In going over my "Uechi-Ryu History Chronology" this weekend, I noticed something which never stood out before but now has piqued my curiosity. I assembled my chronology from various sources including GEM's "Uechi Ryu Karate Do" and "The Black Belt Test Guide," Alan Dollar's "Secrets of Uechi Ryu Karate," and several other sources.
The specifics:
1932 - Kanbun Uechi opens the Pangainoon-Ryu Karate Study Hall in the Okinawan section of Wakayama....
1933 - A formal organization, the Shubukai (Organization of Martal Arts Training), is set up to provide rules and procedures for the growing school.
1949 - Kanei Uechi moves to Ginowan where he establishes the Nodake dojo. The style name is changed from Pangainoon Karate Jutsu to Uechi Ryu Karate Jutsu in honor of Kanbun Uechi....
1971 - The Shubukai organization is renamed the Uechi Ryu Karate Do Kyokai (Uechi Ryu Karate Association).
Soooooo, it would appear that the type of art that was originally taught by both Kanbun and Kanei, as well as their senior students, was a jutsu and not a do. Then in 1971, the art is transformed into something kinder and gentler?
If I am in error here, someone please correct me. Should this be correct, however, it would be interesting to understand the reasoning behind the change and how the senior instructors feel regarding this change (for the better, for the worse, for the ....?).
Moe Mensale
What's In A Name?
Moderator: Available
-
Moe Mensale
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Thu Sep 17, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Boca Raton, FL
-
Rick Wilson
What's In A Name?
Jigoro Kano the founder of Judo explained the difference as:
"Jutsu, an art or practice; and do, way or principle".
Rick
"Jutsu, an art or practice; and do, way or principle".
Rick
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
What's In A Name?
Moe
There have been long discussions about this on the closed kyusho discussion group. I think you have captured the essence of the difference between the two words.
For those who live and breathe kyusho as if it were the bastion of the last "secrets" of karate, many feel that this transition from jutsu to do is something like the change from jiujitsu to judo, or gung fu to wu shu, or karate to taequondo to tae bo. Let me run with this a bit to make my point.
On the one extreme, you have the big guys running the organizations seeing a "market" for what they do in the kids and the soccer moms and all these other innocents, so they water down the methods and teach something that helps your cardiovascular fitness or keeps the kids grades up and makes them say "yes sir" and "yes ma'am". These folks worry about "the children", and so hide the martial intent in the forms. They turned what was once a practice of ne'er-do-wells and hoodlums into a respectable social activity with pretty suits and trophies and belts and obedient students behaving well.
On the other extreme you have the folks who view the transition from jutsu to do as the bastardization and dilution of a vital fighting method. The lethal martial intent is hidden and only shared by a very few who are passing away before their knowledge is passed on. They view what most do today as the hand-waving of granola heads who have no idea what they are doing.
It's interesting to me that I see the contrast of - on the one hand - a kyusho group lamenting the dilution of great martial practices, and - on the other hand - the manic, lunatic ravings from an Igoramous about how we are corrupting the children with our talk of icky-poo applications. No wonder the Asians are so schizophrenic on the subject.
-- Bill
[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited 06-21-99).]
There have been long discussions about this on the closed kyusho discussion group. I think you have captured the essence of the difference between the two words.
For those who live and breathe kyusho as if it were the bastion of the last "secrets" of karate, many feel that this transition from jutsu to do is something like the change from jiujitsu to judo, or gung fu to wu shu, or karate to taequondo to tae bo. Let me run with this a bit to make my point.
On the one extreme, you have the big guys running the organizations seeing a "market" for what they do in the kids and the soccer moms and all these other innocents, so they water down the methods and teach something that helps your cardiovascular fitness or keeps the kids grades up and makes them say "yes sir" and "yes ma'am". These folks worry about "the children", and so hide the martial intent in the forms. They turned what was once a practice of ne'er-do-wells and hoodlums into a respectable social activity with pretty suits and trophies and belts and obedient students behaving well.
On the other extreme you have the folks who view the transition from jutsu to do as the bastardization and dilution of a vital fighting method. The lethal martial intent is hidden and only shared by a very few who are passing away before their knowledge is passed on. They view what most do today as the hand-waving of granola heads who have no idea what they are doing.
