make it up. I pointed out that it was YOUR implication.
> You didn't read what I wrote and you didn't catch Holmes but instead
> tried to carry the lie further.
You going to deny it, Mike? Go ahead and do so.
>> For the LAST frigging time ( I hope & pray ) I AM NOT A JUDOKA. I KNOW
>> ALMOST NOTHING ABOUT JUDO. I STUDIED A VERY ECLECTIC FORM OF JUJITSU. I AM
>> NOT A JUDO EXPERT. At this late date I rather doubt I ever will be.
>
>Yeah, but at least you admit it. Holmes won't admit he's not an expert.
Why would I? I've placed myself fairly accurately in the ranks of Judoka, I've
mentioned those who were far above me, and people such as yourself, Mike, who
never demonstrate any knowledge of Judo, and who indeed make silly mistakes
about Judo, are far below me in knowledge.
Ben Holmes
Non-answer. The *question* was "...why someone writing about Judo's history
wouldn't bother to read what Judo said on the topic?" Why didn't you answer it?
>Have you ever thought of the very thing that he
>mentions in the article.... some schools sort of fabricate a little of their
>history, Ben?
Meaningless... he didn't even read the most basic piece of literature that Judo
produced...
>Those fabrications... usually what the people *want* to
>hear about themselves...
So are you now trying to say that Jikishinryu *didn't* use the term Judo
previously? Or do you even recall the fundamental and basic mistakes that Hu
made about Judo?
>get perpetrated by many martial arts schools, even
>well-meaning ones. Hu was looking at the early history, not the modern
>stories.
Again, simply doesn't apply. You really need to recall the whole thread, go
back and *read* what people are saying about Hu's lack of scholarship. He
*MISSED* basic facts that WERE early history.
>Why you would suggest that he read the modern stories if he wanted
>to know the history...
Stupid. A *very* stupid attitude...
Again, why not answer the question? How could Hu have written an article on the
history of Judo without looking at what the founder of Judo *SAID* about the
subject? There is *NO-ONE* that knows more about the *history* of Judo than the
founder...
>I admit it, I had to laugh. Again.
Then it was the laugh of a hyena... and rather silly...
>Mike
Teabag
> > Dr. William C. C. Hu speaks nine languages and has earned degrees in law,
> > chemistry, library science and holds a doctorate in law. Born in the
> > province of Kingst, China, His education began when he was 3 years old
> under
> > the tutorship of his grandfather, who was an academician to the Emperor
> and
> > a tutor in Hanlin- the highest literary award that could be bestowed.
> > He served as a consultant and researcher for the Supreme Court of Hawaii
> > and during the Korean conflict, and served in the Central Intelligence
> > Agency.
> > He studied the martial arts (Tao School) under the court examiner o the
> > Monarchy. Later he became the director and instructor of Tao School which
> is
> > affiliated with the Chinese Physical Cultural Association in Hawaii.
> > Hu is also a collector of rare art. Some of his collection of Chinese
> > prints, rare porcelains and pottery date back to the Yueh T'ang dynasty
> > (618-960). His private library includes rare volumes which were former
> > possessions of the imperial family.
> >
>
>
> P.S. I've had someone tell me that Hu's skills in the old characters were
> without question. Japanese is one of the 9 languages he speaks and reads,
> BTW.
>
which of these two diametrically opposed anonymous sources is right?
And where is this "Kingst" province? Not in the China on planet
Earth, I think.
>I think I'm done
with the "Judo Crowd" for now.
You keep saying stuff like that, kind of like a battered wife who
just won't leave her husband. How can they miss you when you won't go
away?
Ben Holmes
teab...@hotmail.com says...
Actually, it looks like he's finally left. Unfortunate, since he was providing
much unintended humor. It seems that when enough facts were crowding his plate,
it was time for him to leave...
Mike Sigman
"YoJimbo" <Seagul...@LowBudget.com> wrote in message
news:bb52si$toi$1...@Crestone.UCHSC.edu...
> Mikey desperately wants us to accept William Hu's ruiminations
> on "chinese origins" (I say that loosely) of jujitsu, yet we
> can easily turn to other articles written by the same man
> and find some crap.
You just like to sound like you know something, don't you, Storey? Here's
a guy that speaks 9 languages and knows more about martial arts than you,
but since you're behind a keyboard you can slam him. You're a piece of
work.
