NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/rec/martial/17190

Text File | 1993-01-21 | 3.8 KB | 98 lines

Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!newsserver.pixel.kodak.com!lund
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: The Meaning Behind Style Names Summary:
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: lund@viper
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: fauna
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 23:37:55 GMT
Lines: 85

[e-mail] writes:
>[e-mail] writes:
>>
>>[...]  [ liberal snippage throughout ]
>
>    I don't think that "enlightenment" is implied in -do styles.

Depends on the intent of the founder, perhaps.  Some -do styles seem to
be based on Zen Buddhism, with the practice being the moving meditation.

Nothing wrong with that, if you are not interested in combat:

*-begin included text--
|
|Subject: Re: -do, -ju(i)tsu and martial arts
|Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
|
|[...]
|I am a lowly (a couple of years totally) student of the Kendo and Iaido arts.
|[...]
|kind of real/non-competitionlike combat meaningless and thats partly why
|I'm training something that is almost meaningless in that aspect (unless
|                               ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^
|I carry a sword, which, I think, would cause some problems with the police :)
|[...]
|
|       /Erik
|
*-end included text--

>>  When you are
>> concerned with the actual study of _technique_, you should study a "jutsu".
>> When you want to train for self betterment, and don't care about combat,
>> then study a "do".
>
>    This is one of those horrible, abstract categorizations which

Sorry for the overgeneralization.  I should have inserted words like
"most", "many", "some of you", etc to make my generalization _slightly_
more accurate.  :-)

But the paragraph above was not intended to be a rule, as there are
always circumstances that ought to be weighed into a personal decision.
If the best instructor in your area happens to teach a -do, then by all
means study it.  But be aware of the intent of the system, and make
sure that you are getting what you want.

I think most of us have heard the story about the Guardian Angels
karate-ka who was knocked to the ground before she had a chance to
use her training.  Having had no training on the ground, she was
raped.  (And yes, even with training, she may still have been raped.
The point here is that she was surprised to find out that she was
unable to generate powerful strikes in her customary way.)

>> I am not aware of _any_ karate-do that has been combat tested, or that was
>> designed to endure the rigors of combat testing.
>
>    Hmmm...what can we say about the derivatives of Daito Ryu? How
>many of the founders of those styles actually fought people on a
>midieval battlefield? How many of the classical ryu which were founded
>in the last 300 years have actually been "tested in battle"?

Huh?  We are talking _feudal_ Japan here.  The famous sword maker
(so famous that I can't remember his name - oops)  who is credited
with the invention of the curved, layered, etc Japanese sword was
motivated to come up with a better sword design when over half of
the returning soldiers carried broken swords.

The Japanese long bow was very thoroughly tested in battle.  As were
yari (spear), naginata (like yari, but curved blade), and armor.

Founders of new styles would customarily journey all over Japan,
challenging every headmaster that they met.  If they came back,
a new style was born.

Within schools and between schools, challenges were offered and accepted.
What good was something unless it worked?

(Actually, via email, I have been informed of at least one karate-do
that seems to be a full combat system, with additional philosophical
trimmings added, so the statement I made above about not being "aware
of _any_" can now be presumed to be obsolete.  Isn't the net wonderful?)

Nate
[e-mail]