It's interesting to me that I see the contrast of - on the one hand - a kyusho group lamenting the dilution of great martial practices, and - on the other hand - the manic, lunatic ravings from an Igoramous about how we are corrupting the children with our talk of icky-poo applications. No wonder the Asians are so schizophrenic on the subject.
-- Bill
[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited 06-21-99).]
-
Moe Mensale
- Posts: 148
- Joined: Thu Sep 17, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Boca Raton, FL
What's In A Name?
Bill,
The following comes from "The Original Martial Arts Encyclopedia" and might add some further delineation or interpretation to these terms:
"DO - The way to enlightenment, self realization and understanding. Implies that a martial art has been transformed from a practical means of combat to an educational form with emphasis on perfection of human character. Distinguished by the development of guiding principles and strict rules regulating the use of the techniques. The emphasis is on the manner in which techniques are applied."
"JUTSU - Fighting methods primarily used as arts of war, rather than with sporting or aesthetic values. The vital issue is effectiveness of the techniques in combat."
I have always viewed Uechi Ryu as one of the least sporting oriented martial arts around. Yes, we have our little "sparring" matches during class and even the recent "World Championships" but for the most part, very few people, even in martial arts circles, tend to be familiar with our style.
I have found that what seems to really draw people to Uechi, beyond the instructor's charisma, if any, is the more aggressive nature of the style. They like getting in the assailant's face and being able to apply techniques that can actually instill "the fear of God" into someone, rather than backing off for a game of "spinning kick o'doom" (pat pend).
If this is the case, then are we not doing the students, and ourselves, a disservice by not learning and teaching "the way it was" instead of trying to fit into the current mold of McKarate (tm) that is so prevalent today?
As you have pointed out, "the lethal martial intent is hidden and only shared by a very few who are passing away before their knowledge is passed on.' This knowledge is a very important part of the Uechi legacy. Do we not owe it to ourselves and those who came before us to preserve and perpetuate this knowledge base for future Uechi-ka?
Personally, I see no real conflict with the "DO" and the "JUTSU" living together in harmony, though others may disagree. Just as some students are not real keeno on sparring, there will be some students who could care less about the real lethality of certain techniques.
That would be up to the individual as to what road he chose to follow, but unless the instructor was well versed in both, that option will not be available.
Any other SSS's have a take on this?
Moe Mensale
The following comes from "The Original Martial Arts Encyclopedia" and might add some further delineation or interpretation to these terms:
"DO - The way to enlightenment, self realization and understanding. Implies that a martial art has been transformed from a practical means of combat to an educational form with emphasis on perfection of human character. Distinguished by the development of guiding principles and strict rules regulating the use of the techniques. The emphasis is on the manner in which techniques are applied."
"JUTSU - Fighting methods primarily used as arts of war, rather than with sporting or aesthetic values. The vital issue is effectiveness of the techniques in combat."
I have always viewed Uechi Ryu as one of the least sporting oriented martial arts around. Yes, we have our little "sparring" matches during class and even the recent "World Championships" but for the most part, very few people, even in martial arts circles, tend to be familiar with our style.
I have found that what seems to really draw people to Uechi, beyond the instructor's charisma, if any, is the more aggressive nature of the style. They like getting in the assailant's face and being able to apply techniques that can actually instill "the fear of God" into someone, rather than backing off for a game of "spinning kick o'doom" (pat pend).
If this is the case, then are we not doing the students, and ourselves, a disservice by not learning and teaching "the way it was" instead of trying to fit into the current mold of McKarate (tm) that is so prevalent today?
As you have pointed out, "the lethal martial intent is hidden and only shared by a very few who are passing away before their knowledge is passed on.' This knowledge is a very important part of the Uechi legacy. Do we not owe it to ourselves and those who came before us to preserve and perpetuate this knowledge base for future Uechi-ka?
Personally, I see no real conflict with the "DO" and the "JUTSU" living together in harmony, though others may disagree. Just as some students are not real keeno on sparring, there will be some students who could care less about the real lethality of certain techniques.
That would be up to the individual as to what road he chose to follow, but unless the instructor was well versed in both, that option will not be available.
Any other SSS's have a take on this?
Moe Mensale