>
> Hu obviously is proud of his own culture, and he should be.
> But it comes out in his comments on things.
> The almost worshipful attitude toward Cheng Manching I quoted
> part of is a fine example of a guy who sometimes let objectivity
> be suspended :-). But another thing is, Hu's articles on
> various aspects of chinese MAs are basically fun to read, but
> they're limited by the date he wrote- most of these things came
> out in BB mag in the early sixties. So it's a dated perspective
> at best. Look at his "origins of tai chi quan" article, for
> instance (it's still available on the web, I'm too lazy
> to look it up right now). Hu laments he doesn't have more
> sources to determine a better history.
> And so it goes.
>
Just to show you how asinine Storey is, he makes fun of a guy who "wants
more sources"... but Storey forgets that mainland China was closed in those
days and the sources were quite limited.
I realize that any source I use will be derided by Storey because he has a
grudge, though. I'm glad he's on the side of Ben Holmes.... a poison-pen
wannabe martial artist and a "judoka" of Ben's stature belong together.
:^)
Mike
Mike Sigman
"YoJimbo" <Seagul...@LowBudget.com> wrote in message
> In article <bb3sm8$npq$1...@news.monmouth.com>, mgol...@monmouth.com
says...
> >
> >YoJimbo wrote:
> >
> >> ...Here, Dr. Hu says Cheng "diligently perfected each movement" under
> >>
> >>YCF, and furthermore, Yang "taught Cheng privately all the secrets
> >>of taichi-chuan."
> >>
> >>So, which is it, Mike? If Hu is the impeccable historian, you need
> >>to revise a number of statements you've made about CMC over the
> >>years...
> >>JS
> >>
> >Well... your quoting more out of context than you're admitting too.
> >I remember over the years, Mike saying many things in this regard, also
> >noting on many occasions...
> >" CMC was probably better than his detractors, and worse than his
> >dutiful proponents" or something like that. I'm paraphrasing.
>
> That in itself is probably a pretty good assessment of CMC himself,
> but I'm actually talking about something else.
No, asshole, you were quoting out of context and you got caught. Again.
>The issue in
> question is whether Cheng had "mastered" taijiquan *under Yang
> Chengfu* as William Hu points out in the article. Stories
> vary to how long CMC actually studied under Chengfu (you know that),
> and there is no way in hell you can construe Hu's comments as
> Cheng being anything other than a special student of the
> master...
>
> The pickle this puts Mikey under (notice he has entirely avoided
> the issue) is if he wants people to accept Hu as a crackerjack
> historian, than Hu's scholarship in other areas should be looked
> at. Don't you think?
Well, duh, Jim Storey, .... once again you show your ass by forgetting that
Hu was limited to sources in those days because mainland China was shut.
Almost every historian has had to change what he thought since the records
and gazeteers of China have been made available to the public. Even Douglas
Wile, a Cheng Man Ching style practitioner has had to revise his position
****since China's records became available**** you dumbass.
You smear someone like Hu's reputation so you can take a shot a someone
else. You're a complete piece of shit, taking a dumb swipe because like
that when NO ONE had access to those records.
>
> *Everybody* involved in the Chen style hangs onto Chen Fa Ker's coat-
> in my view, it's probably because he was the only real Chen fighter
> in the last 50 years. At least that has any kind of substantial
> history to that effect.
Yeah, what about Chen Bo Xiang and others? You don't have a clue,
Storey........ you simply bullshit and try to talk arrogantly like you know
something. You don't know ANYTHING about Taiji and you don't know ANYTHING
about Judo. You're trying to make pals with anybody who is in an argument
with me because you've been shown up to be a poison-pen-letter-writing
slimeball.
Mike Sigman
Mike Sigman
> In article <vdau4m1...@corp.supernews.com>, "Mike says...
> >
> >
> >"story" <storys@no spam.execulink.com> wrote in message
> >news:vdasi0p...@corp.supernews.com...
> >>
> >> "Mike Sigman" <mikes...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:vdarvmf...@corp.supernews.com...
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> > Perfect. The 2 Stooges of RMA go from "Ju has Ki" to "Ju *equals*
Ki"
> >> > and congratulate themselves on the clever observation.
