PDA

View Full Version : Oshikiuchi / Gotenjutsu (Daito-ryu)



Nathan Scott
18th March 2002, 23:45
I'd like to open this thread to document discussions and writings on the subject of "Oshikiuchi" as incorporated into Daito ryu.

Many people accept Stanley Pranin's explanation in his book CWDRM, page 22:


"Tokimune and others have written that Sokaku learned secret techniques called oshikiuchi and that it was these arts that form the essence of Daito ryu. The characters used for oshikiuchi, "O (an honorific) + shiki (ceremony) + uchi (inside)," [3 kanji provided] represent a rather curious combination, and do not convey any obvious meaning. They were probably recorded based on the oral testimony of Sokaku who was himself illiterate. One theory is that the correct Chinese characters are actually [4 kanji provided] "O (an honorific) + shikii (threshold) + uchi (inside)." According to this view, what was actually referred to as oshikiuchi were not martial techniques at all, but rather court etiquette or manners that trusted subjects of the inner circle who were allowed "inside the threshold" were expected to observe. If this is indeed the case, what Chikanori Hoshina [aka: Saigo Tanomo] taught Sokaku during the latter's visits had to do with matters of samurai etiquette."

This is definitely a possibility, especially if you believe that Saigo did not study martial arts, as his diaries seem to imply.

However, as Mr. Pranin notes, the majority of direct students of Sokaku concur that oshikiuchi was - or did include - self defense techniques, and were taught to Sokaku by Saigo Tanomo.

As far as kanji goes, if oshikiuchi was a term orally transmitted within Daito ryu, then the kanji could easily be confused. Sokaku was said to have spoken a little unclearly at times, I believe because of his front teeth having been knocked out.

The kanji that has been recorded for oshikiuchi (in the first example on page 22) is interesting. The first kanji "O" can be considered an honorific, or, it can be pronounced "Go" which refers to a palace. This "O/Go" kanji is the same one used in "GOten", which means a "palace or court". Gotenjutsu, a term used sometimes in reference to aspects of Daito ryu, may in fact be an alternate name for Oshikiuchi. Also, Oshikiuchi and Goshikiuchi sound similar, and it is possible that this was the intended pronunciation.

The first set of kanji on page 22 for "shiki" is very close to that of "bu" as in "BUdo"), which if used, would more clearly state that this was a combative art to be applied inside the palace (gobu-uchi??). This similarity in kanji could be a coincidence, or it could be a copiest error. It depends on whether the term was transmitted orally or written by hand in mokuroku.

"Uchi" (inside) is the only kanji not in contention.

Oshikiuchi has been classified in some texts as "Otome waza/jutsu/bujutsu", which refers to an official art associated with a certain clan and typically "secret". Otome in the context of Daito ryu would be used as an alternate term as opposed to something completely different.

Any thoughts?

Nathan Scott
19th March 2002, 00:03
"The art of Saburo Yoshimitsu Shinra was then transmitted to the Minamoto family and then to the Takeda family in Kai (present day Yamanashi-ken). After that it was handed down through the Takeda family as a gotenjutsu (martial art for use inside the palace). On the other hand, in the time of the fourth Tokugawa Shogunate, Ietsuna [1641-1680], Hoshina Masayuki of the Aizu clan, the fourth son of Hidetada, entered Edo castle as an instructor to the Shogunate family and completed development of the art which came to be known as oshikiuchi. Therefore, the Daito ryu of the Takeda family and the oshikiuchi of lord Hoshina Masayuki were transmitted separately. Then in the Meiji period Takeda Sokaku sensei perfected Daito ryu by combining the school that originated in the Takeda family and the school of the Aizu clan. Thus, Takeda Sokaku is the father of Daito ryu and should not be omitted from the history of the art."

From: Kondo Katsuyuki "Katsuyuki Kondo Interview", Aiki News #79, 1988.

The preceeding text was the basis for Kondo s.'s section in the CWDRM on page 154.

Also, Hoshina was the ancestoral line of Saigo Tanomo, and Saigo assumed the name "Hoshina Chikanori" after the defeat of Aizu castle (in which he narrowly escaped in 1868).

Nathan Scott
19th March 2002, 00:22
"Hanmi handachi techniques are among the old techniques of Daito ryu. When the fourth Shogun, Ietsuna (1641-1680), was 11 years old, Hoshina Masayuki, an Aizu clan lord, had been in Edo castle for 20 years as an instructor. He taught hanza handachi (seated techniques) then. However, these techniques cannot be used in battle. These hanza handachi were to be used against sudden attacks inside Edo castle. Since techniques could not be executed while in a standing position inside the castle, one had to do them while kneeling. Hoshina Masanori studied these highly formal techniques, that is, the techniques created in Edo castle. Takeda Sokaku taught hanza handachi techniques in Sendai. Many people of the Sendai clan studied these techniques.

From: Takeda Tokimune "Doshu and the Daito ryu School Speak Their Minds!" Aiki News #79, 1988.

Sendai is a city inside Miyagi prefecture. Other sources record Sokaku being taught oshikiuchi by Saigo in 1898, and that Sokaku travelled to Miyagi, Iwate and Yamagata prefectures afterwards:

http://www.aiki-buken.com/chronology.html

Nathan Scott
19th March 2002, 00:45
From CWDRM:

"Therefore, at the time of the Meiji Restoration sword arts were more popular than jujutsu. Jujutsu was just beginning to be practiced then. Oshikiuchi, the palace art, was an exception of course." - Takeda Tokimune, page 46.

"Among the Daito ryu jujutsu techniques is a particular type of aiki technique that we call hanza handachi. Techniques that were studied for use in the palace are called oshikiuchi. The hanza handachi techniques of the Daito ryu were used during that period in response to any situation that might arise." - Takeda Tokimune, page 51.

"Aikijujutsu is comprised of oshikiuchi techniques, in other words, techniques for use in actual combat. There is a fundamental difference between these techniques [jujutsu and aikijujutsu]." - Inoue Yusuke (Kodokai), page 101.

From the article "Doshu and the Daito ryu School Speak Their Minds! (Takeda Tokimune):

"Hanmi handachi techniques are among the old techniques of Daito ryu. When the fourth Shogun, Ietsuna (1641-1680), was 11 years old, Hoshina Masayuki, an Aizu clan lord, had been in Edo castle for 20 years as an instructor. He taught hanza handachi (seated techniques) then. However, these techniques cannot be used in battle. These hanza handachi were to be used against sudden attacks inside Edo castle. Since techniques could not be executed while in a standing position inside the castle, one had to do them while kneeling. Hoshina Masanori [Chikanori?] studied these highly formal techniques, that is, the techniques created in Edo castle. Takeda Sokaku taught hanza handachi techniques in Sendai [most northern part of Honshu ? Aomori]. Many people of the Sendai clan studied these techniques."

From "The Hidden Roots of Aikido":

"There the martial art system became known as o-shiki-uchi, or, 'practice in the room', and alternately as an o-tome-bujutsu, or, 'inside-the-clan martial art'; both these terms are thought to suggest the great secrecy with which the Daito ryu techniques were guarded. Sokaku was born in 1860 in Aizu, where he received instruction in th traditional o-shiki-uchi arts of the Aizu clan from his relatives and from Tanomo Saigo (1830-1905)..." - Shiro Omiya, Page 14.

From "Dynamic Aikido" (Shioda Gozo):

"In 1574, Takeda Kunitsugu moved to Aizu and the techniques passed on to his descendents came to be known as Aizu-todome [possibly supposed to be "Aizu-otome"] techniques." - Hiroshi Takeuchi, Page 12.

From "Classical Fighting Arts of Japan ? A Complete Guide to Koryu Jujutsu" (Serge Mol):

"Some researchers maintain that 'Oshikiuchi' are non-martial methods of etiquette, while several key figures within Daito ryu state that, in addition to etiquette, there are actual techniques - hanza-handachi to be specific - that were created to be used within the inner chambers of Edo-jo (Tokyo castle). The martial techniques or principles may have actually been referred to as 'aiki no inyo-ho' (aiki methods based on yin/yang) - perhaps a part of Oshikiuchi. They were techniques that were prohibited to be shown in public and were only shown within the Takeda household."

From Ogami Kenkichi ("Daibukan") regarding Daito ryu history:

"The Takeda-ke inherited from the Minamoto family methods that were passed down within the Takeda family, through Takeda Shingen, and eventually to members of the Aizu han (North-Eastern Honshu) in 1574 by Shingen's brother Takeda Kunimitsu as 'Aizu-todome' techniques. This was a family tradition, previously taught only to direct relatives within the Takeda family. The other line was called 'Oshikiuchi' (palace martial, possibly founded in the early 1600's by Lord Hoshina Masayuki, fourth son of Hidetada, who entered Edo-jo as an instructor to the Shogunal family of Tokugawa Ietsuna [Shogun between 1651-1680] and completed development of an what was later known as oshikiuchi), which was an art considered to be 'Otome waza no Aizu-han' (inside techniques/secret art of the Aizu clan), taught only to the elders within the clan, hatamoto ranked samurai, members of the castle guard (bodyguards) of both sexes, and other individuals whose rank or occupation justified the instruction. These were techniques that were prohibited to be shown in public and were only shown within the Takeda household. Sokaku combined the Daito ryu of the Takeda family with the oshikiuchi of Lord Hoshina."

From the article "The Meiji Man" (Laszlo Abel):

Arman
19th March 2002, 15:06
Nathan,

An excellent compendium of quotations!

I think an interesting question regarding Oshikiuchi is the extent to which 1) the meaning is to be taken literally, 2) symbolically, or 3) both.

If we assume a literal understanding, then "inside the palace," or "within the threshold," etc., would lead one to think about either a) combative arts to be utilized in the palace or b) forms of etiquette, or c) both.

If symbolic, oshikiuchi could mean the secret, or guarded techniques of an art - those "within the threshold." Or, on a more mundane level, following Draeger's analysis, as jujutsu techniques were considered, generally speaking, secondary in pre-Edo times to the use of weapons, it could symbolically refer to the rest of an art's technical curriculum that is comprised of unarmed, yawara-type techniques, "within the threshold," i.e. within the art form, but not wholly comprising the art form.

The possibility of distortions in the transmission of the kanji that you pointed out also raise all kinds of problems interpreting the meaning.

I am more inclined to believe it is a literal term rather than a symbolic one. I say this because, according to Ellis Amdur in a recent e-budo discussion we had on the differences of pre-Edo and Edo koryu kata, pre-Edo kata that include idori techniques have the nage up on his toes, while Edo period idori generally have the nage in full seiza position (toes flat).

Mr. Amdur indicated that the "live toes" would have placed the nage in a far more agressive and ready position, and is indicative of the practical nature of the kata. During the Edo period, full seiza idori kata were far less practical and more refined by concerns for etiquette - i.e. less practical.

Accordingly, one reasonable position based on these assumptions is that the idori and hanza handachi kata of DR were either developed, or modified, in the Edo period. They represent a typcial Edo-period, less combative/practical idori form that was either developed during a time when strict etiquette would have trumped combative/practical concerns, or pre-Edo kata that were modified by the currents of the Edo-period. As such, it would represent a combination of combative forms AND etiquette. I tend to favor this view.

On the other hand, I don't discount the possibility that the original meaning of the word was as a general, symbolic description of those yawara techniques that were either guarded, or simply a subset of a larger art form.

Sorry about the lengthy post. :)

I would be curious to hear other people's opinions on this as well.
This is one of the more fascinating areas of DR technical history.
Excellent post, Nathan.

Cheers,
Arman Partamian
Daito-ryu Study Group
Maryland

Ellis Amdur
19th March 2002, 15:52
Iidori and seiza only look alike.

Iidori is simply the way that Japanese fighting arts simulated being on the ground in a slightly formalized way. It encompasses any fall forward, slip, crawl, etc. - unlike some other nationalities, Japanese martial arts didn't make "skits,' as if, for example one tripped over the camp dog, fell on hands and knees and then was attacked by an enemy who took advantage. therefore, iidori is outdoors/indoors - it simply encompasses postures when one isn't on one's feet or on one's back. Therefore, more than a few jujutsu schools have "hanmi handachi" kata - representing a man on his feet fighting one who is on the ground. In some schools, it is the one on his feet who wins, representing realistic battlefield situations.

Arts which have seiza in their kata come from several sources.
a. They are deliberately simulating an indoor encounter - as some imagine Daito Ryu intended
b. It represents a degeneration. One practiced inside, one was on one's knees and people either didn't learn the meaning of the techniques they studied or they got changed to fit the times, for better or worse.

So even if the kata have one sitting in seiza, that alone establishes little more than it's Edo period influence - not necessarily that it was founded in that period.

One thing about Daito Ryu - there is a truly vast number of techniques against an unarmed enemy. Most, in fact. Most jujutsu ryu, sengoku or edo, focused against someone armed with a kodachi or dagger. And despite any formality, these would be carried inside the palace - that was part of normal dress. To be unarmed was not the way one would present oneself.

To me, that suggests a more modern origin, at least in it's present form. It doesn't make sense to me that hundreds of techniques with an armed uke were stripped of their tanto. It's not that simple - a weapon in the hand changes how one grips, pins, attacks, etc. The principles may not have changed, but the technique changes drastically.

And although people keep mentioning how similar DR is to other jujutsu ryu, particularly in the first level techniques, I don't think this is true. yes, joints are often locked in similar fashion. But Daito Ryu has a very different rhythm, a different flow, a different expectation of what the uke will do. (and once again, I am venturing no opinion on effectiveness). Despite whatever differences they may have, aikido and Daito Ryu look far more alike and bear far more in common than either does to any other jujutsu ryu I've seen - at least in so far as koryu schools go.

With respect

Ellis Amdur

Cady Goldfield
19th March 2002, 16:43
Ellis wrote:

"Despite whatever differences they may have, aikido and Daito Ryu look far more alike and bear far more in common than either does to any other jujutsu ryu I've seen - at least in so far as koryu schools go."

Ellis, what would be some of the major differences you perceive between the jujutsu ryu you refer to, and Daito Ryu? Especially, what do you see that you believe aikido and Daito Ryu have in common with each other, that you do not see in those jujutsu ryu?

Regards,

Cady

Arman
19th March 2002, 19:16
Ellis,

Thanks for the elaboration and clarification on the idori/seiza issue.

As for similarities between DR kata and koryu jujutsu, one at least comes immediately to mind: In the ikkajo series of the hiden mokuroku, karaminage is very similar to kata I have seen in other koryu jujutsu. Unfortunately, I don't have my books in front of me (at work) so I can't immediately provide you with the names of the similar tech. with other schools. In aikido, I have seen a technique that seems to come from karaminage (don't know the name), but is extensively modified in application.

I have also seen photographs in books which look remarkably similar to some of the "jujutsu" in DR. I must admit, of course, my experience in both DR and my knowledge of koryu arts is quite limited, especially compared to yourself and many of the contributors to this forum. Furthermore, you are correct in stating that most DR kata are against unarmed opponents (as far as I am aware), although many of the unarmed strikes of the uke are based on armed attacks (e.g. sword and knife). Of course, I realize this isn't unique to DR.

Finally, as Cady stated above, I also would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the similarities between aikido and DR v. the disimilarity between DR and, even, Edo-period jujutsu schools.

Thanks for contributing,

Sincerely,
Arman Partamian
Daito-ryu Study Group
Maryland

Arman
19th March 2002, 19:33
Almost forgot to mention that, unless I am mistaken, I am not aware of too many modern arts (post-meiji) that utilize the pinning techniques of DR (which are quite extensive). I have also seen some older video and photographs that show the end of the pin with a simulated throat cut.

I'm no aikido practitioner, but I don't believe they use any technique remotely similar to the various pins in DR.

Perhaps others could fill me in on the ubiquitous nature of this aspect of DR, or lack thereof, in both koryu and modern arts.

Sincerely,
Arman Partamian
Daito-ryu Study Group
Maryland

Ellis Amdur
19th March 2002, 20:48
Arman - I agree that many of the Daito Ryu pinning techniques are not seen elsewhere. Many of them seem to resemble human origami. Also included in this is the body stacking in multiple attack.

Cady - I've certainly seen many of the specific joint locks elsewhere. The difference is flow and the role of uke, and, as I pointed out earlier, weaponry.

1) Classical jujutsu (that's quite a broad topic), even including many Meiji forms, sets up the kata in several fashions:
a. the uke takes hold with a really firm grip, that is somewhat stylized in appearance when coupled with the kiai
b. Sometimes, it's fast, dynamic - it looks rather like a natural attack - but often, even there, the beginnning and end has a particular stylized nature.(throwing something back at you aiki-folks, this is really hard to describe - but easily observed when you see it).

