Talk:Kyūshojutsu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Martial arts Portal
This page is part of the Wikipedia Martial arts Project.

Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article
if you think something is missing, please help us improve them!

You may also wish to read the project's Notability guide.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Earlier discussions

I have removed the following passages to this page:

"It is used in many fighting sports from karate to jujutsu to boxing." This requires a cite: The author needs to verify the exceptionally unlikely notion that "kyusho jitsu" is a component of karate, jujutsu, or boxing.

This is actually correct; please see my note below. Dillman's stuff is sheer fantasy, but applying force to nerves and other sensitive spots is part of many martial arts curricula. I'll see if I can find an appropriate article summarizing their use in various arts, and update this page. --GenkiNeko 16:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Essentially, any strike or grapple that isn't a completely indiscriminate clubbing or twisting motion applied to a random or handy part of the body is using 'kyusho jutsu'- the art of attacking vulnerable points- in its broadest sense. The jaw is a vulnerable point. So are the genitals. So, for the purposes of grappling, is the elbow joint. Do you see what is intended? -Toptomcat (talk) 03:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

"Unlike many martial arts, kyusho can be adapted to be used with almost any martial art or on its own and can be used to heal as well as attack." This statement makes a number of unfounded and/or biased assumptions:

1) That there is a fundamental flaw in "many" martial arts; 2) That "kyusho jitsu" has medicinal benefits; 3) That these medicinal benefits exceed the medicinal benefits of "many" other martial arts; 4) That "many" other martial arts cannot be "adapted to be used with almost any martial art".

Roundeyesamurai 06:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Dillman redirect

I believe that George Dillman should not be redirected here.

Why not? He created kyusho jitsu, and kyusho jitsu is the only noteworthy thing about him. Roundeyesamurai 14:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of a biographical page.
I would also object here. While George Dillman made up a goofy neo-ninja art called "kyushojitsu", the term "kyushojutsu" has been used before - long before Dillman - to describe pressure point techniques in various martial arts traditions. They are obviously different from his "magical" conception; more like "if you press here with your knuckle as you apply this hold, it hurts a lot more." Someone could similarly make up a neo-art, called "kiaijutsu", wherein they yell at people and they explode into bloody goo. This would not change the fact that "kiaijutsu" is a perfectly reasonable martial arts term for kiai techniques.
I would particularly like to point out that "jutsu" does not properly imply a complete art, but often only a set of techniques that forms the component of an art. This, a koryu school might have taijutsu ("body art"; i.e. unarmed techniques study) and kenjutsu ("sword art") elements. --GenkiNeko 16:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


I think this article focuses to much on Dillman - as an outsider, I was left with the impression that kyusho-jitsu was entirely created as a marketing scheme for Dillman. While I believe it should be of note to those wishing to investigate the practicing of kyusho-jitso, I think he should only be mentioned in a paragraph towards the end of the article. Is there anyway to get more info on non-Dillman related KJ? B.K. 02:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the problem, BK and GenkiNeko: As far as any reputable historical investigation can determine, it IS a Dillman marketing scheme.

Yes, the TERM has been found in use before Dillman- however, one must realize that this is an inevitability, given the way terms are constructed in the Japanese language (due to the limited vocabulary of the Japanese language); and specifically with regards to the martial arts, due to the effects of standardization. Just about any combination of "jutsu" or "do", and some other word, can be found somewhere in the historical mix. This doesn't, however, establish each and every one of those as a separate, independent, legitimate martial art.

As far as references to "kyusho jitsu" as its own distinctive martial art (i.e. in the same way judo, aikido, etc. etc. are their own unique martial arts)- no such proof has been put forth, except from Dillman's camp. If proof of this nature exists, and comes from an outside source, it should definitely be included here. However, if such proof existed, it'd have been published in Inside Karate, Black Belt, or any one of a dozen other martial arts publications- publications which, 20 and 30 years ago, were devoting entire issues to Dillman and "kyusho jitsu" (before it was publicly established that he is a fraud, that is). Roundeyesamurai 00:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest using "Inside Karate, Black Belt" as a defacto set of publications as a determination as to if Kyushojitsu is or is not a Martial art or something someone made up. That being said, there was an article in a recent Black Belt magazine (summer 2006 timeframe?) on Evan Pantazi and Kyushojitsu. Evan was a student of Dillman, but I beliieve is no longer. Also, many of the references to Kyushojitsu are in books and it is really related and close to Dim Mak. I agree George Dillman should be have an entry or link, but that is all. KyushoJitsu is bigger than him. As to weather people believe or do not believe in it, I don't think that should be an argument here or reflect the actual entry of the page. User:Clear2Go 15:41, 28 March 2006 (EDT)

[edit] Reference Edits

I have included George Dillman reference to the Kyusho Jitsu page and made a reference from this page to him. I agree with one of the previous editors that George Dillman should not be redirected to this page, that makes no sense. He is a practitioner of Kyusho Jitsu, one of the first researchers on kata hidden moves, and how these moves were hidden and bringing them back into Martial Arts. He deserves mention.

