Talk:Okinawan kobudō

JJL vs. TonyTheTiger

On 22:31, 15 May 2006 I (TTT) added a the following sentences "Many listings of the Kobudo class of weapons only includes the Bo, sai, tonfa, nunchuck, and kama. Each of these weapons trace back to fishing or farming traditions as classical implements used in these trades."

On 15:28, 24 May 2006 JJL removed the first of these sentences and revised the second as follows "Many believe that each of these weapons trace back to fishing or farming traditions as classical implements used in these trades."

On 22:17, 1 June 2006 TTT attempted slightly different emphasis with the following "Although it is not correct, it is common to use the term Kobudo weapons to refer to the most popular of the aforementioned kobudo weapons: Bo, sai, tonfa, nunchuck, and kama. Many believe that each of these weapons trace back to fishing or farming traditions as classical implements used in these trades."

On 04:47, 2 June 2006 JJL reverted to "Many believe that each of these weapons trace back to fishing or farming traditions as classical implements used in these trades."

My contention is that until about a month ago most google searches on kobudo weapons only yielded results with the 5 implements I mentioned. I could point you to several sites that describe thses as the kobudo weapons. My point is that in order to inform people of what the kobudo weapons are we should accurately note that often the undeniably warrior culture based implements are excluded from references to Kobudo weapons in favor of those likely to have derived from farming and fishing cultures. Tekko, Tinbe-Rochin, and Surujin seem to clearly trace their linage from the Kobudo teachings. However, they have often been ignored from the list of kobudo implements (rightly or wrongly, and I am quite certain wrongly). To accurately serve as a reference about the kobudo weapons branch of knowledge we should note this mistake. I am involved in an interesting legal battle with the IL Dept. of Natural Resources (see my homepage for a copy of the brief) regarding the use and display of martial arts devices. When I wrote my brief 5 months ago, I did not know about these additional kobudo implements because the internet references I found did not note them. Even JJL's 18:48, 23 December 2005 and 20:29, 17 February 2006 contributions did not include them. They were not included in this pages history until 09:18, 8 March 2006.

• Tekko's page was created 09:45, 8 March 2006 by Blagmeister.
• Tinbe-Rochin's page was created 10:23, 8 March 2006 by Blagmeister.
• Surujin's page was created 22:33, 9 March 2006 by Armas Okinawa.

I am going to reinsert for this reason

I agree that it is a common misconception that kobudo=sai/bo/nunchaku/tonfa/kama, and that that list omits some lesser known weapons. I just think that "[a]lthough it is not correct" is not the wording to use here. Let me try for a compromise; please edit it! JJL 04:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

TonyTheTiger 06 June 2006 Kobudo weapons stylistic corrections accepted. Thanks for working with me.

Should a change be made to the bit about ag. tools, given that spear and shield clearly aren't? Ex.: "Many believe that the five best-known of these weapons trace back to fishing or farming implements that were adapted for use as weapons." JJL

Merge?

The merge tag has been sat here for quite some time now, with no opinion offered. In my opinion the two should stay seperate since Kobudo is often used as a general term for weapons work, whereas this page is clearly to something more specific. Kcordina 10:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer to see them remain separate, but no great harm would be done by merging them. JJL 14:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Factual Basis of Statements?

The following paragraph seems speculative/self-edifying:

• Contrary to popular belief and martial arts myths, Okinawan weapons were not derived from farm implements. Peasants would not have had the time or energy to devote themselves to studying farm tools for martial use. Secondly, an anxious commoner armed with clumsy farm tools would not fare well against a trained professional warrior with a variety of well made weapons at his disposal.

At the very least, references should be made to outside material that illustrates specific examples to support the broad assertations: text which chronicles 1)the evolution of Okinawan weapons; 2)the typical breakdown of a peasant work-day/week; or 3)historical record(s) of peasant inability to defend themselves against better equipped warriors would all be good examples.

If the generalizations cannot be supported, the paragraph should be removed.

And according to Wonder Okinawa[1] a website about Okinakawan karate and Kobudo published by the Okinawa Prefectural Government and featuring contributions by ALL the major modern day Okinawan masters - this is also a totally incorrect conjecture. E.g.

• "Muge, that is regarded as very close to the original form of nunchaku, was based on part of a horse's harness used by farmers."
• "Tekko was originally a type of horseshoe. It is said that farmers kept one always to hand and it could be a very effective tool in fighting any enemy immediately."
• "The kama (scythe) was one of the most familiar pieces of farm equipment that could be used as a substitute weapon."
• "It seems that the Okinawans devised the idea of using grain mill handles as Tonfa."

84.67.176.127 21:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)