My first sensei didn't teach by principle; he taught in the old style---students have to steal techniques or figure it out on their own. I teach in the old style as well; I believe your body must learn the physical mechanics of movement before you try to incorporate principle...this is just how I do it b/c I was taught in the same way...I'm sure there are better and/or different teaching methods out there but in the long-run, both styles should reach the same goal.
...Old style? Why not just say "here's the principle and the techs" and let them learn it, y'know, from someone who'll teach them? If this is how all Daito's taught no wonder it takes so long to get any good.
Originally Posted by lucky_8353
Let's be honest, Daito ryu doesn't really have a 1,000 techniques. The Waza of the Ryu was artificially inflated by Takeda Sokaku Sensei by listing Ura and Omote versions of a single technique as seperate as well as forwards and backwards versions. This has been carried to even further extremes by some of the branches of the art.
Originally Posted by lucky_8353
Officially the Shoden of Daito ryu contains roughly 118 techniques with the rest of the ryu being about 175 techniques. The Takumakai branch of the arts has some 500+ additional techniques but how much of this is really different techniques or simply henka of a single technique is debatably.
It's in an interesting grey area, at least to people more specialized in the topic. For most folks calling it Koryu isn't completely incorrect and it is safe enough to go with. If I recall correctly there was a round on this topic on this board already for those interested ins ome starter points.
Daito ryu a koryu? It's up for debate; conclusive evidence is lacking for either direction; it's been discussed on several jujutsu forums. I call it koryu but I do realize it's debatable.
Otherwise it just reads like boring nitpicking and yo don't even have the fun of tweaking "True Believers" the same way you do in getting into "Koryu or not" arguments with Takamatsuden folks.
If I taught however I wanted to teach or my teacher had done the same, then it wouldn't be respectful of the art. Joining a "traditional" martial art means you join the teaching methods as well as the techniques. Is it a weakness? I think sometimes it is and that is why I train in other arts and stay aware of the fact that there is always "better" but if I'm teaching DTR, I respect my teacher and the warriors that came before me to create the art enough to not change anything.
The 1,000 techniques is debatable but I would contend DTR has 1,000+ techniques; henka not included. I will concede that I consider sawari, hanzahandachi, tachiai, and ushiro DIFFERENT as well as URA and OMOTE. Ura and Omote variations are not considered henka in DTR (b/c of different uses of principles) but I concede that if you did combine them, you would probably end up with about 400 total (completely different) techniques. A Korean trained Hapkido instructor once told me there is only one technique in all martial arts...he wouldn't tell me what it was.
When somebody says an art has 1,000 techniques I usually chuckle.
A variation of a throw or lock or hold is not a new technique, it's just a variation of the same technique.
There might be 1,000 different variations. But, a 1,000 individual, seperate techniques? I don't think so.
An armbar on the left arm, and arm bar on the right arm, an arm bar from one position, from another, from the front, from the rear, with one type of hold, with another type of hold, etc... are not all different techniques in and of themselves. They are merely variations.
AND, if you just learn the underlying principles of the basic, fundamental Technique (yes, I capitalized it for a reason), then you shouldn't have to individually learn all the different variations - as you've already built the necessary skills and knowledge base.
That's just my take on it.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO