Talk:Ryukyu Kempo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Citations Needed

All of the text on this page is taken (or paraphrased) directly from Dillman's personal website. If the statements made are going to hold up to scrutiny, additional sources (other than those of Dillman's students) must be added.

As far as the statements needing citation: They are baloney.

There is NO martial art (other than those created by Dillman's students) which utilize "kyusho jitsu" as a part of their training regimen.

"Ryukyu Kempo" is not a "classical" form of karate ("classical" being defined in the martial arts as pre-Meiji era, or "koryu").

Dillman and his students are the ONLY proponents of this method.

This method does NOT "enhance the understanding of bunkai"- which is an absurd statement, since bunkai is itself a method of understanding kata.

Apparently it isn't enough for Dillman & Co. to continually skew the "kyusho jitsu" article to their favor (thus necessitating an edit), someone had to go and create additional articles about Dillman, his organization, and his absolutely fraudulent claims (see "kyusho jitsu" article).

ETA: I must agree with "mikexstudios"' redirection of this article to the "kyusho jitsu" page. There is no need for separate articles, anymore than there is need for separate articles about the obverse and reverse sides of the same coin.

Roundeyesamurai 06:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the redirect. Even if no one else claims to use kyusho-jitsu--which I don't accept--Ryukyu Kempo is a martial art and kyusho-jitsu is an aspect of it. I share your scepticism about the supposedly ancient origins of the art. JJL 17:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see ryute home page. Mr Oyata introduced RK as a classical martial art and uses kyusho jutsu. He is in no was affiliated with Dillman.BZJ 19:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Having a school in Canada isn't an "international following". Also, "exponential" is a strict claim that must be supported. Please cite your sources. JJL 21:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Okinawa, New Zealand and Israel constitute international. The "exponential" part was reworded as claim made by the practitioners. Please read carefully because I think we are on the same wavelink. PeaceBZJ 21:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hoax etc.

As this page has been labelled with Disputed, Hoax, TotallyDisputed, and More sources, as well as citation tags and the silly "(Please refer to Talk Page before making use of this link)." at the bottom, I don't take these seriously and have removed most of them. A "fair and balanced" section on criticism of Ryukyu Kempo would be most welcome. JJL 17:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You are not afforded the luxury of simply "removing" citation needed tags. You must either provide citations, or discard the statements entirely. Unless, of course, you're incapable of abiding by Wikipedia's standards.

I am reverting.

Out of curiosity, what is your association with Dillman?

Roundeyesamurai 03:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The page is clearly not a hoax, even if you believe that DKI is. The DKI page is adequate evidence for what's stated on the page, as it's stated in the "Dillman claims..." form. If you disagree with what I've written, please edit it rather than blindly reverting the page. The tags are not intended to be used as a stalling tactic, nor to get others to do your research and editing for you. JJL 15:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The tags are not a "stalling tactic"- they are there in order to remind you that statements you have made in the article must be cited from a reputable source. Since you have seen fit to remove most of the unsourced statements, I will not revert them.

Note that the editor who adds in material is required to source them, not those who come after them. In other words, it is your responsibility to cite what you put in, not mine. If I come along and remind you of this obligation, I am not responsible for doing what you are required to have done in the first place. Roundeyesamurai 01:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

D'veed Natan

Please don't make edits regarding yourself (see WP:AUTO) and recall WP:NPOV. JJL 21:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem and sorry. I was attempting to inject into the article a more balanced view of Ryukyu Kenpo. There are a few of us that are tied by training to Oyata. The Ryukyu Kenpo Kobujutsu system which is international (New Jersey; Texas; Israel (several locations); Manchester, England); "Real Karate" as taught by Rocky Leavitt in Missouri; and Albert Geraldi's organization. These are "old school" Oyata students who were present at the seminar Dillman first attended. These people are perpetuating Oyata's ways of doing things; but along the lines they want to follow. What happened to Dillman was unfair. Albert, Rocky, and I were against the decision to no avail. We were senior students of Oyata (and I of Odo through Bill Marron, Master Odo himself, and Butch Spain). We were, for years, learning from him; and, no 'Johnny come lately's'. One other complaint I have is the use of 'Ryukyu Kempo' exclusively. Nakamura spelled it Kenpo, in 1968 Oyata spelled it Kenpo, Odo spells it Kenpo. Phonetically it is Kempo. Official transliteration is Kenpo. The Japanese embassy spells it Kenpo. Shouldn't this be reflected somewhere in the article?