I've seen either videos or live presentations of most of the major branches of Daito Ryu (not Sagawa style). The uke in everything I've seen "makes himself available" in an unambigous attack or grasp. (I'm talking about the practice method - not what can conceivably do with the skill one acquires). There is a particular flow and timing to the attack which isn't either like classical jujutsu, in my experience, or the way people, in the raw, fight. The locks and throws are applied to uke in this context.

Aikido derived this from Daito Ryu. "Proof" of that is the video of Ueshiba in Osaka at Hisa's dojo in 1936. He taught them, what, the first eight of what became their eleven tiers, and then Takeda came in, and by all reports, used that as a platform to continue the teaching. And what Ueshiba was doing, that looks not all that different from modern aikido, was thus, in enough harmony with Takeda could "finish" the job. And Hisa's group, although different in many aspects, is not denied by the mainline, as doing DR (they chose to adopt the mainline mokuroku to order their techniques, I believe - the mokuroku reportedly organized by Tokimune, as Takeda apparently just cascaded out techniques either at random, depending on the audience, or perhaps in an order all his own - as ech group got it differently).

Now lest we get started, none of what I'm saying has anything to do with any belief on my part whether DR and/or aikido is weak or ineffective. I'm just saying that in my observation, in my conversations with DR practitioners, in my years circulating in-and-out of aikido, there is something unique about the "aiki" arts that is held in common with DR and aikido. It's the way that great genius' (Takeda and his students) found best created the kind of practitioner they wanted to create. I'm saying simply that Daito Ryu and aikido are almost instantly recognizable as kin. For a brief time, the Aikikai was pushing Goto-ha Yagyu Shingan Ryu as perhaps a more significant influence on Ueshiba's development, because "he learned that first." Pure shameless politics that they soon abandoned. There are probably a few of the same joint locks in YSR as in aikido - but no one would make a connection between these two schools unless informed, and there still, it would just be book learning.

This is all vague. Sorry. What I'm basically saying is that I believe that if one had people do various jujutsu ryu behind a screen, so all you could see was shadows, people could pick out the aiki arts. (Shorinji kempo, once they get away from the pugilism that they claim from China, is obviously another derivitive).

I find it fascinating that in old films of Ueshiba, when he's doing his tour-de-aiki techniques, (body stacking, etc. or techniques that no one else knew - magical techniques, emerging from the kami, etc.) they were often identical to Daito Ryu kata. Even his hand gesture at the end of the kata (body inclined, one arm down, one upraised) was a typical kamae of Daito Ryu.

I will once again conclude with my usual caveat. Not interest in furthering the "aiki-wars." Not talking about combat efficacy. Think of it like music. You've got this huge history of classical music, and then Debussy started his tonal Impressionism. Imagine a student of Debussy carrying this further - maybe watering it down (Impressionism is the basis for "mood music" as a background in movies). That's Takeda and Ueshiba in my opinion. You listen to Debussy and you can hear, obviously, all the elements of the classical music that preceded him. He is rooted in that. But he, a genius, made something knew out of it, that, for better or worse, they hadn't conceived of.

With respect

Ellis Amdur

Cady Goldfield
19th March 2002, 21:54
Ellis,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

It seems to me that your comparisons are based more on stylistic protocols (e.g. uke-tori roles in kata) than on the actual principles of the arts themselves. If that is the case, then I'd agree with you that the formal kata approaches of many aikido and the main Daito-ryu systems do share some things in common. It's only natural that Ueshiba would retain some of the stylistic flourishes and protocols he had learned prior to developing his own system -- different though it had become from Daito-ryu.

But, I'd have to say that in the case of Daito-ryu and aikido, those visible characteristics are fairly superficial. You can link the heritage of aikido to Daito-ryu by its protocols, perhaps, but aikido is so physically removed from Daito-ryu in terms of interpretation of principles and execution of technique, that they truly are two very different arts. I believe that anyone whos has having experienced both would find them entirely incompatible with one another.

I wish I had more experiential exposure to the koryu jujutsu systems in order to make an educated comparison. I haven't any, except for having viewed videos and listened to the opinions of those who have had some exposure. But it seems to me that Daito-ryu would have far more in common with koryu jujutsu in terms of being principle-based and in relying on the same mechanical principles, than it has with aikido, which has modified or lost many of those principles. Especially in regard to the weapons-based movements, vectors and strategies -- which still exist in Daito-ryu, but which appear not to in aikido.

I appreciate your analogy to stylistic inheritance of artists and musicians from their teachers; it is a good one, and I agree that it must surely apply to Ueshiba in view of Takeda's influences on him. However, I don't believe that that in itself is any proof that aikido and Daito-ryu have more in common with each other than Daito-ryu does with koryu jujutsu. Take away the surface stuff -- the protocols and stylized exercises -- and instead focus on what is physically being applied in terms of principles, and perhaps you'd find a completely different set of relationships and associations.

Nevermind looking at aikido and Daito-ryu taking place behind a shadow screen; instead, I'd suggest we put on blindfolds and then train with aikidoka, Daito-ryu aikijujutsuka and koryu jujutsuka. Then we can take a poll on what relates to what. :)

Thanks for the food for thought. This is an interesting topic to ponder, at least for me.

Regards,

Cady

Arman
19th March 2002, 22:39
Ellis,

Thanks for the response. I have to say it is a little humurous the extent to which you want to make sure everyone understands that you are not talking about DR aiki-effectiveness - you must have had a bad experience as a child with some cranky DR practitioner. ;)

Seriously, I understand where you are coming from - there are a lot of defensive people out there that are quick to respond to any implication of martial ineffectiveness or weakness. You should be happy to learn that none of the DR practitioners I have encountered thus far in this forum have displayed such childish characteristics.

Now, back to the topic at hand.

Your comments are very interesting, and I have to confess to a lack of extensive experiential knowledge of koryu jujutsu to either agree or disagree with your comments. Lots of book learning, but very little actual experience participating or watching koryu jujutsu. My practical background is in modern Japanese arts, some Chinese arts, and Daito-ryu. Thus, anything further I was to say about koryu jujutsu would be based on what I have read, discussed with others, and speculation.

That qualification being stated, I would venture one other opinion. While IMO Sokaku Takeda is the "father" of modern DR, I am skeptical that he is the principal founder of the art as a whole. My skepticism is based on the history of MA development overall, and as a pracitioner of the art.

Point in fact, most modern arts have some traceable root cognate that you can identify as the foundation of the art. For example, aikido/DR, judo/Kito-ryu & Tenjin Shinyo-ryu; karate/Chinese boxing and kung fu. Furthermore, even older arts have recognizable historical influences from various schools.

It seems to me unlikely, therefore, that Sokaku Takeda is the generator of the entire technical curriculum of DR, with all its concommitant principles, philosophy and oral teachings. This is not to say that Takeda was not a martial genius. It is simply to say one might presume too much from inadequate historical sources. We know, for instance, that Takeda was a student of Ono-ha Ito ryu kenjutsu and was a skilled sumo wrestler. Not knowing exactly what else he may have studied, are we to assume that all his claims regarding the lineage of DR are fabricated purely for the purpose of conferring a false legitimacy upon the art? I tend to doubt this.

Finally, one other aspect about the "classical" nature of DR that goes beyond the technical curriculum of the art is the highly formal nature of the teaching. While I have not studied koryu jujutsu, I have studied, briefly, Shindo Muso-ryu and its integrated weapons and styles, as well as seen footage of various other koryu (even Araki-ryu - they are on one of the DR Demo tapes). The "form" of DR kata appear to me to have more in common with the form of these types of schools than anything modern - aikido or otherwise. About the only similarity I see between aikido and DR in terms of its formal performance is the fact that aikido also uses two or more people for a technique. Otherwise, aikido, karate-do, judo, etc. lack the formal quality of DR (and by "formal," I don't mean bowing and scraping. I mean the characteristic manner and quality of kata practice, the integration of principles that supplement the physical movements, the emphasis on "sen sen no sen," and the substantive process of kata practice). [Note: having just read Cady's post, this piggy-backs on her comments regarding the integration of underlying principles of technique as expressed through the kata which are not readily noticeable from an observers standpoint, but are drastically apparent to anyone who practices the art - and consequently makes DR stand far apart from aikido]

All of these factors, combined with your incisive comments, can leave me only with a sense of resigned agnosticism: I can't verify the historical lineage, and the evidence based on a critique of the curriculum itself is, IMO, contradictory, at best.

Maybe you could shed some more light on my comments, for I do believe that the extent to which knowledgeable individuals like yourself can contribute your thoughts to this issue, the better the information we can collect to provide a basis for analysis and "speculation."

Sincerely,
Arman Partamian
Daito-ryu Study Group
Maryland

Ellis Amdur
19th March 2002, 22:42
Cady -

I have little more of worth to offer on this topic. I have had Daito Ryu techniques applied to me in friendly exchange - (Kondo line) and again, drawing no conclusions about merits, I found I was in "familiar territory."

Remember, too, that I was trying to respond to a question about DR's place in history as based on the method of practice. And how, almost anyone at a koryu demo, seeing DR and aikido and not recognizing it immediately, will be confused, only to the degree of saying, "That's aiki - - - do? jutsu?" It will never be, "I wonder if that is Ishiguro Ryu or Shosho Ryu."

Whether the DR people have some essential qualities that aikido people don't or lost after Ueshiba M. is not my concern (recall reading Tokimune saying that Ueshiba was, at one point, the most knowledgeable DR man, and knew far more than Hisa, simply cause he studied with Takeda longer). I think many of the more prominent DR folks in Japan see things far more in the sense of a continuum regarding DR and aikido, rather than a pure division.

As for your speculation on how the technique feels beyond the protocols and set-ups, I think that you would be rather surprised how different most koryu jujutsu feels (and by this, I mean the real made-in-Japan deal, not modern or modernized adaptations). For one example, ryu that EXPECT the enemy to have weapons somewhere, always, have a very different attitude on how to make body contact. Again, I'm not saying that DR, for example, cannot be practiced with this in mind. But it is obvious in many kata that it isn't the immediate consideration. Most older koryu were so obsessed with this that it structured how they pinned, locked, etc. They would not be as effective against a highly skilled unarmed opponent, because many things one can do against a weaponless person weren't part of their study. Judo's success was proof of this.

The one person doing jujutsu whom I have seen who displays something similar the DR-like territory, is Kuroda Tetsuzan, and his art is a) very atypical in it's present form from other jujutsu schools b) heavily influenced by his cross-training association with Kono (forget his first name), formerly aikikai, now doing his innovative thing, very concerned with vectors, no extraneous use of musculature, etc. Again, I have no opinion about Kuroda's effectiveness in the way he does techniques, nor am I saying it's the same as DR. (I keep harping on this because I've read too many threads which focus on minutia, coming down to "it's DR - not it's not - well it's aiki - not our aiki - etc. - can't explain what aiki is anyway" And I don't want to get in the middle of one of those arguments again - you guys scare me! Like being attacked by Lewis Carroll.;))

As for principles, I think that most jujutsu schools are, in the body stuff, far closer in theoretical underpinnings to judo/grappling than the sophistication DR is attempting to create. Many Meiji jujutsu schools, which specialized in joint locks in standing situations don't have nearly the "flow" that DR (and aikido) have. As far as Takeda was concerned, I believe it was this essential fluid quality, that he could apply a technique from any angle or configuration that made him, by reputation at least, so superior to other practitioners of other schools he encountered. And my point is that the methodology of practice is, in fact, central, creating thru that practice, a really different set of reflexes - the protocols and practice methods create the fighter. The techniques are far less important, as I'm sure you will agree.

Just posted this and saw your last note, Arman. Speculation here:

a) The arrangement of DR in mokuroku, etc., was done, I believe by Tokimune, and again, I believe, he used Asayama Ichiden Ryu as a template for the form of his mokuroku. Thus, he arranged it in classic form. (if this is correct)
b) of course Takeda didn't make it all up from scratch! First of all, he was one of the most accomplished swordsmen around - and not just Ono-ha Itto ryu. as I understand it, that ryu was chosen as the best vessel to contain, within the kata, the prinicples he was teaching.
c) A lot of sumo techniques are in aiki arts, and sumo ukemi is far closer to that of aiki arts than judo, or classic jujutsu. Sumo has "flow" practices (kakari geikko) very similar to aiki throws, in the rhythm. Takeda must have studied some jujutsu. The sword schools he is known for don't have jujutsu, but he must have studied something, even later in life, and channeled all the expertise and genius he acquired previously. Aizu had a number of jujutsu ryu, and he surely must have run into others in his travels.
d) I think it is very interesting that Tokimune, in describing his father's contest with the karateka, says how his father mused on how to beat such speed, and he then recalled to himself his skill with the sword, and that the sword moved faster, and he fought him as an unarmed swordfighter. He makes no mention of his father using this or that Daito Ryu technique. This was written in the period well before Takeda ever said he did something called Daito ryu or Oshikiuchi.
e) Supposedly, after Takeda's fight with the construction workers, the judge, although letting him off, told him that the age of the sword was over and that he should concentrate on jujutsu. Perhaps Takeda took it to heart (he was, essentially, a law-and-order kind of guy - preferring to teach judges, military and police). So then one of the very best swordfighters in all of Japan, someone who, therefore, grasped the essential qualities of the ryu he studied and then surely could apply them in other similar venues, took older, somewhat stiff and formalized jujutsu technique and gave it the flow he had experienced not only in kata but in uncountable freestyle bouts with shinai, etc.
f) In each place he taught, he taught a different way, a different number and set of techniques. Of course, a man like that would teach in classic style! He was the ultimate classicist, not in the sense of an antiquarian, but who lived classically.
g) Whatever way the man was grabbed or otherwise attacked, he demonstrated something. By report, once - or only on that day. He never did have to "repeat" himself, although there were surely favorite techniques.
h) Each group organized all they could retain, take notes or remember. Somehow, each group learned essentail principles, and ended up with DR, as different as the various groups were before the present ecumenism led them to organize their teaching along lines similar to the mainline.

All speculation. Oh, MightoDaitoFightoAcolytoes

Ellis Amdur

Nathan Scott
20th March 2002, 01:34
Mr. Amdur,

Thanks for contributing.

I came across your article "A Conversation with Daito-ryu's Other Child" some years ago in the Improvisations column you had been writing (Aikido Journal, #101 1994), and have been wanting to invite you to this forum to discuss some of the points you brought up there.

Since they relate to your comments above, this is a good time to ask!

For the sake of those who have not read it, I would like to post a few relevant sections:


I have observed Daito-ryu over the years, and I find it a most singular art. Although it is classified as a koryu, it is quite unlike any other remaining jujutsu school in Japan. One of the most significant differences is the number of kata - literally hundreds of elaborations of grappling and locking techniques. The almost minute delineation of technique is quite unusual among old martial arts, particularly concernig hand-to-hand unarmed combat.

These observations seem fair enough to me. Daito ryu is unusual in a few ways from what I can see.

Two arts were said to have been combined into one, and (loosly) organized by Takeda Sokaku under the name Daito ryu. Also, Sokaku travelled extensively, creating branch locations and teaching an unusually large amount of students. I suspect Daito ryu evolved with Sokaku as he became more experienced and refined. The methods taught were said to have been adapted to the person being taught (like Takuma Hisa and Horkikawa Kodo). Daito ryu history also states that the art was primarily a sword/weapon based art before the Meiji period, and that Sokaku had adapted the art to focus primarily on jujutsu afterwards.

However, there is a clear operating system for the art, and the looseness in structure (prior to Tokimune) supports the position that the art is concerned primarily with principles rather than "minute details'.


Daito-ryu has an extremely long and elaborate curriculum, the memorization alone of which would take decades.

The different branches seem to claim different numbers of techniques in the system, and some branches asign very few if any names to the techniques themselves - though names are given to major operating principles. I believe that the large curriculum is presented in an attempt to document the variations for future reference, as opposed to being techniques that every student must memorize eventually. But this might still be a different approach from that of other koryu.

One problem with watching Daito ryu on video, books or in demonstration is that none of these really offers an accurate overview of "Daito ryu". For example, DR aiki is supposed to be the heart of DR, and is rarely shown at any high level publicly. Kondo s. shows jujutsu, as does the Takumakai. The videos of the Roppokai show elements of DR aiki, but do not necessarily represent what the Roppokai entails in whole. The Kodokai and Sagawa dojo have been very careful and conservative about showing these methods to outsiders at all, and to not be familiar with these is to not have a balanced view of DR (no offense intended - just posting a common fault by some who don't train formally).

The general exclusion of weapon work in a jujutsu based system is unusual, though there are weapons of some kind taught in most the DR branches at some level of initiation.

