New Internal Style of The Wooden Staff

David Skaggs wrote: So if Tenyu's stuff works that will validate his new Aikido style? David

Actually, if the stuff he is teaching works, it will show that Read Sensei is a good teacher.

I was making the more general point that anyone with any amount of experience can open a dojo and declare themselves the "master" of a "new" style.

A few of those people may even be once-a-generation martial geniuses. But the safer bet is that most of them are charlatans until proven otherwise. And I would say that the chance of charlatan-hood is inversely proportional to the amount of experience: how many people do *you* know who could master a single style in six years, much less invent a new one?

Katherine

Tenyu Hamaki wrote: There's no reason to go into detail how Aikibodo fundamentally differs from Aikibojitsu on this forum. First no one here including you practices either art and wouldn't understand the descriptions, second making comparisons can only be viewed as judgements against. ... -Tenyu

Several of us know Aikibojitsu instructors and have classes available to us.

Mark

Katherine Derbyshire wrote: Actually, if the stuff he is teaching works, it will show that Read Sensei is a good teacher. I was making the more general point that anyone with any amount of experience can open a dojo and declare themselves the "master" of a "new" style. A few of those people may even be once-a-generation martial geniuses. But the safer bet is that most of them are charlatans until proven otherwise. And I would say that the chance of charlatan-hood is inversely proportional to the amount of experience: how many people do *you* know who could master a single style in six years, much less invent a new one? Katherine

In 1953 Bruce Lee started his Wing Chun training with Yip Man. In 1959 he left Hong Kong for the United States. Prior to leaving Hong Kong he learned some Tai Chi from his father and boxing and fencing from other relatives. He never completed his training with Yip Man.
Soon after arriving in the U.S. he startied teaching his own style of Wing Chun.

dps

Hello George,

George S. Ledyard wrote: Hi David, I would point out that someone with a teaching license and some different ideas about how to proceed into the future going off on his own is substantively different than someone who doesn't even have yudansha rank "founding" his own style.

You mean like Bruce Lee?

George S. Ledyard wrote: Also, if you mean to suggest that Aikido is just watered down Daito Ryu, I would beg to differ. Although the post war growth in Aikido has lead to some important gaps in the transmission Aikido is very different than Daito Ryu. O-Sensei's creation added a whole new dimension to what he had learned in Daito Ryu. If that were not the case, we'd all be better off going back to Daito Ryu. While I actually practice one style of Daito Ryu, it is totally distinct in conception and practice from Aikido. They compliment each other but I would strenuously disagree that one is "better" than the other. But they are truly different.

Nope did not say that at all.

In the beginning O'Sensei took what he learned form Takeda, changed its name and taught essentially the same techniques.

I think it is hypocritically of any of us in Aikido to complain about some one taking what they learn and starting their own style under a different name.

He was honest about training with Read Sensei.. If he had try to hide it you would be jumping all over him about his dishonesty.

dps

Hi. May I say this on reading this thread. If a man, whoever he is makes an agreement not to teach what he has learned until given the right to do so by the teacher then obviously he shouldn't do so.
Secondly, if a teacher insists that all students who become teachers in the future of this same art must call it the same name and all the principles and techniques the same name then I see he would look at it as maintaining the integrity of his art and his responsibility.
So far so good.
However, the teacher or founder doing so is making a potential rod for his own back through his own fear of the integrity of the art being lost. Let me explain why.
If the original teacher has written everything down and published it and built up a reputation then it is that alone which will show the truth of his art so the agreement is not needed. Others will recognise it when another sets himself up teaching those same principles so there's nothing wrong with that is there? Others are not stupid and I think when someone thinks they own a way then they have made a miscalculation.
The person setting up a new way based on those principles should publicly honour the source which in this case has been done.
O'Senseis Aikido led to many, in fact almost all of his TOP students going off to various locations even around the world and forming their own strands of Aikido and yet all pay hommage to the founder. It's natural progression without fear as in all martial arts in the history of martial arts.
Personally I believe O'Sensei wanted and expected it to be so but I stress this is a personal belief. I myself insist on it.
I tell all my students that when they feel confident enough to teach on their own then I will fully support them but I insist that they must find their own style of teaching and name their version accordingly. Find your own path and find your own way that is my motto and go with my blessings. I can only help another on the way, it is not for me to control at all.
Call this a different way of going about things if you like but I see it as more organic and natural.
All that said and done I wish Tenryu Sensei the best and also Reid Sensei the best and hope for a good outcome for their personal situation.
Regards.G.

