|
Post by supergroup7 on Dec 30, 2005 7:01:38 GMT 8
Wow! My curiosity has been caught about Seido karate. Wmioch has stated that it's roots are Kyokushin. Looking at the facts that I found on the www.seido.com website. Sensei Nakamura founded the Seido art in 1976. (30 years ago) Interesting! What I find confusing is that the various Seido websites call the art "traditional". How can an art be traditional if it just came into creation a mere 3 decades ago? Am I misunderstanding the title of traditional?
|
|
|
Post by Colin Wee on Dec 30, 2005 7:13:14 GMT 8
Well, some people *you* know call their Taekwondo style traditional when it was really only put together in the 1940s. That's 60+ years ago. Maybe a better question is how old does one have to be to be called tradtitional? :-)
|
|
|
Post by wmioch on Dec 30, 2005 7:37:02 GMT 8
I've always considered Traditional to be in the WAY you do things, rather than when it was created. Usually schools that teach a very strict and tightly controlled syllabus in a strict and tightly controlled way I would consider Traditional. Modern would be something that is more flexible and open in a) the syllabus (Like Bruce Lee's style and MMA etc) or in the teaching (Like BJJ whose teaching methods are usually low in strictures.) Both have their advantages and both can be mixed. As for Seido Juku, I've always found it interesting. Nakamura was Mas Oyama Sensei's star student, so to speak. He was the head of Kyokushin for America before he left the organisation. I don't know if it's catching, but my teacher did a similar thing (on a town level) and HIS teacher did a similar thing on the country level here in Australia a few years later, and they were both part of Seido.
|
|
|
Post by Colin Wee on Dec 30, 2005 7:57:10 GMT 8
That's an interesting interpretation. As for my program, I consider Traditional to be the essence of TKD as it was created in the 1940s. The patterns we use show Japanese influence but have a different philosophy. However, they look real different to the forms as used by the ITF or WTF practitioners. But Traditional for us also means flexibility and innovation, as I see it that any martial artist whether from the 1800s or 1900s or 2000s needs that mindset in order to win. So we maintain a Traditional yet modern practice. Colin
|
|
|
Post by wmioch on Dec 30, 2005 8:25:28 GMT 8
It's just terms and how you use them. For instance, I used to equate internal and external with hard and soft in relation to the Chinese arts, but I've been set straight since then.
|
|
|
Post by Colin Wee on Dec 30, 2005 9:13:11 GMT 8
Stuart also showed a throw using the fold as an arm grab and the lower block across the body. With the forward leg behind the hapless person, the opponent is sent flopping on the floor.
Colin
|
|
|
Post by supergroup7 on Jan 3, 2006 22:52:28 GMT 8
Well, some people *you* know call their Taekwondo style traditional when it was really only put together in the 1940s. That's 60+ years ago. Maybe a better question is how old does one have to be to be called tradtitional? :-) You know what, Colin? Shotokan isn't that traditional either. Sensei Funokoshi didn't start sharing his karate with Japan until 1922. Is less than 100 years old enough to call an art traditional? In my mind, I tend to see traditional as being around for longer than that. Perhaps what is meant by tradition is that the scaffolding that you use to share the information of your particular martial art is based on what was used in the country of origin. So if your art was founding in a country that included meditative breathing.. you will find yourself learning meditative breathing.
|
|
|
Post by supergroup7 on Jan 3, 2006 22:56:55 GMT 8
I've always considered Traditional to be in the WAY you do things, rather than when it was created. Usually schools that teach a very strict and tightly controlled syllabus in a strict and tightly controlled way I would consider Traditional. Well.. I'd have to say that just the "strict and controlled syllabus" aspect of teaching would not indicate that it's traditional for me. One could have a very strict syllabus in a modern art form, but not have much of the traditional accessories. Am I understanding this correctly? Your teachers advanced in Seido karate to a high level, and then broke away to form their own organization in Australia in the same manner that Sensei Nakamura acted towards Kyokushin?
|
|
|
Post by wmioch on Jan 4, 2006 5:18:33 GMT 8
My teacher did, and his teacher did a few years after that. Go figure. My teacher was head of Seido in his town, and his teacher was head of Seido in Australia at the times they respectively split.
|
|
|
Post by Colin Wee on Jan 4, 2006 10:02:07 GMT 8
Well, some people *you* know call their Taekwondo style traditional when it was really only put together in the 1940s. That's 60+ years ago. Maybe a better question is how old does one have to be to be called tradtitional? :-) You know what, Colin? Shotokan isn't that traditional either. Sensei Funokoshi didn't start sharing his karate with Japan until 1922. Is less than 100 years old enough to call an art traditional? In my mind, I tend to see traditional as being around for longer than that. Yeah. I'm aware of that fact. I think traditional is used so loosely nowadays that the popular meaning of it is really any martial arts that requires the group to do really tough exercises, not question the instructor, and follow some relatively 'old' practice. I call what I do Traditional Taekwondo but I like to emphasize that the style I do was influenced by its development in the early 1950s. It will make sense to anyone doing further research. But I'm not traditional in the sense that I don't require eternal subservience, I don't use pushups as torture, and I don't expect students to keep quiet in my class. Hahhaahahaha. In the art world, 1850-1950 will be called Modern. Following this classification, I would say my school is a modern tradition! :-) Modern because I adapt, improvise, and extrapolate. Traditional because I adhere to practices of a certain time period. People want to be traditional, aside from the sentimentality, there has to be some value to such tradition. The value in it for me is that there was some quality development that occured that is still applicable today. Colin
|
|