Your point about awareness of possible weapons and the limitations of wearing weapons is an outstanding one. I believe that most the aiki techniques, since they are performed with minimal movement and minmal leverage strength, are well suited for the possibility of weapons. The more standard Jujutsu techniques may have the problems you state. Interesting considering that the jujutsu techniques, historically, all end with the opponents head being severed. This would indicate that some kind of blade is supposed to be worn in the belt somewhere (?).


Unlike Daito-ryu, almost all other koryu insist that the one in the teaching position takes falls. Instruction takes place as the teacher sets the situation up so that it is necessary for the student to be working at the limit of their capabilities in order to "win".

The role or tori and uke (shidachi and uchidachi in weaponwork) is also an important point. I think as far as the aiki techniques, it is more beneficial to feel them that it is to practice them. The subtlties can't be taught, but must be felt repeatedly to click with the practitioner. This may be why Sokaku thought to reverse these roles. Interesting role reversal though.


[The extent of memorization required] suggests that Daito-ryu, despite the rigor of many of its techniques, was not a warfare art, as battlefield combat is taught far more economically

DR history says that some of the jujutsu was continued through the Takeda family for many generations. Interestingly, the Heiho Okugisho (supposedly written in the early 1600's and first published in 1804 - currenly translated and available in English) has a section called the "Zu no Maki" (techniques), which shows "Takeda ryu" jujutsu. Many of these methods look very much like Daito ryu.

Whether they are armored or not, fully or partially, is another question. The drawings in Heiho show figures without armor though.

The jujustu principles in DR seem economical in principle, though the seeming attention do detail may not (IMHO).

Your article goes on to say, which I'll paraphrase to save my fingers and posting space, that it is interesting to note that the DR instructors that have founded their own line or art have all opted to simplify the techniques into a handful of core methods, more in keeping with koryu.

This is also interesting, and could be viewed as a good or bad thing, depending on your point of view!

BTW, I'm happy to hear that your familiar with Kuroda sensei and his Shishin Takuma ryu jujutsu. As you say, the methods appear in approach to be more classical, and are extremely soft and subtle in application. He displays many of the aiki principles found in other arts like Daito ryu, though I don't believe he uses the term specifically. For those interested in seeing this art, there are video tapes available through BAB Video.

Thanks much for your contributions here. I'll see to it that your not viciously attacked for presenting your views!

Regards,

Cady Goldfield
20th March 2002, 02:00
Nathan,
I'm not sure that Arman's and my inquiries to Mr. Amdur qualified as vicious attacks. An Inquisition, perhaps -- but with comfy chairs and soft cushions.

In fact, I really like the "Oh, MightoDaitoFightoAcolytoes" monicker, and am thinking of asking Dan if we can include it in our E-Budo sigs.
:smilejapa

Cady

Ellis Amdur
20th March 2002, 02:11
Nathan -

Actually, I just continue to write that because with as many words as I throw out, it keeps the focus on what I'm trying to say, and it saves me and everyone else time from getting in a discussion that I, at least, am not interested. As for your points. First of all, I've no evidence for what I say. It's an inference from what I know about koryu and japan in general, and from what information I am provided.:

1) I think the idea that Daito Ryu was a primary weapons art prior to Takeda is metaphor, not fact, in the same way that Ueshiba used to say he studied Aioi Ryu, which was, in fact, his term for a period in his own martial arts development. I believe Takeda called the agglomeration of all the arts he studied - Jikishin kage Ryu, Kyomeishin Ryu, Onoha Itto Ryu, etc., etc., as Daito Ryu, pre-jujutsu. This is not being loose with the facts - this is a rather common way to describe one's antecedents. As in you saying, "nathan ryu was not originally a method of cutting with obsidian blades. At one point, it was largely cutting with japanese style katana, and aiki-type hand-to-hand techniques." You could give credit to Obata, but lets say you studied with seven, ten or more teachers in your wanderings, and you, in essence, are saying that what i'm doing now is the synthesis I created through all that I studied, not a descendent from one particular teacher or ryu.

2) I'm aware that there is a lot I haven't seen. However, I've been told that Kondo sensei says that the highest level of aiki must be present in the ikkajo techniques. It's like putting the pieces of a puzzle together - all the aiki folks I've seen or seen videos of, including Don Angier, and in particular, watching what various people do in their free-style demos - and I have an admittedly incomplete picture - but I think, still, a fair idea. I could show you the initial three techniques of Araki Ryu, and although you'd have no idea of most of what we do, or even what all the weapons are, you'd get a real good sense of the character of the ryu. I'm not saying I "get" DR. I am saying that i believe I have a fair idea of what part of the map they live.

3) Principles vs. method - I think the minimal movement/kuzushi, etc. provides marvelous info that could be applied were one to focus training on folks with weapons. But lots of the techniques clearly don't.

4) I think that your idea about learning through feeling is quite possibly an important part of the picture. In koryu, that's exactly why the teacher does ukemi. That the information in DR needs to be conveyed in such a different manner, as a rule, proves my point that DR is quite different from other koryu jujutsu.

5) Takeda Ryu - maybe so. But, as has been pointed out, the techniques themselves are not unique to DR. I certainly have no "problem" with a Takeda family jujutsu art, probably rather simple, being passed down within the family, and Takeda's dad, that remarkable sumotori, also knowing a family art of jujutsu. It's a good point, actually. Family arts often would not have makimono, etc., because there was no need to certify the person. Toda-ha Buko Ryu, was once, in another form, a family art of the Suneya family. There are no makimono whatsoever.

6) BTW, re "warfare" arts, Kondo sensei takes pains to say on his website that Daito Ryu is not an art of war, but a self-defense art. he's not only talking philosophy here - he is defining it's parameters.

7) As for the successors who "that the DR instructors that have founded their own line or art have all opted to simplify the techniques into a handful of core methods, more in keeping with koryu," close, but different from what I meant. The koryu simplicity is to have few one-size fits all techniques. Basic training, so to speak. The DR lines that "simplified," are focusing on the gokui level. The danger is that if, in eliminating the basic levels, one erases the methodology by which one achieves the gokui. For example, the Jigen Ryu gokui is simply - basically, "whatever the spacing, hit the target." Is that enough to do Jigen Ryu now? My criticism of Ueshiba has always been that it is as if he marched up Fuji in the snow, trailing branches behind him, erasing his footsteps, and then asks people to practice on the top.

8) As for "Kuroda sensei and his Shishin Takuma ryu jujutsu. As you say, the methods appear to be more classical in approach, and are extremely soft. He displays many of the aiki principles found in other arts like Daito ryu." I respect him, but I am not viewing his methods as more "classical." I read an interview in which he talked, in depth, about his lack of understanding and/or desire to practice the jujutsu he inherited with a bunch of other ryu, and attributed his cross-training with Kono for his current ability in his jujutsu. He seems to indicate that he thereby reconstructed an understanding of the jujutsu of his grandfather. He may be very good, he may be better than grandpa, but it is very dubious to me that the art he only experienced as a little boy can be resurrected as it was through the coaching and training with a practioner of a style of aikido.

With respect

Ellis Amdur

Mark Jakabcsin
20th March 2002, 13:49
Great thread and thanks to all. Perhaps Nathan-san will bestow a few rating stars for this thread.? Take care, and thanks again for such a thought provoking discussion.

mark

Kit LeBlanc
20th March 2002, 14:03
Another one for the archives. Just checking in so I am subscribed to this thread....

Nathan Scott
20th March 2002, 19:49
Thanks for the informative response Mr. Amdur. I think I better understand where your coming from now, and largely agree with you.

For the record, I did not intend to question the experience of which you base your opinion. But, in the case of Daito ryu, I've been finding that even the branches/instructors that are more open publicly still guard the "gokui" from outsiders. There are many who have not felt the techniques and don't have the overview of classical jujutsu that think they have a good idea what Daito ryu is all about. Personally, I think it might have been better not to show anything at all than to show bits and pieces of the art partially obscured.

Interesting POV in your 1) response. I'll have to think some more on that.

BTW, for the benefit of anyone take notes here, I believe you meant to write "Kyoshin Meichi Ryu" as opposed to "Kyomeishin Ryu".

In 5), you mention that most the DR Jujutsu techniques are not unique to DR. When looking at the basic kuzushi and kansetsu principles and shapes, this is definitely true, and I hope other people realize this.

Sorry for mis-paraphrasing your writings that you address in 7). What you clarified is the impression I got reading your article. I just didn't get it out right.

Good point about Kuroda sensei. His arts are classical feeling in that there (appear) to be a handful of kata in each of the arts, and everything you need to know (in his opinion) is in the kata. His Jujutsu does not seem to include some of the complex/aggressive joint locks found in much of the upper DR techniques, but does manipulate the opponent's center and emphasize off balancing. One of the things Kuroda s. says in his article is that, as long as the kata is transmitted correctly, the potential to understand the intended teachings is present. While you could say that Kuroda s. "recreated" the jujutsu based on his own research and following the transmitted kata, I get the impression it may have been a bit more than that. Kuroda s. grew up in around the arts, and had the chance to see his grandfather, and in particular the senior students, perform for many years. He was not taught HOW to perform them, but had a picture in his mind. If I remember correctly, Kono Yoshinori acted more as his "mirror" than as a teacher, though he was surely influential in other areas as well. Kuroda s. knew his grandfather could do (some number of) ukemi on one tatami, but had to discover the method on his own using only what he had seen and the instruction "try to put your head in your crotch" (I know, I know. Keep the jokes in PM's).

From what I've seen, a lot of what is taught in classical methodology is through self discovery and minimal guidance from the instructor, unlike many modern arts. Unfortunately for Kuroda s., there was not continued guidance in the latter part of his development - from within his family line at least.

Anyway, not to say the Shishin takuma ryu has not changed in this generation, but my impression of Kuroda sensei's development was a bit different. It seems like this is typical for family members that are taught in classical arts. They get hammered hard, and really have to do their own work.

Oh - one other thing I wanted to ask you about. In your first post here you said: "Most jujutsu ryu, sengoku or edo, focused against someone armed with a kodachi or dagger. And despite any formality, these would be carried inside the palace - that was part of normal dress. To be unarmed was not the way one would present oneself."

From what I've read, the inner chambers of the palace, or in this case specifically Edo-jo, was where many bushi were not allowed to carry most, if not all, weapons (aside from perhaps sensu or tessen). In other words, the closer you get to the boss, the higher the security. Smaller spaces (low ceilings), long hakama, longer distances of interaction, more bodyguards, etc. Have you found this not to be the case? Castles are big places, and security measures varied depending on your position and location in the castle.

As another example (outside DR), Charles V. Gruzanski wrote in his book "Spike and Chain" (later bastardized as "Ninja Weapons - Chain and Shuriken") under the history of Masaki ryu:


"While assigned as Head Sentry for the main gate of Edo (Tokyo) Castle, it was the responsibility of Masaki and his disciples to guard against the intrusion of bandits, hoodlums, or otherwise insane persons. It was at this time that Masaki became aware and gravely concerned that should an attempt be made to breach the gate, it would certainly result in the heavy flow of blood.

Masaki's convictions dictated that such bloody battles should not take place before such a famous and important gate. He felt that a sword should never be unsheathed at such a sacred place nor should it be soiled with blood, yet the castle gate must be defended at all costs."

Masaki created methods that are now referred to as Masaki ryu manrikigusari (short weighted chain art) in response to his concerns. Though this text does not state anything about a specific rule regarding weaons, it does indicate that perhaps those working in the castle were very concerned about such manner in front of the lord.

Also, Laszlo Abel writes in his article "The 47 Samurai of Ako" (JMAS vol1/#3) in 1983 that:


"Since drawing any weapon within the Shogun's castle was a serious crime, Asano was deprived of his domain and exiled to Ishin no Seki in Mutsu, to the castle of Tamura Nobuaki. After deliberations by the Shogunate, he was invited to disembowel himself by Tsuchiya Masanao, a court official."

I've heard that the more refined techniques taught to say Hatamoto were not only designed to give them a technical edge over their juniors, but also were generally minimal in movement to allow the upper ranking bushi to defend themselves with seemingly minimum effort. The idea being that it wouldn't do to have a Hatamoto rolling around on the ground grappling for his life with a farmer. This is of course an ideal in any event, and perhaps not always realistic. But it does match the kind of techniques described as oshikiuchi, which were to be used in the inner chambers of Edo-jo by upper ranked bushi in confined quarters - probably attacked while seated.

Any thoughts?

Mark - just so you know, anyone can place a star rating to a thread (or so I'm told), so feel free to rate threads as you feel.

And ya'll said there was nothing left to talk about...

20th March 2002, 20:50
Hi,

This really is a great thread and covers some very fascinating material. Ellis's insights sort of continue a topic we were covering when I visited him at his home last year.

The Takamura ha SYR is sort of a living example of some of what Ellis is discussing here. It operates in some ways and on some levels like a koryu art but is at the same time distinctly different.....obviously evolutionary. One thing definitely koryu-esque is the uchitachi/shitachi relationship within the formal kata. Takamura Sensei covered this very clearly in his interview in Aikido Journal a few years ago. In his teaching he always preferred to take ukemi so he could feel the progress of the students technique. The only time I saw him reversing the role was when none of the students knew a specific kata he was covering.

Once students were beyond shoden level the teaching methodology became much more intense and started incorporating the basic elements of freestyle. This is obviously very un - koryu like. Once one familiarized himself with the traditional kata Takamura's emphasis shifted significantly towards the spontaneous application of numerous henka waza within the framework of various drills. This, like in Daito ryu has resulted in a great divergence in personal expression of SYR technique.

By Joden the art is taught in dynamic freestyle stressing strategy and principle in movement as opposed to the more stylized kata . At this level the art develops a flow of movement and relaxed timing more like that associated with so called "softer" arts. Once flow is mastered a series of specialized drills are initiated to develop a broken rythym which should exist within the flowing movement. It is from within this rythym, or better yet, lack of rythym that we apply atemi. Interestingly the Joden curriculum concludes with the freestyle application of weapons in an offensive role as well as a defensive role. This kinda takes the art back full circle back towards its koryu roots.

The reason I bring this all up on a thread about Daito ryu is that Takamura Sensei's grandfather knew both Takeda Sokaku and Yoshida Kotaro...especially Kotaro. i have always wondered about these connections and potential influences. Interestingly Takamura Sensei's grandfather studied Jikishinkage ryu under Kenkichi Sakakibara around the same time as Takeda did. Yoshida Kotaro's influence is specifically recognized in our ryuha but due to the unknown "mixing" between the Yoshida clan's Yanagi ryu and Takeda's Daito ryu, what really came from who and in what amount it was then mixed with mainline SYR is unknown and probably unknowable.

The most interesting indirect evidence I have of any influence via Kotaro comes from the fact that Takamura Sensei befriended Don Angier and in his later years encouraged Don to accept me as a formal student of Yanagi ryu. In time I came to realize that there was a hidden reason behind Takamura's efforts at this. There are definite technical connections between these two arts. These connections are now most identifiable to me in the taijutsu and tantojutsu waza. It is as if the Takamura ha SYR is in some ways a more straight forward and less intricate version of Yanagi ryu that embraces more striking. These arts embrace many of the same basic techniques, one of which Stan Pranin even confided to me that he had never seen before outside these two systems. Alternately, significant differences between these two traditions show up in the use of the sword. I assume this is because Takamura Sensei's SYR sword work was most influenced by Shinkage ryu thru Namishiro Matsuhiro. Interestingly SYR's founder Matsuoka Katsunosuke was, like Takeda Sokaku, an advanced student of Hokushin Itto ryu and Jikishinkage ryu. ( Although Takamura Sensei's grandfather was an adept of Jikishinkage ryu, Takamura Sensei said he never learned any significant part of the Jikishinkage curriculum from his grandfather.)

For years my lack of exposure to koryu made me wonder if a great deal of technical diversity really existed between modern & classical jujutsu schools. Thru hands on exposure and personal conversation I've come to appreciate that both grand differences and significant similarities exist side by side in many of these martial traditions. I find the mysterious ebb and flow of these various influences within Shindo Yoshin ryu fascinating stuff to ponder. I wonder how often what we assume to be cohesive systems were actually "cross polllinated" and then re-pollinated by this school and that school without there being formal recorded evidence of such influences?

So ...after all this verbage I guess what I'm trying to say is that the differences we discuss & debate here although ocassionally significant are more often than not, much more subtle and hard to pin down than many of the uninitiated realize. And thats why information from people like Ellis Amdur, Meik Skoss, Karl Friday and Stan Pranin is such a gift.

Toby Threadgill

Yamantaka
20th March 2002, 22:04
Originally posted by Ellis Amdur
Supposedly, after Takeda's fight with the construction workers, the judge, although letting him off, told him that the age of the sword was over and that he should concentrate on jujutsu. Perhaps Takeda took it to heart (he was, essentially, a law-and-order kind of guy - preferring to teach judges, military and police).
Ellis Amdur

YAMANTAKA : Hello, Ellis San!
Just a trifle but wasn't that advice to Takeda atributed to Tonomo Saigo and not to a judge?
Best regards and congratulations on excellent posts.