I've inlcuded Wally Jay as reference for similar reasons as George Dillman. -(unsigned)

Wally Jay should not be included in this article. Although he may have been a "friend" of Dillman's (and the term "friend" can have quite a few distinctly different meanings), someone must produce evidence that Jay "integrated" kyusho jitsu into his training program (see following section). Roundeyesamurai 14:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed From Article

I have removed the following statement from the article:

"Kyusho jitsu is currently being integrated into many martial arts and is used to suppliment current training. George Dillman, was one of the first to start this process in North America. Others include Wally Jay founder of Small Circle Jujitsu."

This is not only absurd, but the contributor of this statement gives no evidence to support the assertion. Roundeyesamurai 14:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


Hey, could you guys help me out? What is the difference between kyusho jitsu and Dim Mak? Thanks for helping. -DJ

Hi DJ, sorry I didn't see this sooner.
Suffice to say- from a technical standpoint, aside from the language of the day used in training there is very little difference in the core techniques of both.
In terms of history, there is a significant difference. Dim Mak is more-or-less a product of legend in China dating back centuries (and very likely, most of this legendary status is based on apocryphal tales). Kyusho jitsu, on the other hand, is a modern invention (roughly mid-1960's), which has been claimed by its inventor to have roots in dim mak.
I'm afraid anything more would be difficult to discuss without violating wikipedia standards of discourse. Roundeyesamurai 00:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I added back the Small Circle Jujitsu with a reference. It is an events page on the small circle jujitsu website. I am not sure how best to reference this as events will change, but I know they and others do integrate it into their program and it should be noted as such. user: Clear2Go


Oh, thanks for helping me. I'm a big fan of Avatar: The Last Airbender, and one of the characters, Ty Lee, uses a form of martial arts that blocks chi flow and attack pressure points, there was a big arguement thing about wheither it was dim mak or kyusho jitsu. Now I know that there is hardly any difference! I feel better. Thanks for the help! DJ168.212.126.169 16:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem DJ.

Personally, as much as I am loathe to discuss cartoon/video game/movie martial arts, it seems that the folks who produce Avatar do, at least, go to some effort to research the subject. Bearing this in mind, I would say almost certainly that it would be a reference to Dim Mak. Roundeyesamurai 22:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

They did do a lot of research for the martail arts for the show. They have a tai chi/kung fu teacher Sifu Kisu who does the martial arts stuff, so all the martail art moves are actual moves. The four bendings styles are as followed, Waterbending- Tai Chi, Earthbending- Hung Gar (minus Toph Bei Fong, who's earthbending is rooted in the Chu Gar Southern Praying Mantis Style), Firebending- Northern Shaolin Kung Fu, and Airbending- Ba Gua. Ty Lee's is kyusho jitsu/Dim Mak. They even have a cultural consltant to make sure that the show is a realistic to the cultures the four nations are being mirrored. Water Tribe- Inuit, Earth Kingdom- Korean, Fire Nation- Chinese (though there is some Japanese in it) and Air Nomads- Tibetian Monks. The creators took a lot of time and effort to make the show as acturate as possible. Its very good you should watch it sometimes. You might like it. -DJZutara and Taang FOREVER 16:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


It is unfortunate the Airbender comment was removed. All the martial arts in the show were carefully chosen for their style and background. At the least put a cultural reference spot and place the info there. Black arrow

As far as I know, there was no "Airbender" comment removed. The discussion you see above is a sideline. Roundeyesamurai 03:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another Removal

"72.192.198.91" edited the article to include this paragraph:

"The words Kyusho jitsu (from Japanese: 急所術 kyūsho jutsu) have different meanings. For some, it is a martial art which emphasizes the attack of pressure points on the body. Many people who believe this, also believe that kyusho jitsu has been created by George Dillman in the 1960s although he denies this - claiming a history for the style which predates the 20th century. For others, kyusho jitsu is one of the layers that complete a well rounded martial art, among other layers such as striking, grappling, throwing, joint locking, etc. Traditional martial artists believe that in Asian martial arts, a student is not granted access to kyusho jitsu knowledge unless proving worthy of getting it. However, Western martial arts industry offers some training for a price."