David Skaggs wrote: In 1953 Bruce Lee started his Wing Chun training with Yip Man. In 1959 he left Hong Kong for the United States. Prior to leaving Hong Kong he learned some Tai Chi from his father and boxing and fencing from other relatives. He never completed his training with Yip Man. Soon after arriving in the U.S. he startied teaching his own style of Wing Chun.

Right. And my point is that the Bruce Lee/Kano/Ueshiba type is rare, and the snake oil salesman type is extremely common.

Katherine

Katherine Derbyshire wrote: Right. And my point is that the Bruce Lee/Kano/Ueshiba type is rare, and the snake oil salesman type is extremely common. Katherine

The Lee/Kano/Ueshiba type is not all that rare. Both Lee and O'Sensei came from wealthy families and use their parents connections to help them out. In the case of Bruce Lee it was his connections with his Hollywood students that made him famous and with O'Sensei it was his political connections that made him famous. Both of them were familiar with snake oil salesmanship.

Kano I do not know.

Tenyu acknowledges Read Sensei respectfully in the development of his martial style just as Read acknowledges his teacher.

From, http://www.aikibojitsu.com/Origins.html

"Yasushi Tojima was a senior teacher at the Kumano Juku Dojo, known for his unpredictable nature,
ready sense of humor, and explosive intensity. Tojima sensei was central to the creation and
development of Aikibojitsu spending time and energy as mentor to Tom Read Sensei, Aikibojitsu's
founder."

"Read Sensei continues to study both Aikido and Aikibojitsu and freely teaches their principles and techniques to everyone who is interested."



dps

Katherine Derbyshire wrote: Actually, if the stuff he is teaching works, it will show that Read Sensei is a good teacher.

And Read Sensei has just posted:

"... I allowed Tenyu into the program and worked with him personally for over a year. As a result Tenyu's staff work is really not bad. But contrary to what he is saying here, over 99 percent of what he does is straight Aikibojitsu"

So, technically speaking, Tenyu's aikibodo is not some made up chanbara - nonsensical xtreme martial arts staff twirling.

I was making the more general point that anyone with any amount of experience can open a dojo and declare themselves the "master" of a "new" style.

And this has been done in many occasions. Some new styles worked and some not. If Tenyu's modified version of Read Sensei's Aikibojutsu works, then it works.

Now, on Tenyu's alleged character flaws/eccentricities/screw-looseness... well, geniouses have these things too.

David Skaggs wrote: So if Tenyu's stuff works that will validate his new Aikido style?

If it's lifted whole-cloth from someone else's work, then all it validates is someone else's old(er) style.

This is precisely the same issue one finds with unauthorized teachers of Koryu. The Koryu folks are VERY strict about lineage and transmission. To the point at which you sign a blood oath when accepted to the ryu.

There are people out there teaching without permission despite their initial commitment not to do so. This has NOTHING to do with whether they have ability, it has to do with their initial promise not to teach without permission.

In the old days, this would have simply been taken care of. Someone from the ryu would have it out with the unauthorized pretender. In some styles this still occurs, albeit on a more civilized level. I have friends who are direct students of Dan Inosanto in Jeet Kun Do. All authorized instructors are listed on their website. Despite this, folks still open up schools and say they are teaching Jeet Kun Do. My friend, Chris Clark will go with his senior student, Rich Peterson, and they visit the school and take class. Invariably, the teacher ends up taking down the Jeet Kun Do sign because he NEVER wants his students to see what the real thing looks like when compared to himself.

This is not an issue of technical ability. It is an issue of ethical behavior. I have students who also do classical sword. Despite the fact that they are my students, they are under obligation not to even talk about their training in the ryu. And they don't. They don't talk about it, they don't show me a thing. They promised not to do so when they signed up. They take that promise seriously.

This is Budo. One of the primary elements in Budo is personal honor. You make a promise not to teach without permission and you keep it. Even if it is no longer convenient for you. That was one of the terms of being accepted as a student. That promise doesn't go away if you leave the dojo of your own free will. It doesn't go away if you are thrown out of the dojo. It doesn't go away unless the person you made the promise to releases you from that promise.