Ellis Amdur
21st March 2002, 02:49
Toby - nothing to add to your post except fascination regarding the art(s) you practice.

Ubaldo - My recollection comes from reading Draeger, who may not have been accurate, for all I know. One would do best to refer to T. Tokimune's biography of his dad. I assume it's in there somewhere.

Nathan -
1) I honestly do not know details about when one disarmed within the palace, be it shogun's or daimyo. My belief, however, has been that one always carried a short sword - that it, symbolically defined one's role.
2) AS for the 47 ronin, it merely said you couldn't shed blood. it didn't say you couldn't carry a weapon. (and I've never known if that would apply to someone defending the shogun). BTW, the greatest tragedy in the 47 ronin story was Asano's incompetence. He was a student of military tactics and largely untrained in personal combat. He slashed the forehead of his enemy. If he had known how to use a kodachi, he would have killed him, and later committed seppuku, but his incompetence would not have then resulted in the deaths of his 47 retainers.
3) Gruzanski studied Masaki Ryu from Fumio Nawa, who substantially augmented and revised the techniques of manrikigusari. In addition, he hardly studied very long. The manrikigusari was originally only five techniques within a much larger ryu which studied a variety of weaponry, and the manrikigusari was padded with cotton, put in a black silk bag (for silence) and placed in the belt as a hidden weapon. Laszlo Abel would be able to say if this legend of the founder was alleged to have been said by him or created by Gruzanski, but practically, it's nonsense. I hope if I ever have to go on a mission with a sword, my enemy is armed with a manrikigusari, and I don't mind if he's the best in the land. (We have the weapon in my ryu, so I am familiar with it's capabilities. We train against either a short sword or dagger, which is a realistic scenario, and offers some possibility of victory. Not against a sword carried by a professional.)
4) You wrote:.I've heard that the more refined techniques taught to say Hatamoto were not only designed to give them a technical edge over their juniors, but also were generally minimal in movement to allow the upper ranking bushi to defend themselves with seemingly minimum effort. The idea being that it wouldn't do to have a Hatamoto rolling around on the ground grappling for his life with a farmer. This is of course an ideal in any event, and perhaps not always realistic. But it does match the kind of techniques described as oshikiuchi, which were to be used in the inner chambers of Edo-jo by upper ranked bushi in confined quarters - probably attacked while seated.

I've read it too - and I think it's romantic claptrap, fit for novels, but not real life. Imagine the secret service having different tactics to protect the president from crack heads because they smell bad and are unseemly. The simple fact is that a good man with a sword or even short sword, is already a fifth dan in regards to someone unarmed. And if they are of equal skill in their respective arts, it's no contest, is it? And since one could never tell how skilled the farmer or Edo crackhead is, this kind of idealistic stuff would be risking the life of your daimyo. The flourishing (efflourescence?) of unarmed jujutsu techniques occured when the arts were adapted to the use of commoners. That is not to say that advanced techniques were not trained in by the upper ranked bushi. I'm sure they were. I just think that they were mostly sword. From my limited knowledge, most otome ryu (official ryu of a daimyo) concerned weapons. The grappling schools were the red-headed stepkids of the han.

Oh, BTW, one final point. In the Edo period, there were several thousand farmer revolts. Generally, the farmers defeated the samurai in the initial clashes, using hoes and other farm implements against the samurai with their swords. The latter would retreat to the castle, get out the stored guns and decimate the farmers. Most samurai were bureaucrats wearing swords. they had so many responsibilities, they had little time for training, and for many, little inclination. This was particularly true for the high ranking administrators - hatamoto. This idea that the samurai wouldn't demean himself by using a blade against a farmer, or rolling around in the muck - it was gundo, not jujutsu or even kenjutsu that was used to handle rude peasants. otherwise, most samurai would have gotten their booty handed to them.

With respect

Ellis Amdur:

Nathan Scott
21st March 2002, 19:08
Hello,

Neither of the examples that I listed (Masaki ryu and Chushingura) mention a specific law regarding the wearing of weapons in the inner chambers, but they do show (if they are credible) a bit about how proper manner in castles was regarded.

Interesting information about Masaki ryu, Nawa Yumio and Gruzanski. I've always wondered how informed Gruzanski was. I was aware that the original manrikigusari was contained within a silk sheath, but did not know that the curriculum had been "enhanced" so much. I've also had serious doubts about manriki vs. katana, or any-kind-of-short-hand-held-weapon vs. katana for that matter. The aikido branch I study in has tachidori methods, but the difference is that the sword does not lose in our techniques! It isn't a pretty sight. :D

My instructor Obata sensei has a friend in Japan (Mr. Togo) that is apparently highly skilled with manrikigusari, and he seems to have been impressed with the speed and potential of the weapon in the hands of someone capable.

In regards to fights between upper bushi and lower bushi/commoners, I've also suspected that there may be some idealistic romanticism about the methods of dealing with such attacks, not getting clothes ruffled, etc. Akechi Mitsuhide (a retainer of Oda Nobunaga who ended up assasinating Oda) was ambushed and killed by a farmer with a homemade bamboo spear.

"Gundo" - that almost stumped me! I was thinking "gun = military; maybe this is slang for general military methods or something ...". Yuck yuck yuck. Jikiden blam-blam ryu kaeshiwaza.

Ubaldo - I believe that the Judge reprimanded Sokaku for carrying a sword, as he felt that things would not have gotten as out of hand as they did had he not had a sword to draw. Saigo also wrote a poem to Sokaku on a different occasion, that basically said that the time of the sword was over. In other words, I believe that there may have been two circumstances in which he was advised in this manner.

Regards,

Mark Jakabcsin
22nd March 2002, 13:50
“Unlike Daito-ryu, Almost all other koryu insist that the one in the teaching position takes falls.”

While the entire thread has been great I find the discussion about the differences in koryu training methods and Daito-ryu very interesting. Following are a few of my thoughts that I would like to hear feedback on. This is not meant to defend Daito-ryu as a possible koryu or an attempt to claim sameness, personally I don’t care about a label. The following is presented solely as discussion material.

I don’t know about each of the branches of Daito-ryu, although I would be curious to hear their input, but it was not uncommon for Okamoto Sensei to take falls during his visits here. I also remember him telling us that Horikawa Sensei took many falls for him while he was training. During my brief trip to Japan I don’t recall Okamoto Sensei taking any falls, however that doesn’t mean he doesn’t. At first glance this probably seems no where near as often as in koryu arts, however, I think the method that Okamoto Sensei uses to train might be closer than some may initially think.

After Okamoto Sensei demonstrated the technique to be trained on each person present the class divides into lines (or groups) with a senior student heading each line. Each person in the line performs the technique on every other person in that line, starting with the senior person and working to the junior. The senior student in the line is responsible for teaching and assisting the other students in the line. In this manner the senior student is receiving the technique from his/her juniors and is able to provide instruction. During this time Okamoto Sensei would watch and add instruction as he saw fit to the various lines but a great deal of the communication flow comes from the senior student in the line. I think this in itself is a method to further teach the senior students, for not only do they have to be able to do the techniques they have to be able to understand them well enough to explain them to others. This leads to a great deal of thinking, evaluating and discovery by the senior student, imo. In short, an instructor/senior student is taking falls for junior students through out their training and giving them feedback accordingly, while not the head master is it really that different?

I agree with what Nathan stated about learning by feeling the technique performed repeatedly, although that is surely not the complete method of training. Feeling others perform the technique helps to build the motions in one’s body/mind, however one must still struggle to apply what they feel by doing the technique repeatedly. I believe it is the combination of the two that ultimately leads to learning and self-discovery of technique.

What method of training do the other branches use?

mark

RDeppe
25th March 2002, 17:31
Incredible posts. Thank you.

On the subject or DR being similar to Aikido I completely agree with Ellis. I do aikido and I've seen lots of stuff and had friends doing different kinds of jujit's and the jujit's stuff always had a different flavor. After 10 years of Tomiki Aikido I played with DR for about a year and the transition was completely easy-- on the other hand, when after a year, I decided to stick with aikido, but moved to a traditional style, the transition was much more difficult.
Some people even questioned whether or not I had been doing "aikido" prior to switching dojos and styles.

So... That's my two cents.

Thanks.

Nathan Scott
26th November 2003, 00:54
In the spirit of further documenting references to Oshikiuchi, following is a rather long selection of comments from "The Martial Arts and Ways of Japan: Modern Bujutsu & Budo", by Donn F. Draeger (pages 137-143). Lots of interesting stuff, though having been written in 1974, may not completely reflect the current trend in research:


Takeda takumi-no-kami Soemon (1758-1853) [Sokaku’s grandfather], a scholar, taught theology and Neo-Confucian (Chu-Hsi) doctrine to the daimyo of the Aizu-han (present-day Fukushima Prefecture); these teachings were known as aiki-in-yo-ho, or “the doctrine of harmony of spirit based on yin-yang.” The Aizu-han was a stronghold of the Chu-Hsi doctrine because Hoshina (Matsudaira) Masayuki (1611-1672), a grandson of Tokugawa Ieyasu, the first Tokugawa shogun, was a staunch advocate of this bakufu-approved school of Neo-Confucainism when daimyo of the Aizu-han. The Aizu warriors were thus all educated in the Chu-Hsi ethic. Their interpretation of bushido was a strict code embodying Chu-Hsi concepts.
[The Aizu-han] secondary systems of hand-to-hand combat were subsumed under the generic term oshikiuchi. This system was based on the dualisms of the Neo-Confucian philosophy as taught in the aiki-in-yo-ho doctrine. Only samurai with high social and financial status were permitted to study oshikiuchi. Leadership for the propagation of oshikiuchi eventually devolved on Saigo Tanomo [Chikanori] (Hoshina [Chikanori]; 1829-1905), who became a minister of the Aizu-han and the head of Shirakawa castle.
Saigo Tanomo [Chikanori] was at this time [the dissolution of the Aizu-han, 1871] a Shinto priest at the Nikko Toshogu shrine, and it was there that he met Takeda Sokaku Minamoto Masayoshi (1858-1943), a highly skilled swordsman.
Saigo was so favorably impressed with Sokaku that he hired him to be his personal bodyguard; but the aging Saigo’s motives for employing Sokaku may have included his hope that Sokaku would study oshikiuchi. Be that as it may, this turn of events enabled Sokaku to devote his entire energy to the study of martial arts.
In 1877, Saigo Tanomo [Chikanori] sponsored Shida Shiro (b. 1868) and took him to Aizu to teach him oshikiuchi. After three years of arduous training [1879-1880], Shida move to Tokyo to further his education. While studying at the Seijo Gakko, a training school for army personnel, Shida enrolled in the Inoue [Keitaro] Dojo of the Tenjin Shin’yo ryu in 1881. Two years later, he caught the eye of Kano Jigoro, who was also a disciple of the Tenjin Shin’yo ryu. Kano was, as this time, struggling to build a reputation for his Kodokan Shida’s skill in hand-to-hand encounters convinced Kano that it would be a good idea to offer Shida an assistant instructorship at the Kodokan and Shida accepted [Saigo Shiro was 159cm tall, 58 kg in weight, and 20 years old in 1888]. Upon marrying Saigo Tanomo’s daughter in 1884, Shida became an adopted son of the Saigo family and therewith changed his name to Saigo Shiro. Using the technique of yama arashi (mountain storm), which is based on the principles and techniques of oshikiuchi, Saigo decisively defeated all comers and was instrumental in making both Kano and his Kodokan Judo famous.
Saigo Shiro’s precipitous departure made the elder Saigo look for another worthy disciple whom he could entrust with the complete teachings of oshikiuchi. While serving as a priest at the [Ryozen] Shrine, the elder Saigo selected Sokaku for this honor and began teaching him the once exclusive art of the Aizu warriors in 1898. Sokaku’s zest for martial learning, coupled with his skill in classical swordsmanship, led him to rapid mastery of oshikiuchi. In the same year in which he began his study under Saigo, Sokaku was authorized to instruct people selected from the former samurai class in Aizu. Shortly before the elder Saigo died, he encouraged Sokaku to spread the spirit and techniques of oshikiuchi on a wider basis. In compliance with his master’s wish, Sokaku gradually modified the original oshikiuchi teachings. In response to an official request he traveled to Hokkaido in 1908 to instruct police units in hand-to-hand combat.
Sokaku regarded oshikiuchi in its modified form as jujutsu. To lend prestige to his teachings he appended the name Daito ryu (not to be confused with the Daido ryu of the Aizu-han) to them. Daito ryu jujutsu, under Sokaku’s leadership, remained a conservative but effective system of self-defense.
The rationalism of Neo-Confucian doctrine is fundamental to all aiki-do teachings. This fact exemplifies the effect of a Chu-Hsi education on Aizu warriors and the influence of the aiki-in-yo-ho doctrine on their martial disciplines. The Aizu art of oshikiuchi, and consequently of Sokaku’s aiki-jujutsu, are both steeped in dualisms of the Chu-Hsi doctrine. The concept of ki, which is the essence of all aiki-do, is not without an antecedent in the Chu-Hsi dualisms, where it is described as “material force” in connectionn with its complement, ri, or “principle.” Ki is also explained by the Neo-Confucian Kaibara Ekken, who qualified the dualisms of Chu-Hsi and viewed ki as a monism. The doctrine of aiki-ho is found in the teachings of Yagyu Shinkage ryu, wherein the concept of aiki is made analogous to the action of a willow branch as it flings snow that has accumulated on its surface. And in the practical application of aiki technique, ki is stressed in the teachings of Tenjin shin’yo ryu, which were studied by Saigo Shiro and may have influenced the Meiji-era development of oshikiuchi.

Those interested in this subject, as well as the relationship of Aikido to Daito ryu, "ki", and other subjects, are encouraged to read the entire chapter.

chris davis 200
27th November 2003, 17:10
One thing about Daito Ryu - there is a truly vast number of techniques against an unarmed enemy. Most, in fact. Most jujutsu ryu, sengoku or edo, focused against someone armed with a kodachi or dagger. And despite any formality, these would be carried inside the palace - that was part of normal dress. To be unarmed was not the way one would present oneself.

Appologies but where do you get this information.

Virtually all of the techniques in daito ryu are from an armed attacker. Shomen, yokomen represent short sword,tanto attacks in daito Ryu. they are not hand strikes as found in many Aikido Schools.

Hence ALL techniques defending Shomen or Yokomen attacks are defending against armed opponents. Many techniques are from stabs, from pulls away from the sword lead next to you etc etc.

In fact only techniques where Emon Jime or double hand grabs are applied are not against weaponry attacks.

But then double hand grabs were to stop you reaching for a weapon whatever it may be so the weaponry aspect is stil very prevolent.

Maybe you miss interpretation of the perpose of the attacking / defending methods is part of the problem here.

Aikido is a modern system adapted by Ueshiba to modern times, sword cuts became knife hand strikes stabs became punches etc. This is not true of Daito Ryu.


It doesn't make sense to me that hundreds of techniques with an armed uke were stripped of their tanto. It's not that simple - a weapon in the hand changes how one grips, pins, attacks, etc.

The techniques are aganist armed attackers.

Also wepons such as Tessen, tanto and Hambo were part of the inside palace system, Sokaku always carried his tanto even when he slept. There are / were specific methods of use for this weapon. Hanbo was also used, Sokakus hanbo was around 2ft long, roughly a foot shorter than the classical size, due to his diminutive stature.

Although the Kondo line and the Takuma kai do not practice these methods still, other branches do, i understand.

I think that this is stemming from a gross misunderstanding of what Daito ryu Kata represent and and composed of.


But Daito Ryu has a very different rhythm, a different flow, a different expectation of what the uke will do. (and once again, I am venturing no opinion on effectiveness). Despite whatever differences they may have, aikido and Daito Ryu look far more alike and bear far more in common than either does to any other jujutsu ryu I've seen - at least in so far as koryu schools go.

This is due to Daito Ryu not being a Ju Jutsu style. it is an Aiki Ju Jutsu style. This is what creates the difference in form and application. There is Ju Jutsu in Daito Ryu and it does look and feel like JuJutsu but there is a principle differnce because of the application of aiki. This is what marks it out from other Koryu JuJutsu schools.

As for the aikido Daito Ryu connection, this is very clear and needs not to be explained again.

A principle difference between application of Daito Ryu and applcation of Aikido is the intension of defending against a skilled ARMED opponent.

Kind Regards
Chris

chris davis 200
27th November 2003, 17:36
Although the Kondo line and the Takuma kai do not practice these methods still, other branches do, i understand.

I think that this is stemming from a gross misunderstanding of what Daito ryu Kata represent and and composed of.