This paragraph is purely bunk, for the following reasons:

1) " For others, kyusho jitsu is one of the layers that complete a well rounded martial art..."

Who are these others? Aside from those who engage in the practice of "kyusho jitsu", that is (and they are not an impartial or neutral party).

2) "Traditional martial artists believe that in Asian martial arts, a student is not granted access to kyusho jitsu knowledge unless proving worthy of getting it."

This sentence is so absurd as to be laughable. This, and the preceeding sentences, make the statement that "kyusho jitsu" is a requisite part of a martial arts curriculum, and is a "trade secret" (for lack of a better term) amongst all "credible" martial arts. No martial art other than "kyusho jitsu" utilizes "kyusho jitsu" methodology, and it is incredibly dishonest to purport otherwise. Only those who listen to Dillman believe this lie- and make no mistake: though the word "lie" is a strong word to use, it is indeed a "lie" by any definition of the term.

3) "However, Western martial arts industry offers some training for a price."

This is nothing short of a demonization of any martial art which "competes" with "kyusho jitsu". It is an indoctrination story told to "kyusho jitsu" practicioners.

Roundeyesamurai 08:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC) (And look, I actually bothered to register a Wikipedia account, unlike the previous "Editor".)

I reverted another edit by "JJL", for the same reasons I reverted the ryukyu edit. I also added an edit to address FireBird's issue regarding the statement "widely regarded". Thank you for pointing out that that statement was improperly worded. Roundeyesamurai 03:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Real" Kyusho-jutsu

I'm concerned that this focuses too much on Dillman. As far as I know, "kyusho-jutsu" is an actual martial arts term: not for an entire school, but rather (read literally) for pressure point techniques. Many schools contain a pressure point component. Even, say, aikido includes a few techniques which include nerve pressure. Not as a magical way of knocking someone out from ten feet away, but as a way to further secure a hold. Some police practice similar techniques.

In short, I think that while Dillman's zaniness certainly deserves a mention somewhere, this article should properly focus on the actual martial arts term "kyushojutsu."

Perhaps we could redirect "Kyushojitsu" to Dillman, and use the more standard romanization, kyushojutsu to point to the general MA topic? --GenkiNeko 16:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be a great idea GenkiNeko- assuming that there were a distinction. If you can credibly establish one, great! Roundeyesamurai 03:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find some good articles discussing the term as a generic martial arts term. Although Dillman is quite a humorous fellow, this article's present state might confuse people, if they think the phrase refers specifically to this wacky neo-ninja-type art. --GenkiNeko 04:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh. Do you mean the jutsu/jitsu thing? Well, actually, the character is properly read (in this compound) 'jutsu'. Jitsu is a somewhat archaic romanization of the Japanese phonetic character. (Hence, you see 'jiujitsu', 'jujitsu', and all kinds of wacky variants, which date back to older Western texts.) But it would be a convenient way to distinguish between Mr. Dillman's ... "art" ... and the martial arts phrase. --GenkiNeko 04:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you GenkiNeko, I wasn't familiar with the "jutsu/jitsu" distinction- after all, I've only been in the martial arts for 26 years (sarcasm).

What I am referring to is the fact that there has never been any credible evidence given that "kyusho jitsu" (or "jutsu") existed at any time prior to the 1960's. The only evidence given is Dillman's own evidence. Since Dillman lacks credibility, the "proof" he provides also lacks credibility.

Dillman may be a "character", I don't know him personally. I do know, however, that most of what comes out of his mouth is pure poppycock, and that has been proven time and time again (ref. the Nat'l Geo. paragraph in the article, for one).

So, if you have verifiable, credible evidence of the existence of "kyusho jitsu" prior to the 1960's, and it does not come from Dillman, or one of his students, or someone in his employ, then please add it, as I (for one) would be delighted to see it.