> >>
> >> I believe YOU were the one who said it & not me or Ben.
> >>
> >
> >It's easy to look. You're wrong. Holmes made it up.
>
> Nope... I didn't make it up. I pointed out that it was YOUR implication.
>
You made it up. It was not what I said and it was not my implication. And
don't put words in my mouth again with this crap about what I "implied"...
you've done it several times now. Unless you want to take this a step
further and we start talking about what you "implied" about your wife, Kano,
or something like that.
Mike
Mike Sigman
"Teabag" <teab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:31900951.03052...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > P.S. I've had someone tell me that Hu's skills in the old characters
were
> > without question. Japanese is one of the 9 languages he speaks and
reads,
> > BTW.
> >
> Hmmm, I've had someone tell me exactly the opposite. I wonder
> which of these two diametrically opposed anonymous sources is right?
>
Easy to check. I'll give you my source when you give us your source and
your name. I've got a real source.
> And where is this "Kingst" province? Not in the China on planet
> Earth, I think.
Beats me. Looking at the other typos in BB like "Jistory", I'm assuming
someone misread or inputted wrong for either Jiangxi or Jiangsu province.
Sign your name or shut up. You've already said you don't know anything
about martial arts.
Mike
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>
>"YoJimbo" <Seagul...@LowBudget.com> wrote in message
>news:bb52si$toi$1...@Crestone.UCHSC.edu...
>> In article <3ED548F2...@I.Hate.Spam.com>, ol...@I.Hate.Spam.com
>says...
>
>
>> Mikey desperately wants us to accept William Hu's ruiminations
>> on "chinese origins" (I say that loosely) of jujitsu, yet we
>> can easily turn to other articles written by the same man
>> and find some crap.
You don't even have to go to other articles. As I first commented, his article
stands on it's own... and illustrates its' own worth. Unfortunately, you *do*
have to know enough Judo history to catch the worth of the article. If you
don't *know* any Judo or Judo history, his article can appear quite
authoritative.
>You just like to sound like you know something, don't you, Storey? Here's
>a guy that speaks 9 languages and knows more about martial arts than you,
>but since you're behind a keyboard you can slam him. You're a piece of
>work.
Speaking as someone who's slammed the ability and knowledge of pretty much any
Judoka on RMA, from behind a keyboard, this seems a tad hypocritical.
>> Hu obviously is proud of his own culture, and he should be.
>> But it comes out in his comments on things.
>> The almost worshipful attitude toward Cheng Manching I quoted
>> part of is a fine example of a guy who sometimes let objectivity
>> be suspended :-). But another thing is, Hu's articles on
>> various aspects of chinese MAs are basically fun to read, but
>> they're limited by the date he wrote- most of these things came
>> out in BB mag in the early sixties. So it's a dated perspective
>> at best. Look at his "origins of tai chi quan" article, for
>> instance (it's still available on the web, I'm too lazy
>> to look it up right now). Hu laments he doesn't have more
>> sources to determine a better history.
>> And so it goes.
>
>Just to show you how asinine Storey is, he makes fun of a guy who "wants
>more sources"... but Storey forgets that mainland China was closed in those
>days and the sources were quite limited.
Just to show how assinine and illiterate Mike is, this is exactly what was being
pointed out.
>I realize that any source I use will be derided by Storey because he has a
>grudge, though.
Try using a source that is not nearly as silly, then. Move away from the
website quotes, and the obviously biased sources, and try using some material
from some martial art scholars. Then, if someone derides you for it, everyone
else who's knowledgeable will see it for what it's worth.
As it is, Mike, it's *you* that looks silly with the citations that you're
providing. But that is probably in the nature of the theory that you're
pushing...
>I'm glad he's on the side of Ben Holmes....
As am I. I'm always happy to be connected with people using common sense and
good references.
>a poison-pen wannabe martial artist and a "judoka" of Ben's stature
>belong together.
>:^)
>
>
>Mike
Looks like I was wrong about you finally leaving. More humor ahead!!!
Mike Sigman
>
> Speaking as someone who's slammed the ability and knowledge of pretty much
any
> Judoka on RMA, from behind a keyboard, this seems a tad hypocritical.