I did not mean that the Kondo Line and Takuma kai misunderstand. they quite obviously do! :)

I ment that many aikido ka dont, due to the changes made to their art by its founder.

just to clear that up - it wasnt very clear in my post.

:) :D

Ellis Amdur
27th November 2003, 18:00
Mr. Davis -

Shomen and Yokomen may represent armed attack, but they are not armed attack, nor in any of the public presentations I have seen, are they executed in the way a skilled person actually uses weapons. I understand what you are saying, but it makes as much sense to me as practicing gun disarms against a pointed finger. DR, if your perspective is the mainstream view, may assert that every technique is against an armed opponent - and maybe many of the kata are practicing one principle in isolation, but the kata publicly presented suggest that one do things that might make sense against an unarmed enemy, but would be suicide against an armed one.

From my perspective, just as aikido is a distilled adaptation of an older method (Daito-ryu), so too is Daito-ryu an adaptation of older methods which practiced against weapons in far more practical ways (Takenouchi-ryu would be a good example).

That Takeda went armed everywhere is irrelevant, really. That is the equivalent of saying BJJ is really against armed attackers because R. Gracie always carries a Sig or a Glock with him.

It may be that the Aizu han was different from other han and that weapons were absolutely forbidden, and thus, even the guards to the daimyo were unarmed and thus, practiced unarmed techniques against weapons as their primary responsibility, but I've read or heard nothing authoritative to support that thesis.

You quote me about DR having a different rhythm, etc., as does aikido - and note that, of course, this is because it is aikijutsu, not jujutsu, to which I can only say - Sigh. Yes. It is what it is, and that essential difference you could call aiki - or you could call it, as I do, "a very different rhythm, a different flow, a different expectation of what the uke will do." All I was saying is this is what makes it profoundly different from koryu schools.

I have seen, in person or on extensive video tapes - two/three hours per tape, sometimes, Takumakai, mainline, Roppokai, Inoue's group, and the white-haired gentleman (the name is escaping me right now - who recommends a same arm-same leg way of walking that has been discussed elsewhere), and several other groups as well.

I'm aware that some of these groups do not demonstrate their okuwaza, and perhaps all these are all weapons kata, very sophisticated fighting techniques with weapons. It is also true that as I am not a practitioner, I may not understand that the kata are all honing of principals not apparent to an uninitiated person.

But having studied nearly thirty years a system pre-jujutsu, that focused specifically on killing with short weapons, and having observed most of the remaining other systems with close-combat with weapons, I am familiar with the parameters of combat in older Japanese society as it pertained to small weapons. In this vein, the Daito-ryu method of training is definitely the long-way around to mastery in this area. If the literally hundreds of techniques/kata I have seen over the years are are the survival methods taught to protect, unarmed, against armed assasination in the palace, I hope they had good cleaning supplies for the tatami after the blood settled.

You seem to be assuming that I am observing DR from an aikido perspective. I'm not - I'm observing it from a koryu bujutsu perspective, and all I asserted it that it's training method is quite different from all older schools that came from a period when one had only a brief period to train (like basic training, so to speak) before one actually had to fight.

Best

Ellis Amdur

Ernesto Lemke
28th November 2003, 11:07
Originally posted by Ellis Amdur
......and the white-haired gentleman (the name is escaping me right now - who recommends a same arm-same leg way of walking that has been discussed elsewhere)
Ellis Amdur

Pardon the intrusion as this question is off-topic, but could someone point out the link to that thread? I apparently missed that one.

Regards,

Ernesto Lemke

chris davis 200
28th November 2003, 11:09
Shomen and Yokomen may represent armed attack, but they are not armed attack, nor in any of the public presentations I have seen, are they executed in the way a skilled person actually uses weapons. I understand what you are saying, but it makes as much sense to me as practicing gun disarms against a pointed finger.

Not really. the Maiai (sp) of the Yokomen / shomen attacks are set so that if the hand were to not be blocked it would easily pass the opponent, with the tip of the weapon in use cutting the opponent. as per normal kenjutsu practice. In aikido the hand itself is used, the maiai is set completely differently.

Also the attacking skill of an opponent in daito ryu is higher than that in aikido IMO. They attacker in daito Ryu strictly adheres to the attacking principles as they would be in Swordsmanship, not simple throwing hard a yokomen, being off balanced, out of control & easily lead.

We often train with Rubber tanto, Bokken and Shoto. After the aikinojutsu, as part of the Goshinyo-no-te, there are hanbo, tessen and tento usage ( as i understand it)

My teacher is a Menkyo in Ono Ha itto Ryu so he is very skilled with weaponry.


It may be that the Aizu han was different from other han and that weapons were absolutely forbidden, and thus, even the guards to the daimyo were unarmed and thus, practiced unarmed techniques against weapons as their primary responsibility, but I've read or heard nothing authoritative to support that thesis.

Again i think there is a misunderstanding here. Who has stated that weapons were not allowed?

Short swords, shoto, tanto, tessen, hanbo, jutte etc would all have been allowed inside. Hence the need for defenses against them, and the use of some of them in defense.

You have stated that if an attack on some one of status were to take place the lightly hood of it being an official style of attack would be low. Thus we can conclude that attacks would have been done in a surprise manner.

This would have required immediate action from the bodyguards, either with a weapon to hand, or with unarmed methods, OR as is the case in many many kata, a combination of both. An initial unarmed method followed by the use of a tanto or similar. Idori - Ipondori has a stab to the armpit in its original form. Many schools have changed this to a strike, but it was a stab originally. a stab to this location is common to other Koryu arts.


"....a different expectation of what the uke will do."

I believe this is definitely true of aikido, but i do not believe that this is true of daito ryu. We are often told to attack skillfully as we would with a sword, we all practice ono ha itto ryu so we have some skill with a weapon, some of us practice other koryu also in addition.


and the white-haired gentleman (the name is escaping me right now - who recommends a same arm-same leg way of walking that has been discussed elsewhere)

Okabayashi Shogen sensei.

Watching something on videotape and drawing the conclusions you have from it does not really sound like your usual deep research. I feel that you are interpreting the kata from an aikido perspective, as an Aikidoka. This is understandable, grouping similarities is easy to do. But does not really prove anything other than an aikidoka's understanding Daito ryu.


But having studied nearly thirty years a system pre-jujutsu, that focused specifically on killing with short weapons, and having observed most of the remaining other systems with close-combat with weapons, I am familiar with the parameters of combat in older Japanese society as it pertained to small weapons.

Agreed - your credentials are not in question here my friend.

But have you ever seen Koryu Ju Jutsu schools 'Simulating' weaponry attacks? Short weapon attacks CAN be simulated in terms of ju jutsu. The principles remain whether you have a tanto in your hand or not. Hence the omission of weapons from demonstrations.

Also as i understand it Kondo sensei did not study deeply the weaponry arts. As he is one of the main disseminators of the art maybe it is on his line that you are drawing your main conclusions.

Other lines have a greater representation of the older movements of daito ryu in relation to weaponry, because of a more extensive knowledge of weaponry systems.

If the literally hundreds of techniques/kata I have seen over the years are are the survival methods taught to protect, unarmed, against armed assasination in the palace, I hope they had good cleaning supplies for the tatami after the blood settled.

The formulation of set Kata happened via Sokaku and Tokimune. It is possible that many kata were shuffled around the order of the system.

I suspect you have only seen Shoden Waza, as

Aiki-no-jutsu ----------------------------- 53 Techniques.
Hiden okgui------------------------------- 38 Techniques.
Goshinyo-no-te--------------------------- 84 Techniques.

Are not often shown. These make up more waza than the shodens 118 and are the more direct teachings of defense. especially Goshinyo-no-te. Surely it would be more appropriate to judge after viewing the majority of kata rather than just Shoden waza.

Part of the reason for shuffeling the kata around was to enable novices to learn the basic principles prior to gaining knowledge in the advance methods. This would not have been the case in its origional format (high ranking bushi would have already been skilled JuJutsu ka)- basics would already be there, so many of the Shoden would have only been taught in one form, not with variation.


I'm observing it from a koryu bujutsu perspective, and all I asserted it that it's training method is quite different from all older schools that came from a period when one had only a brief period to train (like basic training, so to speak) before one actually had to fight.

Indeed. But we are not talking about battlefield JuJutsu here. We are talking about a closed door system taught to high ranking bushi, which contained traditional etiquette and ceremony alongside martial methods.

The requirement for basic skills training would not have been there.

Most / all high ranking bushi (many in a body guard capacity) would already be extremely proficient in JuJutsu, Kenjutsu etc etc. So why teach BASIC juJutsu methods to someone already highly skilled in JuJutsu.

Hence the difference you observe. Many of the other Koryu were designed to teahch from scratch if you will. Oshikiuchi was design to advance and already advanced warrior.

kind regards
Chris

Ellis Amdur
28th November 2003, 19:54
I really don't have much more to add here. Few points though:

1) You seem to be vested in the idea that I am seeing things from an aikido perspective. I actually have four years total training in aikido, from 1974-78, I believe. I have nearly thirty years training in one koryu, and twenty-five in another. I even have more years training in judo than aikido (tho' I would not call myself a judoka either), and when I look at Daito-ryu as well as aikido, one of the things I consider is if the throw is mechanically possible. I have only brief experiences of feeling DR, and to date, I experienced nothing remarkable whatsoever. But I would be happy to be astonished some day (I have some photos in my collection of a skinny little t'ai chi teacher shrugging me off and me, horizonal in the air, flying past him in the next frame).
2) Some aikido teachers claim exactly as you do - that the maai of yoko/shomen is a weapon's maai. This is congruent, in either case, with my example of practicing gun disarms against a person pointing a finger. That your particular school uses simulated weapons is, of course, far better practice.
3) I'm assuming you practice Hakuho-kai, given your reference to your teacher's Ono-ha Itto-ryu. (sorry I forgot the name previously) I watched a long long video of an all Japan Hakuhokai gathering - I'd have to go back and watch it again to see what levels of techniques were practiced, but nothing in that video changed my opinion. That I have not seen all of the oku-waza is a given, which I've noted. I've given my opinion, as originally asked, based on what I've observed. Some of which, particularly the multiple attacks, were as unrealistic and magic touch as anything I've seen in aikido. (But, the stocky bald-headed man is great! He moves, he keeps his center, very impressive guy). Maybe the okuwaza are so totally different that viewing or experiencing them would turn my opinion around.
4) Contrary to your statement, I have not seen any general significantly higher level of attacking skill in Daito-ryu practitioners than aikido practitioners. In both cases, I've seen everything from the ridiculously inept to quite skilled. Interestingly, Mochizuchi Sensei, who had a Daito-ryu menjo of some kind from Ueshiba, and was a practitioner of KSR, is reported to have very publically reamed out the assembled Daito-ryu presenters at one of Aiki gatherings in Japan - saying that their weapon's work was inept.
5) It is a very frequent claim about Oshikiuchi that the Daito-ryu was for the unarmed inner palace guards, etc. etc. That your line doesn't claim this is good information.
6) I have NEVER seen a koryu jujutsu school simulate weapons attacks - they use weapons to practice weapons attacks. The only exception is Kuroda Tetsuzan, and he informed me that these were practice methods he developed.

But here are the most important points:
a. High ranking bushi were in the later years of Edo the most combatively inept samurai. The best fighters were those outside the palace. They were in better physical shape (having to farm to make ends meet, often enough) and they trained more rigorously, having to spend less time on bureaucractic functions which were the main responsibilities of the higher ranking bushi. Thus, some farmer-warrior practicing some rough, simple martial art, repetitively training in a few simple techniques who comes howling across the tatami with a short sword out, ready to stab rather than cut, by the way, is a pretty dangerous opponent. That someone stops his attack without a weapon drawn (albeit drawing it afterwards) is not anything close to a sure bet. In Araki-ryu, for example, our kogusoku is a grappling scenario with the attacker with a blade, and the defender without. But the assumption is that most of the time, our opponent close to our level of training, we will die most of the time. It is a desparation response, when no weapon is available.
b. With the increase in rank, the less jujutsu was practiced. "Aristocratic" kenjutsu, such as Itto-ryu eschewed hand-to-hand, trying to maintain a cutting maai. Jujutsu/sogobujutsu, was practiced less and less by bushi and more and more by commoners and low ranking warriors. They were considered sweaty and low-class. I am not that comprehensively informed, but I've never read of a jujutsu system that was an otome ryu - these were, to my knowledge, almost always weapons arts.

Because of these two points, one part of your basic thesis is suspect to me. I do not believe, based on the historic record, that the higher ranked bushi already had the basics of "hard knocks" and the essential knowledge of combat to make oshikiuchi the icing on the cake, so to speak.

C. And Finally, there is absolutely no evidence that Daito-ryu existed before Takeda Sokaku, nor that oshikiuchi was more than etiquette training.

Therefore, my opinion, which is where I have to leave it: Daito-ryu was not the sophisticated otome-waza of the higher ranked warriors of Aizu han. What is remarkable is the idea that the Japanese, compulsive record keepers that they were, have no record of this otome-ryu. Heck, there are scrolls of ninja ryu available! I firmly believe that Daito-ryu was the creation of Takeda-Sokaku, drawn together from all of his studies in an utterly unique form of training. I'm aware that your in-house traditions are different, so at this point, it's just my opinion, - - -so what.

Best

Ellis Amdur

Chris Li
28th November 2003, 21:21
Originally posted by Ellis Amdur
I firmly believe that Daito-ryu was the creation of Takeda-Sokaku, drawn together from all of his studies in an utterly unique form of training. I'm aware that your in-house traditions are different, so at this point, it's just my opinion, - - -so what.

FWIW, Kimura Tatsuo has Yukiyoshi Sagawa expressing a similiar opinion in "Tomei na Chikara". Sagawa also admits that he has no proof, and that it is merely his opinion. Still, the credentials of the source certainly make me consider the theory seriously.

Another student of Sagawa's (but who later switched to the Yamamoto Kakuyoshi line), Yoshimaru Keisetsu, also expresses this theory in some of his books.

Best,

Chris

Robert Wolfe
29th November 2003, 21:47
(But, the stocky bald-headed man is great! He moves, he keeps his center, very impressive guy).

I believe that would be Ozeki Shigeyoshi, who heads the Hakuho-ryu dojo in Fukuoka.

chris davis 200
1st December 2003, 11:00
I believe that would be Ozeki Shigeyoshi, who heads the Hakuho-ryu dojo in Fukuoka.

I believe you are right - he is one of Okabayashi Sensei's top students.


High ranking bushi were in the later years of Edo the most combatively inept samurai.

I would definatley say that you would have more knowledge about this that i.

But i would imagine that the bodygaurds of people of great importance would have been very highly skilled warriors? Both in unarmed and armed combat?

Is this correct?


Because of these two points, one part of your basic thesis is suspect to me. I do not believe, based on the historic record, that the higher ranked bushi already had the basics of "hard knocks" and the essential knowledge of combat to make oshikiuchi the icing on the cake, so to speak.

Indeed. This is just my understanding of the historical events.

Kind regards
Chris

glad2bhere
1st December 2003, 18:08
Dear Nathan:

Almost three years back there was the typical arguement about the relationship between the Korean Hapkido arts and DRAJJ. The only reason I mention it is because one rather obscure arguement went that there could only be the most superficial relationship between these arts because the Korean material lacked a corpus of information for the appropriate use of technique under the restricted conditions governement or religious environs something the contributor was adamant could be found in the higher areas of DRAJJ study. Despite the fact that one finds regular references to material practiced by "royal families" in Korea I have yet to find anyone who presents the correct procedures and protocols that offer guidance for the use of violence under these rarified conditions. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Nathan Scott
1st December 2003, 21:53
Hi Ellis,


Originally posted by Ellis Amdur
I firmly believe that Daito-ryu was the creation of Takeda-Sokaku, drawn together from all of his studies in an utterly unique form of training. I'm aware that your in-house traditions are different, so at this point, it's just my opinion, - - -so what.

There may be a fine line between this and what Daito ryu exponents refer to as "revival".

Those within DR seem to concur that the name Daito ryu was instituted by Sokaku, and that the Daito ryu of Sokaku is comprised of three influences - the Takeda family art (which did exist and was renamed later by Sokaku as Daito ryu), Aizu oshikiuchi, which is said to have been based on the Takeda family art and developed in parallel for a few generations, and Sokaku's own experiences and innovations. Sokaku re-united the family art with the Aizu oshikiuchi, and with his own research and ideas for restructuring, renamed the art as Daito-ryu.