Roundeyesamurai 11:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh! My apologies.  :) I did some searching, and this article came up:
http://www.fightingarts.com/reading/article.php?id=40
While I was fairly sure (as I imagine you are, since you're like a billion times my senior - sorry again!) that pressure point techniques existed, I wasn't sure about the specific name "kyusho-jutsu" being used. That article seems to suggest that it is in fact a name that is used. --GenkiNeko 19:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Good article, we definitely should incorporate it into the article, and reduce the Dillman angle to a blurb. I'll start on that as soon as I have the time, unless you'd like to do it yourself. If you have more article, please post them! Roundeyesamurai 01:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is also this one:
http://www.fightingarts.com/reading/article.php?id=41
There was also a good e-budo.com discussion about pressure points recently - actually, also spurred on by Dillman's antics. Ellis Amdur, among others, weighed in on the role of pressure points in their arts. I think the consensus was that they're useful at times, but historical martial artists chose to relegate them to a secondary role for the most part, since they're not as crucial as other elements. --GenkiNeko 01:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Almost all the current interest in this is due to George Dillman, but others claim to teach it--e.g., see this site [1]. Taika Oyata copyrighted RyuTe Karate in order to distinguish his style (formerly Ryukyu Kempo, I believe) from the DKI system. JJL 04:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ellis still posts on E-Budo? I thought he took off from there years ago!

If more material of this type can be delivered, fantastic- I would love nothing better than to relegate the material relating to Dillman to a small paragraph, and give much more about other, legitimate, kyushojutsu exponents. (Legitimate) Historical information would be most beneficial of all. Roundeyesamurai 05:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial Interest

Upon viewing the page, I noticed that there were, as of today, eleven links in the "external links" section, and all of them were to websites for schools. I doubt any Wikipedian wants to see the page become a directory of "kyusho jitsu" dojos, or have these schools use Wikipedia for free advertising. I trimmed the links down by deleting all but the first three (just because it seemed like a reasonable number)- but if anyone has a better way to impartially decide which dojo websites should appear and which shouldn't, please jump in and apply it. Roundeyesamurai 09:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with shortening the list. The pages linked should be informational (about the art). JJL 17:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

JJL: I understand that you feel that Dilman Karate International homepage is relevant. I don't necessarily disagree with you. However, could you please explain why you feel that it is relevant and others such as www.kyusho.com are not relevant? If you can not do this then I will re-add it again. I'm trying to work through this here. I am concerned that there is quite a bit of subjectivity going on here and that is not how this should be decided. Understand, I am not against Dilman (I have a 2nd degree black belt under him in Kyusho), but I also feel that Kyusho has grown and is now at a point where the art is being moved forward by others as well as him. They should be represented in Wikipedia.

The DKI page contains further info. on George Dillman, and is essentially his personal page. He's a focusof the article. The www.kyusho.com page is just an ad. JJL 16:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pressure point

Should the Pressure point page be merged with this one? JJL 01:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

ROFLMAO!!!

Uh... I mean, no.

Roundeyesamurai 09:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I see many similar topics covered. However, there's no harm in leaving them separate. There are certainly other PP traditions. JJL 01:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ty Lee

It seems to me that listing this fictional character is out-of-place here. This particular usage of PPs is so closely tied to George Dillman and the Ryukuan tradition that the link would be more appropriate at Pressure points or the Chinese Dim Mak (not that it necessarily fits there). JJL 01:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Thoughts

A few thoughts regarding the discussion below and this page in general:

The page as it stands seems to be back and forth with respect to whether Kyusho Jistu is a separate martial art or not. It is indeed true that many martial arts schools of various styles incorporate the principles of pressure point fighting. A few minutes of researching web pages or martial arts schools proves this pretty quickly. Additionally, if you see the homepage for Kyusho International, it points out that the KI curriculum can be incorporated into any martial art or used on its own. I believe that part of the controversy here lies in the difference between pressure point fighting and the controlling of Chi. Pressure point fighting -- or using pressure points as targets in the martial arts -- is used by many mainstream pratititioners and reputable schools. The controlling of Chi is a wholly different concept, and one that has generated much heated debate. Because Mr. Dillman's beliefs focus on the controversial part of this, his name has become synonomous with the belief of controlling Chi. Thus, I believe the extant page should be re-edited to be more neutral. --Scanegi 13:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the page to separate the Dillman comments from a general discussion of kyushojutsu. while this is a controversial subject ...perhaps BECAUSE it is a controversial subject, I think it is important that the page is not biased (as should any Wiki page be). My edits were intended to demonstrate that kyushojutsu practitioners and adherents are not all of the mindset that the art is about controlling energy, and that to many it is a technique focused on targeting sensitive points in the body. That the ancient Chinese believe these points to be part of a system of energy in the body that can be manipulated is coincidental .... you don't have to believe in this to appreciate the value of striking (or being struck) in just the right spot. Scanegi (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)