Of course, the training you received doesn't simply disappear. If you keep training, perhaps, after many years, what you are doing does morph into something completely yours. At that point it might make sense to give it a new name and be the Founder of some new art. But i this case we are talking about a 4th Kyu. He has not devoted years and years to his own development of this style after leaving his Teacher. He simply gave it a new name and went down the street and started trying to teach. This is in direct violation of his promise not to do so. It is unethical and dishonorable. It's no different than taking someone else's intellectual property as ones own.

In all the cases of folks violating their promises by teaching, there are always people who do not think there is anything worn with it. There are folks who think anything one can download should be free. That any DVD can be copied and freely distributed. No one should be told they can't do whatever they want to do. After all, it's a free country and who is anyone to tell anyone else what to do?

But as far as I am concerned, this stuff matters. You promised you wouldn't so you don't. This is the overriding issue, integrity. Then you can get to the issue of 4th kyus "founding" their own styles. Next thing you see is membership in the World Sokeship Council with a bunch of fake sokes certifying other fake sokes, and blah, blah, blah.

George S. Ledyard wrote: This is precisely the same issue one finds with unauthorized teachers of Koryu. The Koryu folks are VERY strict about lineage and transmission. To the point at which you sign a blood oath when accepted to the ryu. There are people out there teaching without permission despite their initial commitment not to do so. This has NOTHING to do with whether they have ability, it has to do with their initial promise not to teach without permission. In the old days, this would have simply been taken care of. Someone from the ryu would have it out with the unauthorized pretender. In some styles this still occurs, albeit on a more civilized level. I have friends who are direct students of Dan Inosanto in Jeet Kun Do. All authorized instructors are listed on their website. Despite this, folks still open up schools and say they are teaching Jeet Kun Do. My friend, Chris Clark will go with his senior student, Rich Peterson, and they visit the school and take class. Invariably, the teacher ends up taking down the Jeet Kun Do sign because he NEVER wants his students to see what the real thing looks like when compared to himself. This is not an issue of technical ability. It is an issue of ethical behavior. I have students who also do classical sword. Despite the fact that they are my students, they are under obligation not to even talk about their training in the ryu. And they don't. They don't talk about it, they don't show me a thing. They promised not to do so when they signed up. They take that promise seriously. This is Budo. One of the primary elements in Budo is personal honor. You make a promise not to teach without permission and you keep it. Even if it is no longer convenient for you. That was one of the terms of being accepted as a student. That promise doesn't go away if you leave the dojo of your own free will. It doesn't go away if you are thrown out of the dojo. It doesn't go away unless the person you made the promise to releases you from that promise. Of course, the training you received doesn't simply disappear. If you keep training, perhaps, after many years, what you are doing does morph into something completely yours. At that point it might make sense to give it a new name and be the Founder of some new art. But i this case we are talking about a 4th Kyu. He has not devoted years and years to his own development of this style after leaving his Teacher. He simply gave it a new name and went down the street and started trying to teach. This is in direct violation of his promise not to do so. It is unethical and dishonorable. It's no different than taking someone else's intellectual property as ones own. In all the cases of folks violating their promises by teaching, there are always people who do not think there is anything worn with it. There are folks who think anything one can download should be free. That any DVD can be copied and freely distributed. No one should be told they can't do whatever they want to do. After all, it's a free country and who is anyone to tell anyone else what to do? But as far as I am concerned, this stuff matters. You promised you wouldn't so you don't. This is the overriding issue, integrity. Then you can get to the issue of 4th kyus "founding" their own styles. Next thing you see is membership in the World Sokeship Council with a bunch of fake sokes certifying other fake sokes, and blah, blah, blah.

Frankly, well worth reposting.

The title of the thread also made me wonder: has "internal" become the "user friendly" or "cutting edge" or "breakthrough" or "world class" of the martial arts world: an obligatory but meaningless advertising buzzword?

Mary Malmros wrote: The title of the thread also made me wonder: has "internal" become the "user friendly" or "cutting edge" or "breakthrough" or "world class" of the martial arts world: an obligatory but meaningless advertising buzzword?

yes. someone has said M.A.B.S. would become iMABS.they were right. I partially blame Apple©

George, it is not so simple.

The keppan/kishomon in classical japanese arts is not easily translated to western derivatives of gendai budo. Different times, people, culture and purpose.