DR refers to Sokaku as the "Chuko-no-So", or revivor of DR. Two of the influences are Takeda family based, which collectivcely claim lineage back to Minamoto Yoshimitsu and his research at his "Daitokan", which is likely the reason for Sokaku's decision to rename the art Daito-ryu. Also, since the Takeda family art was now going to be taught openly, it could be that Sokaku thought it appropriate to rename it, since family arts are not typically taught to non-family members and much of the new innovations were not from the Takeda family.

Of course it's all speculation, and the history of DR could all be complete BS from a historical perspective (as can most koryu histories for that matter), but the depth and structure of the ryugi represent compelling evidence towards the belief that Sokaku did not completely "invent" the art from his own experience. Unfortunately, it tends to be the people initiated in the methods who develop this opinion. The fact is that no evidence can be produced to support Daito-ryu's claims to pre-Sokaku existance (at least not in an unbroken transmission line).

I came across another well known koryu recently that had a "chuko-no-so" in their lineage, but can't recall which one it was right now. It might be useful to compare how other arts have used the term.

Personally, I view the transmitted historical claims of koryu more as lore than as fact - unless of course compelling documentation suggests otherwise. But that does not mean that their transmitted histories are not important to students of their arts though. The transmitted history of DR, for example, site Emperor Seiwa (martial sumo/tegoi reference) as the roots, and Minamoto Yoshimitsu as the founder (war dead dissection, spider vs. bird, movement and rhythm based on musical experience, etc.). This historical lore offers technical hints towards the principles of the art, whether they really happened or not.

However, I would not use undocumentable historical claims such as that found in DR as bragging rights publicly, but rather, let the techniques transmitted do the bragging for me. Claims is claims, and half the arts out there claiming to be koryu probably aren't. The vast majority of the ones that really are will probably die off in this generation, which is truly sad.

BTW, tne reason for dating arts as koryu or not is based largely on the concept of whether or not such historical techniques were proven in war or civil combat. Sokaku killed a number of people in self-defense using both weapons (mostly sword) and empty hand techniques, at least some of which has been transmitted through the art. He and his son also taught the art to military and police in particular, because of the effectiveness. From this point of view, the art has been tested within the last 100 years. Much like Toyama ryu, which was founded in 1925. Koryu.com lists Toyama ryu as a koryu dispite the late founding date, since it was created specifically for use in war, and because it was tested in combat.

Just some more factors to consider,

Ellis Amdur
2nd December 2003, 09:11
CHRIS - As for the inner guards being of high level, this is not really borne out in fact. Nor is it in our own times. The best soldiers are those who have had hardscrabble lives - not the rich kids. The latter may be better nourished, but they don't, on average, do as well in tolerating deprivation.

Simply, otome-ryu were not secret training societies - they were restricted training groups. For example, Tatsumi-ryu was the otome-ryu of the Sakura han, and it's historical records are quite accessible.

NATHAN -

Chuko no So is a quite common appellation - for example, it is used to refer to Suneya Ryosuke, who probably radical renovated Suneya kei (family) naginata, derived from Toda-ryu into Toda-ha Buko-ryu. The usually nuance of this term is radical renovation (like turning "Rounders" into modern baseball, for example), or reviving something almost lost/degenerated/devitalized.

As for a Takeda family art, again, this is debatable. It is true that some family arts had no record keeping - for example, I taught one son kenjutsu, and another a fair amount of elbows, knees, head-butts and some grappling. After I die, they could conceivably get together, and either reorganize that material with other things they might have studied or dig up my Araki-ryu notes, input what they learned, and cobble together, for better or worse, a new system - in either case, they'd be chuko no so of Amdur-kei - that is, if future generations thought what they did was good - chuko no so is not something you call yourself.

Takeda elder definitely knew sumo, and other martial arts. Surely all of that contributed to Takeda Sokaku's development. An ancient "Daito-ryu," passed down in the Takeda family is really dubious to me, however. Again, in the earlier periods, the KISS principal was paramount - quick, effective basic training - and so, if there was an earlier form, it would have to have been radically different. (And why, again, are there no makimono - even as a Takeda art, this one is claimed to have been taught to the clansman - and therefore, it would have been documented.)

You wrote, "BTW, the reason for dating arts as koryu or not is based largely on the concept of whether or not such historical techniques were proven in war or civil combat." No, koryu means arts created before an arbitrary date, usually the inception of Meiji. Many koryu have nothing to do with war or civil combat. That Takeda killed people doesn't make it koryu, any more than if he preached aiki as the realization of the kami/love, etc. I don't have time to look at Diane and Meik's site, but I'd wager that Toyama-ryu was classified as a bujutsu, or modern bugei, not a koryu. If they did call it a "koryu," they made up a new use of terminology. (Although, I suppose it could fall in the category that some of us are using - "neo koryu," meaning arts that have a koryu flavor, or system of passing down knowledge, etc., sometimes for better, and sometimes for worse.

I find one of the most suggestive and interesting bits of data to be this. In Tokimune's bio of his father, he describes his encounter with a karate master and their subsequent measurement of skill. He describes Sokaku brooding on the karate man's speed and then his realization that he uses the sword faster, and how he adapts sword technique to empty hand and defeats the karateman. Isn't it interesting that Tokimune doesn't say, "My father brooded on the guy's speed, and realized that his 4th technique of aiki no jutsu, or the 7th technique of hiden okugi would be just the ticket to defeat him." He says nothing about his father using Daito-ryu, merely that he adapted sword to empty hand.

All of which leads me back to this. I think Takeda was a genius, a master swordsman, who had knowledge of both sumo and jujutsu, and used that as a vessel to "insert" his principles of the mastery of the sword into empty-hand technique. And when he taught, he showed basic principals in improvisatory fashion, doing whatever he felt like to the either helpless or willing uke's. They and others noted down what they were taught and made them into kata. That's why each group has basic principals the same but different order and to some degree, content. If you can do anything (sort of like sketching with people's bodies), then you can easily end up with a lot of "kata."

Some of what Takeda did was brilliant, and some, I believe, emerged because he was in a position to do whatever he felt like and it would be accepted (some of the multiple attack stuff, and some of the "pretzel" waza, which, according to Ogami, Hisa never wanted presented, because he thought it was unrealistic and just showmanship.)

BTW, two other thoughts on history. Tokimune was asked who was a better practitioner of Daito-ryu, Hisa or Ueshiba, and he said, "of course, Ueshiba. he studied with my father the longest." At another point, he referred to Ueshiba as his father's favorite. Also, I definitely agree that aikido became something that is, in some ways, radically different from DR, but it is interesting that in Hisa's case, TAkeda simply gave them three notebooks of info to ADD to what UEshiba had previously taught in eight (the Soden). Then he gives Hisa his menkyo kaiden. So in the 30's, Ueshiba was still doing, as far as Takeda was concerned, DR.


Best

Ellis Amdur

Ron Tisdale
2nd December 2003, 14:40
Ecellent post Ellis, thank you. Am I mistating your view if I guess that you feel Daito ryu / Aikido is fine if you already outclass your opponant, but that if all skills are pretty much equal, its the strong basics of sumo/judo/karate/etc. that would win out?

Just currious,
Ron

chris davis 200
2nd December 2003, 15:21
CHRIS - As for the inner guards being of high level, this is not really borne out in fact. Nor is it in our own times. The best soldiers are those who have had hardscrabble lives - not the rich kids. The latter may be better nourished, but they don't, on average, do as well in tolerating deprivation.

Hmmm. I would say that superior training, in weaponry, unarmed combat and tactics is what makes them better for said position.

Your average secret service bodyguard would have a greater technical and physical ability than your average infantry guy. in modern times that is.

Historically i would imaging that the very best fighters would have been selected from the ranks to protect important dignitaries, not just some guy that is clever or of high status.

Admittedly this is not born out of fact BUT common sence would sudjest that they were very skilled.

To attempt to protect a vunerable target with poorly trained fighters is ridiculous - and as you are aware the Japanese were master tacticians, not stupid fools.

After all these are just our opinions. This subject will never be proven one way or another. Your opinions are not Borne out of fact, my opinions are not either.

I do practice the art however and have witnessed & practiced the higher level movements first hand.

To think that someone just made them all up, such a vaste syllabus, using such 'apparantley old methods'??

This seems less probably to me than it actually being developed over time as a martial tradition. I have studied other Koryu and it seems deeper than most.

cheers
chris

Ellis Amdur
2nd December 2003, 17:07
Ron -

1) I think the best "soft" martial artists - who use any sophisticated system of angles, neuromuscular organization, etc. - call it aiki or any other term - are people who are familiar with impact, with rough-and-tumble background, etc. Without that background, I don't think it likely that one can bring off the sophisticated stuff. (If the ideological claims are true, here's no reason, then, why DR or aikido shouldn't work in K-1 or UFC, - even if certain atemi are forbidden. Old stories of both DR and aikido claim taryu-shiai against judoka, etc., and nowhere are there accounts of the guys from the other ryu crippled or killed. BTW, it doesn't "count" if you end up using other ryu's methods to win your fights. A friend of mine, an old aikido shihan and I were talking about a rather infamous aikidoka and I asked what techniques he used to win his many fights. My friend laughed and said, "Oh, he always reverted to judo."

Chris - Good point re the Secret Service - at what they do, which is non-military, they are, of course, far better than a soldier. But in many senses, the Japanese stopped being "master tacticians" by mid-Edo, because they had no need. I've written this elsewhere, but in most of the 2000 - 3000 farmer rebellions, the peasants generally defeated their bushi overlords with farm implements, and the bushi had to retreat to the castle, get guns and put the rebellion down. They were out of practice, busy as bureaucrats, they didn't work with their hands, whatsoever. (Admittedly this was less so in such areas as Satsuma [the Sparta of Japan] or Aizu.)

I'm not convinced that Daito-ryu would be all that "hard" for one man - genius - to create. Most ryu started out as one man's creation. It is a matter of it being one or two principals expressed in a lot of variations, rather than 100's of separate techniques, all of which one has to remember. That's why I think current-day DR is the product of someone(s) codifying Takeda's improvisations. I don'tgmean he created DR out of the air, with no background whatsoever. Of course what he did had roots in older things - jujutsu, sumo, and maybe a Takeda family method of jujutsu was among them - and maybe oshikiuchi WAS a "secret service" combat, despite no evidence whatsoever to support this. But either Takeda created it out of "whole cloth," or he took an undiffernentiated conglomeration of knowledge and crafted it into his Daito-ryu (chuko no so). In either event, he was the creative genius who architected DR.

Best

Ellis Amdur

Cady Goldfield
2nd December 2003, 17:30
<i>Am I mistating your view if I guess that you feel Daito ryu / Aikido is fine if you already outclass your opponant, but that if all skills are pretty much equal, its the strong basics of sumo/judo/karate/etc. that would win out?</i>

Ron, I'm not Ellis, but... ;)

Who sez that Daito-ryu doesn't have strong basics?!

Daito-ryu as I know and have been taught it, is a powerful, powerful tool kit. This, because the person with whom I train applies its principles in ways that reflect "rough-use enviroments." However, I have also seen it wielded in a way I could only call "emasculated."

Its principles are sound, and while Sokaku and others may have come up with "dojo techniques" for their own pleasure or for teaching purposes, it's a mistake to assume that their adoption (or development of new dojo techniques) by lesser practitioners makes them representative of the effectiveness of the core principles from which they were derived.

Also, don't fall into the trap of thinking of "Daito-ryu," "jujutsu," (BTW, Daito-ryu IS jujutsu...), "sumo" or "judo" (which, BTW, is also jujutsu -- but with the intentionally-lethal stuff removed to make it ammenable as a sport) as blanket, homogenous arts, they are not. They are only a basic toolkit of working principles, most with a laundry list of memorizable techniques (kata) that illustrate those principles and permit practical application of them. Their application will vary with the user.

Providing that the principles of a given art are sound and broad enough to address the basic issues of combat, the fate of their effectiveness lies in the hands of the wielder, not in an assumption of "superiority" or "inferiority" of the art itself.

In the hands of a brilliant practitioner, bujutsu is honed to something of great efficiency and effectiveness and improved upon in the sense that it reflects the user's specific talents, needs and experience. In the hands of lesser practitioners, though, they are at best used as-is and passed on undiminished but also unimproved.

The weapon doesn't wield the man; the man wields the weapon.

Ron Tisdale
2nd December 2003, 18:37
No arguement here Cady (good to read you again). I didn't mean to sound like I was putting anything down. I was simply trying to borrow Ellis's critical eye...its so much sharper than my own.

By basics, I didn't mean that Daito ryu doesn't have them per se...more that the rough and tumble of non-cooperative practice can yeild certain benefits even with a limited set of techniques, and a limiting set of rules. This is more reflective of my current state of mind and the fact that I'm challenging some of my preconceptions quite a bit these days.

Its all just grist for the mill...

Thank you Ellis for your response. I think I've heard that too...and that Mochizuki used to end up doing judo quite a bit when faced with opponants in europe. The question is, did he use the 'aiki' of judo when he did that??

Ron :)

Nathan Scott
3rd December 2003, 04:41
Hi Ellis,

Thanks for the reply.

I know that there is not much known about the Takeda family art(s), but as you know there are numerous references to arts associated with the DR Takeda line that include Takeda & Ogasawara ryu kyubajutsu, and Koshu ryu Gunpo, as well as a number of derivitive ryu-ha that claim roots to these arts. The techniques in Heiho Okugisho (supposedly a Takeda family catalog of strategy, attributed to a likely fictional editor) include jujutsu, which do bare resemblence to DR Jujutsu. I know, they also bare resemblence to other jujutsu arts as well, but...

If your point is that it is unlikely that a Takeda family art has been passed down in an unbroken or radicaly unchanged condition (or at all), I'd tend to agree. But I'd also guess the same for most koryu lineages I've looked at, that either have likely or known gaps in their lineage, or are known/believed to have been largely recreated. It's not that I'm trying to defend the likelyhood of Daito ryu's historical claims though, as I find them highly suspect as well. But it does seem to me that many "koryu" arts suffer from similar restructuring and absense of supporting evidence, while making unlikely claims to divine dreams and wild tengu inspirations!

I remember that Tokimune claimed that there were some kind of records being kept at the Ise Shrine in Fukushima (not the main Ise Shrine in Ise), and that only priests had access to them. He claimed to have been permitted to view them since he had some famial connection to priesthood, but I'm not clear what it is that is supposed to be contained within them. As such, I suppose this is neither here nor there.

Also, Sokaku is reported to have carried around a duffle bag of sorts filled with enrollment books and scrolls, some of which is thought to have been given to him by Saigo Tanomo. But this stuff is apparently lost or destroyed. I don't know whether there ever were records to a "Takeda family art", but if there were, they seem to have been lost, so we're still left with speculation.

As far as Jujutsu and the KISS principle, etc., agreed. My impression (and I could be wrong) is that the original Takeda family art - if it was extant and intact - may have been fairly standard jujutsu, perhaps similar to what Kondo Sensei demonstrates now. The more sophisticated stuff is believed to have been developed in the Oshikiuchi line, that was supposedly originally based on the Takeda art, but developed in a different context.

There is a big difference in the techniques in movement seen in Kondo Sensei's line (for example) and lines like the Sagawa dojo and Kodokai, and I think this might be due to th periods in time the principals studied with Sokaku, personally. Sokaku is believed to have begun training or received his final training in oshikiuchi around 1898, revamped the art(s) afterwards, and a few years later moved to Hokkaido. Sokaku is know to have been teaching swordsmanship prior to this, so that could be why he chose to adapt sword methods to empty hand. But it does raise the question of how much jujutsu he knew prior to this, which I think was your point. I seem to recall reading that Sokaku more or less adapted his swordsmanship to empty handed methods anyway, which again would explain the major changes. Such a thing would qualify as "heavy restoration". ;)


You wrote, "BTW, the reason for dating arts as koryu or not is based largely on the concept of whether or not such historical techniques were proven in war or civil combat." No, koryu means arts created before an arbitrary date, usually the inception of Meiji.

That's what I basically believed as well. I do remember hearing that there were other considerations other than founding date though, and seem to recall that Toyama ryu was being semi-formally lumped in with koryu arts because of the reasons I stated previously. Frankly, I can see the logic for both sides of the fence - the arbitrary date for koryu is selected based on relevance and testing of the methods (believed to generally coincide with the abolishment of the samurai class). I reckon this could go either way.

Following is the link to koryu.com, which does not differentiate Toyama ryu from the other koryu listed, but I'm very much open to correction in this regard:

http://www.koryu.com/guide/toyama.html

As to the rest of your comments, including those of Ueshiba basically teaching DR in the 1930's, they seem like good observations to me!