I think that could be covered by a link to Kenpō, which discusses the general idea? JJL (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I viewed the link and agree with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.6.60 (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

One more thing. There are four RK's and have been for about 20 years. Most of Oyata's students continue along his lines. I'm the odd ball that went back to S.Odo for more weapons kata and combined the two systems. (and they are different in many ways. differences that we maintain). Also, I incorporated the Tom Connors' Traco Kenpo Karate defense method of training by separating the self defense techniques from the kata and teaching them in a manner (I feel) better suited for learning self defense in the beginning. Later on we revert to Oyata's method of teaching. I, also, rearranged certain of the Jimmy Wing Woo kata (from Tomas Connor) to better suit my ideas and teaching goals and teach the new versions in addition to the 12 Nakamura kata and Chinto, Ananku, Wansu, Gojushiho from S. Odo. Do as you wish with this information. It is for the history; not my personal 'glory'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.6.60 (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

According to Seikichi Uehara, now deceased, Oyata was one of his students. Oyata himself stated that he was a "training partner" with Uehara; and learned Uehara's 'tuite' methods. Oyata further stated, that, due to Uehara's superior strenght, he had to improvise in order to make many things work. Uehara concentrated on techniques more than kata, to my knowledge; although this could be incorrect. One other thing. There are almost no "verifiable" sources available. Hardly anyone has written anything on Ryukyu Kenpo, except those involved in the discussions. What you are getting from myself and some others is an oral history from those who were present at the events.

This needs to start fresh

Mr Oyata is credited by all of the practitioners of Ryukyu Kempo as being the primary source. His art DOES teach kyusho jitsu and tuite jitsu. He does describe his art as "classical".

There are other orgnaizations with varying degrees of "closeness" to Mr Oyata.

They can easily be described in two camps and should be, so that individuals that scan this page will see that Mr Dillman is not the "head" of all RK and therefore has not influenced all practitioners. The old budo term Shu Ha Ri describes a students progression from disciple to independent practitioner. Several Oyata sudents have progressed naturally to wanting to express their own art. This article should be written in a way that it does not suppose a tie to Dillman, as he and his organization were never a part of their experience with RK.

G. Dillman and DKI are a group that performs many techniques from many different martial arts, this is a very different curriculum structure than Mr Oyata. The most controversial is the no touch KO that was featured on National Geographic and has brought a great deal of discredit to RK. (I read a quote on a web site that Mr Oyatas book specifically states he has never seen a NTKO, I am still trying to find this quote and/or the book, i'll get back on this)

The other group are former students who teach much the same curriculum that Mr Oyata has taught (and continues to elaborate on). These students are in 2-3 associations that maintain some degree of cordialness (share links on their web sites, mention each other, etc.) but do not link to Dillman sites. Having rubbed elbows with them I know that they do not teach NTKO or necessarily delve into Chinese alternative medicine charts for an understanding of where to strike.

Someone needs to write a LONG article that Links to Ryu te as this is the mother art, describes Dillman Ryukyu Kempo as he describes it and includes the controversy he has generated(seekers may be looking for this) and also describes what RK is for the people in the other organizations. BZJ 00:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by BZJ (talk • contribs) 00:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Speaking of fresh starts...this article is becoming a critique of George Dillman's training rather than an introduction to RK. JJL 15:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr Dillmans training is controversial, especially among other types of RK practitioners and should be presented as such.BZJ 19:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's entirely aside from the point. An article allegedly about a martial art is becoming a combined love song to S. Oyata and critique of G. Dillman. Those points belong on their respective pages. This should be about the martial art, not about the personalities around it. The first headed section here is the Oyata/Dillman controversy, even before the reader is told anything about the art! It's just a flamewar from other fora brought over to Wikipedia. It doesn't matter who's right...what matters is, this isn't discussing the art, just the artists. JJL 20:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that no one will discover RK because they won't get past Dillman. It has to be addressed so that people will dig deaper and find out about the art.BZJ 21:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, this is an encyclopedia. You're using it as an advertising service. This article needs to be about RK. It also needs sources; see Wikipedia:Verifiability. JJL 23:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Help me rewrite it, because I don't want to advertise for anyone; but, I think it deserves detail and flavor.69.149.168.182 01:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Two Ryukyu Kempo arts

Please reference Seiyu Oyata: Master of the Old way. Official Karate; July 1984, pg 22

It is important to define Ryukyu Kempo in a way that properly describes lineage. There are definitely two Ryukyu kempos. The first was Mr Oyata’s, as the above mentioned article from 1984 discusses. Mr Oyata has changed the name of his associations’ art to Ryu te. Several students who were highly ranked and received teaching licenses (around 3rd Dan) at some point from Mr Oyata continue to teach their art under the name Ryukyu Kempo.