>
Gee, Ben..... are you seriously accusing *me* of slamming someone's
knowledge and skill? You're the one who started the whole mess by bragging
about your "qualifications" and tell me I knew "nothing". Do you
understand what a "hypocrite" is????? :^)
Like I said.... think about it the next time you try to strut and boast your
way with a negative attack toward someone.
> >> Hu obviously is proud of his own culture, and he should be.
> >> But it comes out in his comments on things.
> >> The almost worshipful attitude toward Cheng Manching I quoted
> >> part of is a fine example of a guy who sometimes let objectivity
> >> be suspended :-). But another thing is, Hu's articles on
> >> various aspects of chinese MAs are basically fun to read, but
> >> they're limited by the date he wrote- most of these things came
> >> out in BB mag in the early sixties. So it's a dated perspective
> >> at best. Look at his "origins of tai chi quan" article, for
> >> instance (it's still available on the web, I'm too lazy
> >> to look it up right now). Hu laments he doesn't have more
> >> sources to determine a better history.
> >> And so it goes.
> >
> >Just to show you how asinine Storey is, he makes fun of a guy who "wants
> >more sources"... but Storey forgets that mainland China was closed in
those
> >days and the sources were quite limited.
>
> Just to show how assinine and illiterate Mike is, this is exactly what was
being
> pointed out.
No it's not "exactly what was being pointed out". Where does the fact that
China wasn't available for sources appear in Storey's putdown? You're
completely dishonest, Holmes. So you support a putdown of a man with more
martial arts history credentials than anyone ever mentioned in these
threads? What a piece of filth. Why don't you write Hu and tell him he
doesn't have the credentials instead of backstabbing him where you think he
can't see it?
Mike Sigman
Ben Holmes
says...
"I actually think we followed the argument exactly far enough. If you have
separated "ju" and "ki", then the discussion is at end. Once again, your
argument seems to devolve to "if Claussen has not heard of it, then it must
not exist". Come back when you have found out what "ju" means." - Mike Sigman
Speaking for myself, I'm more than happy to recognize a 'separation' between the
two terms and meanings.
As Ayn Rand once noted, "Words have meanings."
>Mike
Mike Sigman
Mike Sigman:
> If you have
> separated "ju" and "ki", then the discussion is at end.
Ben Holmes attributing to Mike Sigman:
> "ju" equals "ki"
>
> Speaking for myself, I'm more than happy to recognize a 'separation'
between the
> two terms and meanings.
>
Thanks for the apology for the misattribution. Not.
Mike Sigman
YoJimbo
mikes...@earthlink.net says...
>
>
>"YoJimbo" <Seagul...@LowBudget.com> wrote in message
>news:bb54ve$5l7$1...@Crestone.UCHSC.edu...
>> In article <bb3sm8$npq$1...@news.monmouth.com>, mgol...@monmouth.com
>says...
>> >I remember over the years, Mike saying many things in this regard, also
>> >noting on many occasions...
>> >" CMC was probably better than his detractors, and worse than his
>> >dutiful proponents" or something like that. I'm paraphrasing.
>>
>> That in itself is probably a pretty good assessment of CMC himself,
>> but I'm actually talking about something else.
>
>No, asshole, you were quoting out of context and you got caught. Again.
No, asshole, I'm talking about how reliable WCC Hu is for information.
>>The issue in
>> question is whether Cheng had "mastered" taijiquan *under Yang
>> Chengfu* as William Hu points out in the article. Stories
>> vary to how long CMC actually studied under Chengfu (you know that),
>> and there is no way in hell you can construe Hu's comments as
>> Cheng being anything other than a special student of the
>> master...
>>
>> The pickle this puts Mikey under (notice he has entirely avoided
>> the issue) is if he wants people to accept Hu as a crackerjack
>> historian, than Hu's scholarship in other areas should be looked
>> at. Don't you think?
>
>Well, duh, Jim Storey, .... once again you show your ass
Showed my ass? Heavens!
I guess Mikey wants to use "ass" a lot in sentences...
>by forgetting that
>Hu was limited to sources in those days because mainland China was shut.
Think about this real hard, Mikey., It's above your head, but
think about it. Here's I'll even dumb it down for you and put
it in caps in the vain hope you can start to comprehend your
problem: we're not even talking about what sources WCC Hu
had available or not- we're TALKING WHETHER HE CAN BE TRUSTED
COMPLETELY IN LIGHT OF WHAT HE SAYS IN OTHER ARTICLES.