Regards,

Ellis Amdur
3rd December 2003, 07:34
Nathan -

1) The JJ in the Heiho Okugisho are so generic as to resemble any ryu, really.
2) One thing that is quite interesting is that the "kempo" in H.O. is represented by men in Chinese style clothes. This seems to be a conventional view - that pugilism was a Chinese specialty.
3) In fact, I believe in "divine dreams and wild tengu inspirations." This sort of phenomena - a non-rational gestalt experience is a human experience - quite a few scientific discoveries (in math and physics, in particular) came about in this manner. There's no doubt that other koryu had renovation, recreation, etc. My initial point, in the essay that gave impetus to the thread includes the following: there is a considerable "drag" on the parameters of other koryu - until modern times, what with taryu jiai and social pressure, even renovated arts would have the same basic assumptions, arrangement, and many qualities in common. I was commenting and still find remarkable how DR is outside those parameters, which makes it such a singular art, something that would take a singular man in a period where all the rules were crumbling anyway (Meiji) to come up with. When we look at modern arts (including Toyama-ryu, BTW) where those anchoring influences are non-existent, we can see how loose the parameters have become.
4) Sometimes I think Kondo has become unfairly criticized for what he presents. There seems to be an assumption, which I believe may be incorrect, that he can't do the aiki/sophisticated stuff, just because he doesn't present it. As this stuff used to be gokui, he may simply be true to how the art was expected to be presented and passed down. Sagawa can be regarded, I believe, as someone who continued the creative process with DR, and Kodo seems to have made a specialty in the teaching and presentation of the aiki techniques. Truth of the matter is, I have no idea how "good" any of these fellows are, not having felt the technique for myself. But I wonder if it is either fair or accurate to have Kondo rather frequently held up as the jujutsu/crude side of DR, almost as if he didn't learn the real good stuff. I wonder if that's really true.

Best

Ellis Amdur
www.ellisamdur.com

P.S. Sent you an email about the waxwood staves.

glad2bhere
3rd December 2003, 16:10
Dear Ellis:

"......Truth of the matter is, I have no idea how "good" any of these fellows are, not having felt the technique for myself. But I wonder if it is either fair or accurate to have Kondo rather frequently held up as the jujutsu/crude side of DR, almost as if he didn't learn the real good stuff. I wonder if that's really true......"

You last comment touches on something that I have given a lot of thought to over the years, that is, the role of individual growth and actualization in the arts that one practices. It seems that often when these discussions arise, and I seem to note this particularly among koryu traditions, there is little room made for the possibility of practitioners spontaneously developing insights on their own given that they have been exposed to sufficent amounts of information regarding the art otherwise. In my own experience I have found that I have ben able to develop concepts regarding my own practice and though such information was nor formally transmitted to me by my teacher its importance is often confirmed by other source in time.

I think I understand some of the strictures practicing a koryu incurs. I just wonder if we are giving sufficient credit to people for being intelligent enough to build on what is given them and produce conclusions on their own. Thoughts?

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Cady Goldfield
3rd December 2003, 16:32
Originally posted by Ellis Amdur
Nathan -

4) Sometimes I think Kondo has become unfairly criticized for what he presents. There seems to be an assumption, which I believe may be incorrect, that he can't do the aiki/sophisticated stuff, just because he doesn't present it. As this stuff used to be gokui, he may simply be true to how the art was expected to be presented and passed down. Sagawa can be regarded, I believe, as someone who continued the creative process with DR, and Kodo seems to have made a specialty in the teaching and presentation of the aiki techniques. Truth of the matter is, I have no idea how "good" any of these fellows are, not having felt the technique for myself. But I wonder if it is either fair or accurate to have Kondo rather frequently held up as the jujutsu/crude side of DR, almost as if he didn't learn the real good stuff. I wonder if that's really true.


That is a fair comment, given that for those outside mainline DR, it's none of our business what Kondo's actual skills are, and a matter of conjecture only.

However, I am certain that there are those from other DR branches who have met and trained with Mr. Kondo, and who could make valid assessments as to whether he has certain skills -- even if he did not openly demonstrate them. Experienced practitioners may well be able to tell whether someone "has" or "has not," although the individual might be witholding elements of his waza.

I wonder why, as mainline DR is so much more "public" than most of the DR scions known for their high-level aiki content, it would choose to hide aiki. Mainline DR's conservative siblings do not demonstrate publicly, but neither do they deny that high level aiki is in their curriculum.

My conjecture is that many contemporary practitioners of DR know *of* aiki, but like many of Sokaku's students, they perhaps didn't receive aiki. They can transmit only what they know, with the realization that there is an element missing from their curriculum. Even without that element, their system is effective and sound; it's just that with the addition of the missing element, it could be even more effective, and have greater depth and sophistication.

Ellis Amdur
3rd December 2003, 18:20
Bruce -

I'd be covering old ground in going into too much detail - (see Skoss' Book III for my essay, "Renovation and Innovation in Koryu"). But - until modern times, "koryu" weren't koryu - they were "genryu" - current systems - and there was a place for development, innovation, etc. To some degree, there was a failsafe in that it was expected to work. Jujutsu schools had rugged competitions. As for weapon's systems, there were taryu jiai, as well as the debate between pure kata vs. systems with safety equipment/precursors to kendo, etc.

I think the fundamental questions are if the person has extensive and deep enough grounding in the system before innovating (these days, people are ready to "improve" systems after a year or so) and if they have the talent and ability to make something worthwhile - and in many cases, how would one know. One great thing about grappling systems is that testing is possible. In modern times, it's pretty hard to do in many systems.

Cady - generically speaking, one can take a vow not to show certain levels of one's own ryu. For example, I once saw Sugino demonstrate TSKSR, and announce "here are the gokui iai of the ryu," and he demonstrated things I'd never seen before, which just by the viewing "explained" a lot about the iaijutsu that usually was publicly presented. (I immediately went to my TSKSR friends in the mainline, and told them how I understood their gokui, and here's what the forms were. It was more amusing to me than to them, I'm afraid. Shall I post it here? . .. . ..See what I mean - you cringe - I'd either, as an outsider, post something wrongheaded or worse, post something right that really shouldn't have been revealed. I'm willing to believe the possibility that the mainline has strictures on what should and should not be publicly presented, which could, given others are doing so, lead to an erroneous view of Mr. Kondo. I'm not an advocate - simply, I've gotten used to reading a certain viewpoint of Mr. Kondo from people who are not his students which may not do him justice.

Best

Ellis Amdur
www.ellisamdur.com

glad2bhere
3rd December 2003, 18:46
Dear Cady and Ellis:

If I "marry" my previous comment to Cadys' last comment I find I come out not too far from the place I find in the Hapkido arts.

Early Choi lineage traditionalists (prior to 1970) continue to profess the original teachings of Yong Sul Choi, the generally accepted wellspring of modern Hapkido traditions. This includes folks like my teacher, Kwang Sik Myung and HIS teacher Han Jae Ji. The execution of this material is characteristically "yu sool" (aka "ju jutsu"). The premise is that the higher levels of execution in cluding "hapki yu sool" and "hapki sool" will be disclosed at the appropriate time in the future. Until that occasion the Masters, as they are, reserve that material to themselves and rarely if ever express it and only under the most covert conditions.

Compare this with Later Choi lineage traditionalists, practicing, roughly after 1970. Such extensively practiced individuals as Sang Yun Kim and Hyun-soo Lim routinely include "hapki yu sool" (aka: aiki-ju-jutsu) material as a matter of course in regular classes and seminar. The expectation is that students will learn such practice as part and parcel of their MA education.

I mention this because I have taken exception to the concept that "secret teachings" are reserved to some time as yet unspecified in the future whence the student shall prove worthy. An extreme example of the principle is my sword master who related that formerly it took 20 years for a good student to make 4th dan in Kum Bup. I have trained for over 5 years and have made it to 3rd dan. I am not sure that there is a sheet-of-paper difference between my work and that of many other BB above and below me.

Please understand that what I am writing is not an indictment of an art or personalities of which I will be the first to admit rank ignorance. Rather I am challenging the blind-obedience to an attitude which may or may not serve a good purpose, and which, as Ellis pointed out, may contribute to unwarrented judgements regarding various personalities. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

Cady Goldfield
3rd December 2003, 18:51
Ellis,

I understand and appreciate your point, and do not refute its validity. It is very reasonable to give the benefit of the doubt to such a stance in the face of our lack of first-hand exposure to bald facts.

However, I am also a firm proponent of Ockham's Razor. ;)

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html
(scroll to the example of the two variations of near-identical planetary orbital theories)

That said...

IMO, it is always better to take the path of courtesy in non-life-or-death matters. After all, 1. in the Great Grand Scheme of Things, does it all really matter to those of us not in that system? 2. Kondo-san owes us nothing, while gossipy folks like me merrily yak behind his back. 3. It's none of our freakin' business.

In view of that, I defer to your explanation and opinion, which are far more gracious and reasonable than mine. But, I do have my own second-hand facts and evidence, as well as valid first-hand experiences in my own training, which color my opinions on a variety of matters. :)

Dan Harden
4th December 2003, 01:20
4) Sometimes I think Kondo has become unfairly criticized for what he presents. There seems to be an assumption, which I believe may be incorrect, that he can't do the aiki/sophisticated stuff, just because he doesn't present it. As this stuff used to be gokui, he may simply be true to how the art was expected to be presented and passed down. Sagawa can be regarded, I believe, as someone who continued the creative process with DR, and Kodo seems to have made a specialty in the teaching and presentation of the aiki techniques. Truth of the matter is, I have no idea how "good" any of these fellows are, not having felt the technique for myself. But I wonder if it is either fair or accurate to have Kondo rather frequently held up as the jujutsu/crude side of DR, almost as if he didn't learn the real good stuff. I wonder if that's really true.

Best

Ellis Amdur

********************************

I am unaware of Kondo being unfairly treated. He is a fine man and well able. Perhaps the questions and doubts you refer to are of a comparitive nature; one arts various stylings to another. You seem to infer that it is believed that he connot match the "Aiki" of other arts, and then ironically you state a substantive reason for same in the above post:
"Sagawa can be regarded, I believe, as someone who continued the creative process with DR, and Kodo seems to have made a specialty in the teaching and presentation of the aiki techniques. Truth of the matter is, I have no idea how "good" any of these fellows are, not having felt the technique for myself. (Amdur)"

Interestng that you draw attention to the well acknowleged direction that Sagawa and Kodo sensei(s) went in their studies. Were that the case-and I will leave that up to each individual to postulate over- one could find substantive reason for wondering if that direction were an "advancemnt" over the mainline style in regards to the applications of an "Aiki" connection. Or do you postulate that the various branches are the same? I assure you they are not.

In any event the dichotomy of your statement caught my attention. There are certainly some interesting stories to tell of the men who were here and there but won't talk about it publicly. HIs training was different from others.
An entirely different tact would be;
"What is left of the arts jujutsu?" Who has it?
"Who does and or knows what?"
And yet another is
"Who can and who cannot-with whichever that they got?"

Anyway, back to making money.......
cheers
Dan

[Removed last two paragraphs by request of the author. NS]

Ellis Amdur
4th December 2003, 03:43
Dan -

I agree fully with your last two paragraphs which have not been cut yet - and I assumed you did not mean me particularly, as you know little about me other than my love of mojitos.

All I'm saying re Kondo is that, as for me, unless it's been substantiatively proved otherwise, I don't know what he is able to do in the aiki realm, just because he doesn't publicly show it. My statement wasn't directed at anyone in particular. It's just been on my mind for awhile, having seen similar statements by a variety of people on the web.

On other matters:

I've felt some alleged "aiki masters" who couldn't do anything I didn't let them do - and your raising R. Couture (whom one of my friends trains with) and P. Militech supports something I said earlier about there being no particular reason DR/aikido should not be able to prove it's claims in the same kind of shiai that, by story, at least, they used to.

I don't know if Kodo, whom I've seen photos of, or Sagawa, whom I've heard stories of, or Okamoto or Okabayashi, whom I've seen videos of, or Kondo, whom I've watched and conversed with, could, any or all of them, fight their way out of a daycare center. I don't know if the aiki side of DR or the jujutsu side is the superior side of the art. 'S not my training, and I only have anecdote.

I know that JJJ, in general, is, in it's present form, ill prepared for free-style, rough and tumble, because they have, in most ryu, abandoned randori style practice. Takenouchi-ryu used to have a reputation of incredible strength - the Eastern pole of the Kodokan's West in the early days. Nowadays, it's young practitioners are mostly skinny kids of 130 pounds or so.

If any line of DR has no randori practice , then the same deficits have to apply, including aiki type techniques. One good thing about Chinese "soft" martial arts is the opportunity for free-style training - some of which is not so high level, but some of which makes an excellent fighter.

As you and I agreed (over mojitos, I might add - the great Cuban truth teller), unless you've banged first, it's unlikely that you (generally speaking) can bring off the sophisticated stuff.

The best "internal" Chinese martial artist I've ever sparred with has a body that is seamed with blade scars. He truly has learned the hard way about deflection, avoidance, angles of attack, kuzushi, etc.

In mostly agreement with you - specifically - ;)

Ellis

Mike B. Johnson
8th December 2003, 01:55
Mr Amdur,

On jujutsu offered the following:

"But - until modern times, "koryu" weren't koryu - they were "genryu" - current systems - and there was a place for development, innovation, etc. To some degree, there was a failsafe in that it was expected to work."

"I know that JJJ, in general, is, in it's present form, ill prepared for free-style, rough and tumble, because they have, in most ryu, abandoned randori style practice. Takenouchi-ryu used to have a reputation of incredible strength - the Eastern pole of the Kodokan's West in the early days."

One of the finest discussions on JJJ I have ever read was Stan Pranin's interview with Shindo Yoshin ryu's Yukio Takamura. His recognition that Classical JJJ was ill prepared for practical street applications and his innovative approach to confronting this delimma really struck home with me. I'm aware that you are friends with Sensei Threadgill, Takamura Sensei's protege' and am curious what your impressions are of this system and its innovative yet classical mindset?

I am visiting Denver this week on business and if time permits, may have the opportunty to visit Sensei Threadgill in Evergreen.

BJ

Ellis Amdur
8th December 2003, 07:30
Easy question. I have the highest respect for Toby and a lot of admiration and respect for what he does.

Ellis Amdur

Dan Harden
8th December 2003, 14:16
Just a few quick comments, (I can’t believe I am writing on these boards again)

Koryu what’s in a name.
I thought it was generally considered to use the Meiji date as the cut off point. I wouldn’t even think to consider combat veracity as a parameter. Have you seen some of that stuff? And who would judge. Most Japanese wouldn’t know the difference if their lives depended on it. 1868 was a pivotal point for many reasons and it cleans things up-nothing to debate over.

Koryu is a Genryu is a Koryu.......excellent point Ellis.
Innovation, re-creation and experimentation are a combative staple, The ever-changing-constant of a combative rationale. The absence of which brought about…………modern Budo. Thank goodness for MMA Its getting the mentally lazy and those who thrive on the reputation of an others to think and have to account for themselves.


Ellis
As I have in the past when reading you- I agree. Whether Aiki or jujutsu is superior is a nonstarter for me. They work hand in hand. It is best for conversation to not even use the word Aiki. Some get caught up in the training and do not ever see- through it to what is there that is usable and in what venue. Connection is connection, training is training and then there is application in a freestlye form. They are not the same thing. Even then You can give the best to some men and they are patently useless with it.
You mentioned the Chinese arts, I have not felt them and can draw no reference other than that two independant people have told me they only felt what I do from a Chinese style. I can offer no opinion. At any rate there is no shortage of theorist out there in Aiki La-la-land. Your “bang theory” is my own and I have been chastised for saying so more often then I probably should have here. There is only one way to learn to fight. But there in lies the rub. There are those who know they know and those who think they know. For too many people Budo is like a game of three card Monty. The mark gets caught up in what they're shown.
Show them a set series of responses, to a set series of attacks and they love the neat little package their inexperienced minds can embrace.
Pick any martial venue and if you watch and say “That won’t work.” Several things happen:
If you make the statement
1. You have affronted the sensitivity of most budo people (see my previous post about perceived ability through affiliation).
If you can further demonstrate the “why” as to why it won’t work-you have returned to statement 1.