Romanticism about honourable, ethical and loyal samurai of old and the arts they practised is fine, but it is romanticism nonetheless.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: George, it is not so simple. The keppan/kishomon in classical japanese arts is not easily translated to western derivatives of gendai budo. Different times, people, culture and purpose. Romanticism about honourable, ethical and loyal samurai of old and the arts they practised is fine, but it is romanticism nonetheless.

Honoring one's word doesn't seem like a romantic anachronism to me. It's more like a foundation stone of civilized society.

Katherine

Seemed to me there was a lot of shoulder-driven movement in the You-Tube clip linked in the OP. I didn't see that when I looked at the clip posted on Read Sensei's site.

Not that I'm an expert, but the differences in fluidity, structure and power seemed pretty clear.

Putting aside for an instant the interesting discussion about ethics and how we got here, Mr. Hamaki seems like a strong, athletic young man who has worked for a time at learning a difficult set of movement skills.

When I compare the movement in the two clips, I come away with the impression that Mr. Hamaki can approximately reproduce the movements he was shown. However, in the clip his execution seemed rushed and overly reliant on upper body strength compared to the other clip.

I don't get the "internal" part at all. Maybe I missed it.

2 cents at most.

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: George, it is not so simple. The keppan/kishomon in classical japanese arts is not easily translated to western derivatives of gendai budo. Different times, people, culture and purpose. Romanticism about honourable, ethical and loyal samurai of old and the arts they practised is fine, but it is romanticism nonetheless.

Well, Demetrio, for some of us it is more than "romanticism". That's just like the way people use "idealistic" to dismiss other's moral objections when they want to do something they shouldn't be doing. Anything can be justified that way simply based on what is expedient.

I think in a similar situation, I'd go take class with the fellow. That would be a fairly concrete and non-romantic expression of my feelings on the issue.

Y

George S. Ledyard wrote: This is precisely the same issue one finds with unauthorized teachers of Koryu. The Koryu folks are VERY strict about lineage and transmission. To the point at which you sign a blood oath when accepted to the ryu. There are people out there teaching without permission despite their initial commitment not to do so. This has NOTHING to do with whether they have ability, it has to do with their initial promise not to teach without permission. In the old days, this would have simply been taken care of. Someone from the ryu would have it out with the unauthorized pretender. In some styles this still occurs, albeit on a more civilized level. I have friends who are direct students of Dan Inosanto in Jeet Kun Do. All authorized instructors are listed on their website. Despite this, folks still open up schools and say they are teaching Jeet Kun Do. My friend, Chris Clark will go with his senior student, Rich Peterson, and they visit the school and take class. Invariably, the teacher ends up taking down the Jeet Kun Do sign because he NEVER wants his students to see what the real thing looks like when compared to himself. This is not an issue of technical ability. It is an issue of ethical behavior. I have students who also do classical sword. Despite the fact that they are my students, they are under obligation not to even talk about their training in the ryu. And they don't. They don't talk about it, they don't show me a thing. They promised not to do so when they signed up. They take that promise seriously. This is Budo. One of the primary elements in Budo is personal honor. You make a promise not to teach without permission and you keep it. Even if it is no longer convenient for you. That was one of the terms of being accepted as a student. That promise doesn't go away if you leave the dojo of your own free will. It doesn't go away if you are thrown out of the dojo. It doesn't go away unless the person you made the promise to releases you from that promise. Of course, the training you received doesn't simply disappear. If you keep training, perhaps, after many years, what you are doing does morph into something completely yours. At that point it might make sense to give it a new name and be the Founder of some new art. But i this case we are talking about a 4th Kyu. He has not devoted years and years to his own development of this style after leaving his Teacher. He simply gave it a new name and went down the street and started trying to teach. This is in direct violation of his promise not to do so. It is unethical and dishonorable. It's no different than taking someone else's intellectual property as ones own. In all the cases of folks violating their promises by teaching, there are always people who do not think there is anything worn with it. There are folks who think anything one can download should be free. That any DVD can be copied and freely distributed. No one should be told they can't do whatever they want to do. After all, it's a free country and who is anyone to tell anyone else what to do? But as far as I am concerned, this stuff matters. You promised you wouldn't so you don't. This is the overriding issue, integrity. Then you can get to the issue of 4th kyus "founding" their own styles. Next thing you see is membership in the World Sokeship Council with a bunch of fake sokes certifying other fake sokes, and blah, blah, blah.