Thanks for entirely avoiding the point, peanut brain.
JS
Mike Sigman
"YoJimbo" <Seagul...@LowBudget.com> wrote in message
>
> >by forgetting that
> >Hu was limited to sources in those days because mainland China was shut.
>
> Think about this real hard, Mikey.,
I did, dumbass. You're *always* try to pretend you didn't make a mistake
and get caught. That's just you. You tried to bullshit like that on the
Neijia list and you lost a lot of face, so you started writing poison-pen
letters. And yes, there are people who've read those letters reading your
bullshit now, as we speak.
China was closed for source material. Japan was not. Don't compare the
two. Quit trying to discredit Hu in order to avoid the unavoidable.... the
sources Hu used outgun anything written by Dreager, Skoss, et al. Trying
to put down someone you don't even know is low.... but you're low, aren't
you, Storey. You're a poison pen guy.
Here's a cute excerpt from when you got caught trying to backstab me and you
started trying to backpeddle:
> The take-home message I've been giving you is quite different
> than what you're trying to extrapolate from my comments.
> You've looked at everything I've told you as a "personal
> attack" on Mike Sigman and that's not the case at all.
> I've tried to convey the message that Mike, or any other
> white guy teaching around here, is NOT a direct link
> to the Chen family taiji, and you take that as a personal
> attack.
What a laugh.... :^) You called me a "white guy" and yet you decried
the usage of such terms in these RMA threads!!! :^))))))) And you
keep harping on me and the Chen Family when I've stated publicly that I'm no
student, disciple, link, power-broker, etc., with the Chen Family.... yet
you use that as a something you tell people I "claim". SHOW ME THE CLAIM,
you poison-pen scum. You've been writing people for at least 4 years with
your absolute crap... what a man, what a martial artist.
Mike Sigman
YoJimbo
says...
>
>
>"YoJimbo" <Seagul...@LowBudget.com> wrote in message
>news:bb5m37$10p$1...@Crestone.UCHSC.edu...
>>
>> >by forgetting that
>> >Hu was limited to sources in those days because mainland China was shut.
>>
>> Think about this real hard, Mikey.,
>
>I did, dumbass. You're *always* try to pretend you didn't make a mistake
>and get caught. That's just you.
Still avoiding the issue raised, I see.
> You tried to bullshit like that on the
>Neijia list and you lost a lot of face,
???
To who?
You?
You're out and out lying yer ass off, because a lot of
that list I correspond with privately, and they're not
exactly agreeing with the stuff you wrote, Mikey.
But I can't expect truthful statements from you, now
can I?
Speaking of the Neijia List, you left it yourself,
remember, Mikey?
I do. You were in one of your huffs over the Maloney fiasco
and said you'd "had it" with the tai chee crowd.
Unfortunately for them, you're retired and don't have a
real life, so you're back on there, and back on here.
The only difference between the two groups is, there the list
owners allowed you free reign for your bullying, and here
we don't.
>so you started writing poison-pen
>letters.
No, I had a real winner named Debora (see below) who
has some emotional problems with men in general try
to give "advice" to everyone on the group, on the
basis of finally meeting her hero Mikey in Florida, and
"we were like father and daughter"...
You two deserve eacn other's attention :-))).
>China was closed for source material. Japan was not. Don't compare the
>two. Quit trying to discredit Hu in order to avoid the unavoidable.... the
>sources Hu used outgun anything written by Dreager, Skoss, et al.
Ha ha
This is rich.
Still taking those stupid pills fer breakfast, ain't ya Mikey?
>Trying to put down someone you don't even know is low.... but you're low,
aren't
>you, Storey. You're a poison pen guy.
Love it.
You know Donn Draeger, Mikey?
You ever meet him?
Of course not :-))))).
>Here's a cute excerpt from when you got caught trying to backstab me and you
>started trying to backpeddle:
>
>> The take-home message I've been giving you is quite different
>> than what you're trying to extrapolate from my comments.
>> You've looked at everything I've told you as a "personal
>> attack" on Mike Sigman and that's not the case at all.