If we read some of the earlier exploits of Jujutsu and Judo men we find they had a fairly difficult time with our own catch-as-catch can wrestlers. If I remember correctly one jujutsu man was all but dismissed from teaching at a military academy after failing to make a sound showing in freestyle. The instructors felt he did not show anything worth augmenting the program for.
Since the discussion is revolving around Japanese jujutsu I would only offer that jujutsu does indeed have sound principles and a framework that is viable. Just leave in and or learn good striking and kicking skills. That said it is my belief that one must take it out of the training regiment once it is learned and into freestyle to do that very thing. Further, I would offer that if you have the temerity to simply ask-instead of sucking up the techniques that are shown you like some lap dog- you may find some rather interesting ways to augment technique to make it real from the most surprising sources. More than once I have had a Japanese instructor show something nasty, and quite to-the-point that his regular students had never seen all the while saying “No one ever asked me that before.” I have also had men late into the night discussing certain things shown during the days training and agreeing “that won’t work for fighting-I’d do this instead”, or when discussing something I know is combatively sound offer (with a gleam in their eye) another excellent approach to same. And in many instances where were their students? Uninterested.
DR is not without an accounting of itself. In DR, where, when and why will Aiki-age knock someone out cold? How and where does Ippon-dori need to be modified to work against a tight jab? What’s the entry vector? How do you think of a human as a wire-frame model to read intent and displace him? How or where do strikes work with leg takedowns?
I think the main issues with martial artists is to stop getting them to act and respond like martial artists. Interrupted attacks and staccato timing along with relaxed responses and hard sharp linear frames is the best anti-martial art or anti-aiki ointment out there.
Theories and opinion will certainly abound-since our success is dependent upon our own experiences.
Personally, I have never allowed my studies in the martial arts to ruin my ability to fight.

Goerge Bernard Shaw's observations hold true in the Martial arts.
"A reasonable man looks at the world and tries his best to fit in.
An unreasonable man looks at the world and tries to make it fit him. No wonder the world is ruled by unreasonable men."

Ellis
I don’t need Mojitos to open up with you-you’re easy to talk with. Man those things are good though huh? You’re also a strong pull to my dark side, I have to stay away from you an Meik. Cady said later that while listening to us she was going “No..no..noooo.... Not another one.” Bah! Mat and Rich were rather peeved that they could not sit in. They were all the way across the room. I told them they didn’t miss much-we just complained all night about our hair loss!

Cheers
Dan

jzimba1
12th December 2003, 21:11
In the midst of you guys swinging those things around, did I hear someone mention homo-lateral walking in connection with daito-ryu? hello?

This seems to a complete novice to be a huge departure from the way I understand human physiology to work...

anyone have a 15 month old child? I think that's when homo-lateral movement is still dominant in our development.
Se that sway? see how totally easy a laterally moving technique would overbalance someone past the point of no return?

What's the point in refusing to allow the reflexive contra-lateral movement of the spine (yes spine, has nothing to do with legs or arms) to take place?

If you cant define a forward-moving linear plane, ..... just confusing...

I think Dan now has the prize for the most editted posts (percentagewise anyway) of anyone on the entire internet.

And the ones I caught were always very mmm revealing?

I still refer to people's heads as "braincase" ... dehumanizing and yet anatomically correct all in two syllables.

Happy Chanukah!

j

Arman
12th December 2003, 23:03
I would say that anyone hoping to learn "street-effective" self-defense merely from study of the formal kata of DR (mainline, here) is somewhat uninformed on any or all of the following issues:

a) What a kata really is, and what it is designed to teach,
b) What a modern combative situation requires in terms of serious self-defense training,
c) the limits of specific martial arts training methodologies as applied to real life combative encounters.

Incidentally, my opinion regarding DR would also apply to many other martial systems, koryu or gendai.

Neverthless, the principles being taught within the formal kata better work. IOW, a throw should THROW the uke, without need of. . .um, assistance, by the uke. An unbalancing attack should UNBALANCE the opponent, and, likewise, an armbar or other joint manipulation should actually incapacitate the opponent. Many systems I have experienced fail this most basic requirement, even as its avid practitioners take it for granted that they've already got this part down.

Having then established correct principles, it is then up to the student to learn how to apply those principles outside of a formal context. How they are applied, and how easily and efficiently, depends on the tradition and the talent of the practitioner.

Best regards,
Arman Partamian

Nathan Scott
12th December 2003, 23:49
Mr. Zimba,

I'd appreciate it if you could write your posts in clear English (both in phrasing as well as terminology), and watch the tone of your posts. If you have an opinion that differs from someone else, that is fine. But you could present it is a less offensive manner, especially considering the experience of the contributors you are "correcting".

Regards,

Severroad
13th December 2003, 10:25
First post, and I've been celebrating at a birthday party with my wife, so when I break etiquette please forgive - as I am always shocked by the arguments on these sites, yet drawn to them.

We all choose a style of budo that seems inherently or innately correct, and true to our inner selves and beliefs. Thus, when someone attacks our chosen style, we feel personally offended and attacked, and will defend ourselves through whatever means available, (you might have better luck arguing catholicism to a protestant). Wait, aren't wars being fought over that? Same principle isn't it.

This thread began as a simple question over inner palace techniques, which knowing the answer to - really won't improve any of our technical abilities will it????

Next came the question of Aiki abilities and instructors we should respect and admire, not criticize. I really want everyone who's posted - to please give a definition of "Aiki". If there is any convergence in ideas, I think we might actually begin to have an initial concept. but really doubt it.....

I am not sure where the thread has gone now, too many Dennis Miller - five dollar - metaphysical analogies to be certain, but I'm glad to see some of Kondo Sensei's more tactful and polite students finally responding.

If I've overstepped, bear in mind I've been drinking - and don't wish to personally attack anyone.

Carlos Estrella
13th December 2003, 23:19
Originally posted by jzimba1
In the midst of you guys swinging those things around, did I hear someone mention homo-lateral walking in connection with daito-ryu? hello?

This seems to a complete novice to be a huge departure from the way I understand human physiology to work...

anyone have a 15 month old child? I think that's when homo-lateral movement is still dominant in our development.
Se that sway? see how totally easy a laterally moving technique would overbalance someone past the point of no return?

Mosf us here, even those skilled in the complex structures of the human body, realize that the method of walking mentioned is contrary to the natural movements of the human body. Keep in mind though, that Daito Ryu's bodily manipulations are SPECIFICALY DESIGNED to affect the body by moving it in directions that our minds and sometimes our bodies have trouble getting used to :D

IMHO, I would think that a student of Daito Ryu, Aikido, etc., would want to learn the how and why from their instructor. A student of anatomy, etc. who also happens to be a student of Daito Ryu (like my instructor's own teacher who is a dan grade in DTR and a Physical Therapist) has an advantage in some ways and a definite disadvantage in others. The one BIG disadvantage I can think of is PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS OF HOW ANATOMY "SHOULD" WORK.. Keep in mind that bumblebees can't fly according to science.

FWIW.

Regards,

Carlos

Chris Li
13th December 2003, 23:37
Originally posted by Carlos Estrella
Keep in mind that bumblebees can't fly according to science.

That's actually a myth, as can be seen here (http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/3_29_97/mathland.htm) , although the myth is probably more entertaining :).

OTOH, there are a couple of prominent Japanese researchers who claim that "nanba aruki" (where arms are moved together with the legs) was not only a common form of walking in Japan at one time, but is actually a desirable form of movement. There was a thread on just this subject a while back.

Best,

Chris

Carlos Estrella
13th December 2003, 23:58
Originally posted by Chris Li
That's actually a myth, as can be seen here (http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/3_29_97/mathland.htm) , although the myth is probably more entertaining :).

THANKS on setting me straight Chris! Always believed that one :rolleyes:

I'll review that thread, so thanks for that too... my intent in posting here (which I normally wouldn't do, was to remind folks here that IMHO, the whole idea OF Daito Ryu is to use the bodies own "design" against itself (through manipulation of body and/or mind) to acheive a desired result (control, incapacitation, etc.).

Again, thanks!

Carlos

jzimba1
15th December 2003, 07:51
What? umm, gosh I assure anyone reading my tone was more one of confusion and amusement at my own perplexedness (is that a word?) wow.

Having never met nor experienced the particular arts in question, I woulden't presume to correct anyone, nor judge them. All too often the wording used to refer to a particular physical event I find so outlandishly misleading, that it almmost isn't worth putting into words. Just ask Dan and Cady about explaining things to a group of aikidoka in email.

If there were an emodicon for blinking confusedly and trying to fit an idea into my understanding of any if not all forms of martial art (human movement) I've seen, I'd have put it there and perhaps you'd have understood there was no criticism implied.

my appologies,

Joel

Carlos Estrella
15th December 2003, 14:59
Joel,

DEFINITELY no need to apologize (to me at least)! I prefer honest questions - that's what makes this forum work. I just think that some here took your "tone" a little differently than you might have meant.

The beauty of this forum is that it allows beginners as well as advanced practitioners and others the privilege of "questioning authority..." as long as it's done with respect for the others who may be reading, posting or responding.

Regards,

Carlos

Mike B. Johnson
15th December 2003, 18:12
Hello,

This is sort of off topic but then this thread has jumped all over the place. Earlier we were discussing the practical and impractical applications of jujutsu systems and I brought up S. Yoshin ryu's Yukio Takamura and his protege' Toby Threadgill. First I must admit to holding a bias of suspicion towards any person supposedly holding a “menkyo kaiden” in a classical jujutsu system who was not extensively trained in Japan. However, since I had attended several seminars taught by Takamura Sensei thru the years, and felt familiar with the standards of the man, I decided to give Takamura the nod on this choice of a successor, even though it was a choice "sans Japan".

Well, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, this past Thursday evening I had the opportunity to visit Sensei Threadgill’s dojo up in Evergreen,Colorado. I had corresponded with Sensei Threadgill on several subjects in the past months and found him refreshingly lucid. Concerning my visit, I must say that I was very impressed. His talents, grasp of technique and teaching method were well above the level I expected. I was specifically impressed with his swordwork. Something you don't usually see in a jujutsu dojo. Very precise. This system as it was demonstrated to me by Sensei Threadgill is stlll definitely a model of koryu jujutsu spirit with a significant infusion of modern sensibilities. Very Takamura-esque to my memory. Is it the perfect mix of both old and new? I don't think so but that’s just my opinion you understand. Takamura Yoshin ryu still suffers from a few of my pet peeves concerning kata training and the structured environment of classical dojo training. But aside from these peeves ( which I admit are totally mine to deal with) I believe the teaching in this dojo is so obviously superior to most dojo's out there that it reminds me of why I still devote so much effort to my interest in classical budo.

And here's an addition to this tale that I think is worth mentioning on this thread. Sensei Threadgill and I eventually crossed the topic of actual fighting and his background in hard arts. I had no idea he was an old Muay Thai fighter in addition to his karate experience. One thing led to another and by the evenings end we were mixing it up on the mat, gloves on, bam bam bam, ala kickboxing. Heck, this guys a pretty decent ringfighter. Not nearly the fighters my old teachers like Tommy Thompson, Matt Waxman or Dave Slocum were, but this guy can dish out and take some good shots. And I'll be damned if he didn't throw my butt with a beautiful Osoto Gari while we were kickboxing. He also has a little surprize technique for jabs that I’ve never seen before and can’t reallty describe in words. Let’s just say it’s very slick and painfull. This was no rout though. I got in a few of my own shots and Sensei Threadgill responded with grins and a few laughs. ( Watch those ribs sensei.) That’s the measure of a man.

So, if you want to talk hypothetical or get all academic about your Daito ryu or whatever ryu, thats fine and dandy, but I'd also suggest taking some hard knocks behind the 8 ball while you're at it. It’ll give your perspective a lot more validity and your mind some pain to consider. Takamura Sensei was on the right track in his methods and I’m very happy to say that Sensei Threadgill seems a fitting successor.

And did I mention that the dojo is obscenely beautiful. Now only if I lived in Colorado I'd try to pick up some of that Yoshin ryu swordwork. You guys in Colorado are a very luck bunch.

Good times!

BJ

P.S. I would also like to thank Mr Amdur. I couldn’t agree more with you. I have visited so many dojo’s and sensei over the years only to be disappointed. The experience up in Evergreen was a breath of fresh air on many levels.

Nathan Scott
30th May 2006, 00:26
There is an interesting section under the overview of Yagyu Shingan-ryu yawara in Serge Mol's "Classical Fighting Arts of Japan", pgs 178-179, on what YSgR calls "gyoi-dori" [ 御衣取り ] - literally, "grabbing the royal clothing (trappings)":


"Gyoi-dori is mainly used to protect others, usually those higher ranking than oneself, against a batto attack (sudden sword-drawing attack). Iai-batto could be performed seated (in that case a short sword was usually used), while standing (tachiai), or while passing someone (yukiai).

The main aim in gyoi-dori is twofold: first, to stop an attacker's batto, then to bring him under control. It is said the movements used to stop and control possible attackers inside castles or in the presence of such high-ranking officials as the shogun needed to be not only efficient, but elegant. It would be unbecoming for a high-ranked bodyguard to stop a would-be attacker in a boorish way."

Interestingly, this concept of minimal effort/elegant techniques in front of higher-ranks in the castle is one repeated within Daito-ryu in regards to oshikiuchi. This concept is scoffed at by many who insist it would be ridiculous to worry about looking dignified when concerned with repelling a real attack, so it is interesting to see reference to this same concept in another art.

According to one of the webpages I came across (not sure how accurate this is), YSgR is divided into four types of jujutsu - ippan yawara (commoner type yawara), ashigaru yawara (foot solider type yawara), bushi yawara (warriors type yawara), and taisho yawara (Chief/General/Hatamoto yawara). "Each type would learn different techniques as they would face different situations and have access to differing weapons. They would all learn various kicks, punches, escapes, and ways to restrain someone without seriously injuring them. The bushi and taisho systems would also learn something called gyoi dori. Which was protecting someone else, usually a higher ranked individual, from a sudden sword-drawing attack."

It would appear from doing a quick web search that certain aikido groups (ki aikido) and Shorinji Kempo also include techniques classified as gyoi-dori.

Serge Mol's book is not the most reliable source of information on jujutsu, but most of it appears to have been translated from Japanese books, which in and of itself makes the book interesting and of some value.

Regards,

Nathan Scott
22nd March 2010, 22:47
I was surfing some of the Daito-ryu pages and came across some new photos up on Kondo Sensei's website:

http://www.daito-ryu.org/en/

Three of them are of a sword given to Saigo Tanomo from the last lord of the Aizu clan, Matsudaira Katamori (1836-1893).


http://www.daito-ryu.org/media-gallery/history/daito-to-tsuka.jpg

This photo is of the sword smith's signature. The kanji read "Banryu" ( 蟠龍 ), which means "Coiling Dragon". The only reference I can find to this smith is a possible hit in Hawley's big book to a "Banryuken" ( 蟠龍軒 ), who worked out of Suo Province (now part of Yamaguchi Province, located at the Southern tip of the main island) ca. 1868. This smith was later known as "Morichika" starting around 1869.


http://www.daito-ryu.org/media-gallery/history/daito-to1.jpg

Some of the kanji are unclear, but it states the sword smith's name on the this side of the shirazaya, and sounds like a statement transferring the sword from one person to another (Matsudaira to Saigo).


http://www.daito-ryu.org/media-gallery/history/daito-to2.jpg

This side of the shirazaya has Saigo Tanomo's name, with a date of 1862. Kondo Sensei's webpage describes this as Saigo's signature, but I'm guessing it is the date that Matsudaira gifted the sword to Saigo.

The sword itself is very interesting. It features a mid to long length kissaki, significant curvature, and a fairly wide blade.The design appears to be "naginata-zukuri". It is listed as a katana on Kondo Sensei's webpage, but it looks to be a single-handed length nakago. I'm guessing it's actually a longer length short sword designed for slashing techniques. A reasonable weapon for carrying indoors against unarmored opponents.

Matsudaira Yoshiyasu passed down a large purple haori-himo to the Takeda family, which Sokaku was later given. He can be seen wearing this haori tie in some of his formal photos. Yoshiyasu's successor, Katamori, gave the above sword to Saigo some time later. Now it seems to be in the possession of Kondo Sensei.

Regards,

Grant Periott
23rd March 2010, 09:07
I am glad this thread has come out of the woodwork, very interesting discussion.

Cheers

Nathan Scott
28th February 2014, 21:52
[Post deleted by user]

Kendoguy9
1st March 2014, 02:37
Hey Nathan et al,

I'm not sure how I missed the posts about Saigo's sword. The last time I was in Japan in 09 I saw this very sword. It is a large kodachi/wakizashi... Maybe a very short katana. I know we like these things to be neat and well defined here but I've noticed they tend to be a bit blurred in Japan. Anyway it is the second of two swords owned by famous Bakumatsu era samurai that Kondo sensei has had in his possession; the other being a yoroidoshi owned by Yamaoka Tesshu. Tesshu's sword has a very nice brass koshirae with the Ono family kamon (orange blossom tachibana). These swords were both given to him for safe keeping. I think Saigo's sword was given to him by the Saigo Society and Tesshu's sword was given to him by Zensho-an.

Very cool stuff :)

Cheers,
Chris

Kendoguy9
1st March 2014, 02:39
BTW, If anyone has a famous person's sword they need me to take care of please let me know. I will be happy to give it a good and safe home! It doesn't have to be Japanese either, I'll gladly watch over any cool sword :)