G Dillman’s Ryukyu Kempo is something altogether different, as evidenced by his quote in Official Karate. The article discusses the famous demonstration Mr Oyata held in Kansas City, where he introduced his art to the mainstream martial arts community.

“Perhaps the best known of the seminar participants was Mr George Dillman, 7th dan, Okinawan style, of ryukyu kempo. Mr Dillman had been told by Mr Oyata when he called, that if he (Mr Dillman) came to the seminar he should be prepared to endure pain.”

This shows two things. First prior to this seminar that was discussed in the 1984 issue, Mr Oyata was not training Mr Dillman. Second, at the time of the article Mr Dillman was ranked as a 7th dan and considered his art to be a form of RK, at least he reported it as such.

As we read on, Mr Dillman states “ It’s totally fantastic! I’ve been involved in Okinawan karate for over 25 years and I’ve never experienced anything like it. It gives me the answers to a lot of my katas-for a long time I didn’t know the question! I still don’t have all the answers, but at least I am getting it. Now I can see the hidden moves behind kata practice that have been secret for years: they are totally unreal!”

So if Mr Dillman was an RK practitioner prior to his meeting of Oyata, then his RK was something very different. Since he admits his association was not a long involved apprenticeship, his techniques would necessarily be different. Therefore it is imperative that this entry for wikipedia convey the two different ryukyu kempo arts and not just discuss Dillman's. 69.154.225.175 04:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.154.225.175 (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Three RK's

Oh, there are three RK's. Oyata and his direct branching groups (shared curriculum), Dillman who has his own curriculum and Seikichi ODO, the successor to Mr Nakamura's teachings. Someone needs to rewrite this entry in a way that is fair to all involved groups. Groups are made of people and people should be respected. It should also spell out the controversies and the claims made by all parties since this has actually been in the news.Including the original controversy that alienated Oyata from Dillman after their brief interaction. Mr Oyatas students maintain that there was nothing more than a transient handful of seminars and a summer camp that Mr Dillman interacted with Mr Oyata and his top instructors. Mr Dillman maintains that his interaction was substantial enough to send him down a path of discovery. There does need to be deliniation, since Dillman's methods are very different than the other groups. He needs a separate entry under "RK Tomari-te" with a link to this one.

Somewhere among the politics is the history. The history should be recorded because it shaped many livesBZJ 16:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with avoiding a discussion of the controversy.

As has been clearly seen in prior posts on this discussion board, RK is hard to see through all of the Dillman controversy. This page will be rewriten and rewriten if you don't include a discussion of both sides of the two controversies. The judgement as to who is right has never been stated. It is presented as this is what they say, this is who they are. This article helps inform patrons such as "Roundeyesamurai" that think RK and kyusho jutsu are synonymous with Dillman "obverse and reverse sides of the same coin", and know nothing of Oyatas lineage. What a loss of the history! When I came across this entry it never mentioned Oyata and had a very anti kyushu-jutsu slant, basically equating it to Dillman's approach to kyushu jutsu. Since Oyata brought the art to the US, this article needs to be written in a way that relates to what he introduced. Since Dillman's art is so different it should be presented as such.BZJ 21:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree, and I certainly appreciate the info. you've brought. But this article should focus on the art. The history, and drawing the distinction, are relevant...but most of the stuff about Dillman's training should be at Dillman's article. That's about him, not RK. Also, "this discussion board" is not correct...it's meant to be a (neutral) encyclopedia. JJL 01:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I see your point and by discussion board I meant this section that we are writing in. How do we do this in a way that is courteous to all sides, correct and neutral?69.149.168.182 01:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well this is the process, I suppose--editing one another's writing and keeping in mind WP:AGF on all sides! It's hard to avoid the controversy, but I do think it's best addressed at their individual entries, with less emphasis on that in the art's page. JJL 04:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving the controversy

JJL is right. Feel free to move my sections about the controversies to RK tomari-te or another entry and maybe just link to this article. I retitled the my Oyata/dillman controversy article and removed my uncited quotes.BZJ 12:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's good to now have a resource that discusses the art. Some discussion of the issues related G. Dillman is called for but I do think it's better at the kyusho-jitsu page or his own page. I've made a few edits--mostly moving stuff around. JJL 14:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This is looking good. It states the facts well. There is an unfinished reference to Odo. I would finish it but I am not sure where it was going. ThanksBZJ 16:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

it does seem acurate JJL. On Ryute website there is some info on Nakamura. Oyata had two other instructors and he was the successor of one or both of them, not sure. Also, I added a statement to the Odo discussion.BZJ 22:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits

The latest changes are, by the editor's own admission in the article, WP:OR and an WP:ESSAY. Most of it is not approrpiate here. JJL (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)