>> I've tried to convey the message that Mike, or any other
>> white guy teaching around here, is NOT a direct link
>> to the Chen family taiji, and you take that as a personal
>> attack.
see above
This is Debora.
Same stuff I've said everywhere else, and it's true, too.
Unfortunately, nobody, and I mean nobody, on RMA gives a
shit about your quotes, including me.
We could go on and on with the personal attack stuff,
but I think people realize why I said "no thanks" to the
stuff you offered and the roles you want to play...
JS
Ben Holmes
>
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>news:bb5k7...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>> Speaking as someone who's slammed the ability and knowledge of pretty much
>> any Judoka on RMA, from behind a keyboard, this seems a tad hypocritical.
>
>Gee, Ben..... are you seriously accusing *me* of slamming someone's
>knowledge and skill?
Yep... and with plenty of evidence to support it, as well.
>You're the one who started the whole mess by bragging
>about your "qualifications" and tell me I knew "nothing".
Not quite true, as you well know. I've stated over and over again, that based
on what YOU are posting here, you don't demonstrate any particular knowledge of
Judo. And despite being invited to do so, you STILL haven't illustrated any
particular knowledge of Judo. Far from it, you've illustrated a real ignorance
of Judo. The facts hurt, don't they?
>Do you understand what a "hypocrite" is????? :^)
Yep, I surely do... that's why I accused you of it.
>Like I said.... think about it the next time you try to strut and boast your
>way with a negative attack toward someone.
LOL!!
>> >> Hu obviously is proud of his own culture, and he should be.
>> >> But it comes out in his comments on things.
>> >> The almost worshipful attitude toward Cheng Manching I quoted
>> >> part of is a fine example of a guy who sometimes let objectivity
>> >> be suspended :-). But another thing is, Hu's articles on
>> >> various aspects of chinese MAs are basically fun to read, but
>> >> they're limited by the date he wrote- most of these things came
>> >> out in BB mag in the early sixties. So it's a dated perspective
>> >> at best. Look at his "origins of tai chi quan" article, for
>> >> instance (it's still available on the web, I'm too lazy
>> >> to look it up right now). Hu laments he doesn't have more
>> >> sources to determine a better history.
>> >> And so it goes.
>> >
>> >Just to show you how asinine Storey is, he makes fun of a guy who "wants
>> >more sources"... but Storey forgets that mainland China was closed in
>> >those days and the sources were quite limited.
>>
>> Just to show how assinine and illiterate Mike is, this is exactly what was
>> being pointed out.
>
>No it's not "exactly what was being pointed out". Where does the fact that
>China wasn't available for sources appear in Storey's putdown?
Read it again. You haven't, as yet, snipped it.
>You're completely dishonest, Holmes. So you support a putdown of a man
>with more martial arts history credentials than anyone ever mentioned in
>these threads?
A person's "credentials" don't matter very much if what he says isn't supported
by the very evidence he cites.
>What a piece of filth. Why don't you write Hu and tell him he
>doesn't have the credentials instead of backstabbing him where you think he
>can't see it?
There isn't anything I've written about the man that I wouldn't say face to face
with him. I've pointed out that he hasn't read the most basic reference work
that exists with reference to the history of Judo, or if he did, he ignored the
information presented.
In other words, Mike, I don't deal with personal insult... I deal with *facts*.
Now, get off your high horse, and try to defend WCC Hu from his failure to use
information that was readily available - instead of presenting "facts" that were
in error. (As in the Jikishinryu...)
It's interesting that you never responded to the post where I was pointing all
this out.
>Mike Sigman
Ben Holmes
>
>
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>news:bb5m0...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <3isBa.24412$Io.20...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>"Mike
>>
>
>Mike Sigman:
>> If you have separated "ju" and "ki", then the discussion is at end.
>
>Ben Holmes attributing to Mike Sigman:
This statement above is a lie. Mike, you're a liar. It's clear that you were
too cowardly to quote my EXACT statement. Why is that, Mike?
>> "ju" equals "ki"
>
>> Speaking for myself, I'm more than happy to recognize a 'separation'
>> between the two terms and meanings.
>
>Thanks for the apology for the misattribution. Not.
Nope... I didn't "misattribute" anything, nor did I apologize for anything. Are
you having problems understanding what you read? Or are you getting people
mixed up here?
>Mike Sigman