Hello George, did you ever promise anyone a commitment you did not keep?

This is not the old days and we are not talking. about a koryu. You consistently fill your posts with irrelevant blah blah blah.

If Tenyu signed an agreement not to teach his senei's art then his sensei should sue his ass.
If his sensei doesn't then the matter should be dropped.

Tenyu has cut himself off from his source material and in time his art will significantlly differ from that source if it survives.

Did O'Sensei agree not to branch off and teach Takeda's art under a different name?

dps

David Skaggs wrote: Y Hello George, did you ever promise anyone a commitment you did not keep?

Yes, I have, of course. I still feel badly about having done so and I paid a very heavy price for it. This is not a light or unimportant thing. In a society in which we are virtually constantly lied to, we can start to feel like none of it matters. But when you act with no integrity, in the end, you are damaging yourself. The are Karmic consequences to be paid. Treating these things as being of no account won't change that.

David Skaggs wrote: Hello George, did you ever promise anyone a commitment you did not keep?

That's a particularly cheap argument tactic there.

Hi folks,

Please be mindful of the tone of your posts. Thank you.

-- Jun

Katherine Derbyshire wrote: Honoring one's word doesn't seem like a romantic anachronism to me. It's more like a foundation stone of civilized society. Katherine

Sure but, is this the case? Did Tenyu gave his word? Did he signed a keppan? To what extent Tokugawa Era rules about commercial rights*, -and their enforcement- are applicable to Read Sensei's Aikibojutsu?

George S. Ledyard wrote: Well, Demetrio, for some of us it is more than "romanticism". That's just like the way people use "idealistic" to dismiss other's moral objections when they want to do something they shouldn't be doing. Anything can be justified that way simply based on what is expedient

But, on the other hand, anything can be asked based in imaginary standards of behaviour.

What Tenyu did is closer to what a real warrior of old Japan would have done. IMO.

*and let's not forget when, how and why the iemoto/soke system has been adopted in japanese budo.

David Skaggs wrote: Y If Tenyu signed an agreement not to teach his senei's art then his sensei should sue his ass. If his sensei doesn't then the matter should be dropped. dps

So there are no ethics involved here beyond what might have been agreed to in a legal contract? Well, I don't agree with that - I rather like George Sensei's opinion - but okay, let's think about that.

If I was a programmer who worked for, say, Google, for 2-3 years, then left to start my own search engine website using 99% similar code I named 'Oogled' I should not be surprised when the Google legal department fell on me like a ton of bricks, no matter what was signed or not. In that case Google would have a reason to spend a chunk of money to stop me, even if they had no hope of recovering damages. Also, they have very deep pockets so the legal costs wouldn't really matter to them.

In this instance Read Sensei would likely spend thousands (or more) on the suit since no lawyer would take this on unless the defendant has a pile of money to go after. And even if he won the defendant could just change the name again (aikibo-ryu, anyone?) and the cycle would start again.

In this case I think that the 'old style' of intellectual property protection would be much more effective - I like the Jeet Kun Do teachers' solution.

Personally I have done quite a bit of business on a handshake. It demands trust on both sides - it is a different type of obligation than that of student/teacher, but just as strong.

Keeping one's word may seem a dated concept, but if my word is not my bond then what is? I understand that I have failed to keep my word that times and I have tried hard to understand which of the me's broke his word. Was it friend to friend, father to daughter, husband to wife, neighbor to neighbor, student to teacher, drunk to drunk....which? A promise made while drunk may not be kept when sober.......the me making the promise may not be the me in charge when the promise comes due.... The effort should be to only give your word when you can keep it, understanding which me is making the promise and which may be called on to keep it.........but just because you don't or can't on occasion keep your word should you then toss the whole idea that "your word is your bond.."

Demetrio Cereijo wrote: Sure but, is this the case? Did Tenyu gave his word? Did he signed a keppan? To what extent Tokugawa Era rules about commercial rights*, -and their enforcement- are applicable to Read Sensei's Aikibojutsu?

Read Sensei says that Tenyu agreed not to teach without permission, both before being taught the material, and while separating from the dojo.

Tenyu does not appear to dispute that, but simply claims to be teaching a new style. Objective observers do not see anything particularly new, however.

I don't think you need to go back to feudal Japan to decide how to handle the situation. Modern Western ethics work just fine.

Katherine