PDA

View Full Version : Randori question



Will Wetherell
24th November 2002, 23:33
Hi all,

Can anyone tell me why randori is not used in jodo training? With appropriate protective clothing would it not be possible to make 'free play' safe?

Cheers,

Will

R A Sosnowski
26th November 2002, 16:08
FWIW, I can think of a few reasons why this is not done.

First, the traditon of Jo comes from dealing with an unarmored swordsman. On the other hand, the sword has both armored and unarmored traditions.

Second, many of the Jo Waza take advantage of unprotected (unarmored) parts of the human anatomy. To do Jo in Bogu, one would have to either limit the Jo Waza to those that would work under unarmored and armored conditions, or change the Bogu design to accomodate more Waza. However, the target areas would most likely be restricted as they are in Kendo.

Third, as the Bokuto/Bokken transitioned to the Shinai for use in Bogu for safety reasons, so the wooden Jo would have to be replaced with a Shinai-like analogue, a mock-Jo. However, just as the feel of a Bokuto/Bokken is quite different than a Shinai, so also the feel of a Jo would be different from a mock-Jo. Just as there are differences in Waza for Kenjutsu and Kendo, there would be Waza differences between Jodo and this Jikeiko in Bogu with a mock-Jo -- let's call it "Atarashii Jo" to give it a name.

Since the hands basically are worked over the entire length of the Jo, imagine coming up with a mock-Jo design that would still be as manipulatible as a Jo while wearing Kote (most likely Naginata-style Kote which are designed to facilitate grip changes, and not Kendo-style Kote).

Any way that you look at it, it would take a tremendous effort to bring this kind of practice into being. What you would end up with would certainly be fundamentally different from the original practice.

Of course, people are free to experiment with Jo and Bokuto while wearing Bogu too.

Just my random thoughts,

Will Wetherell
28th November 2002, 17:34
Originally posted by R A Sosnowski
First, the traditon of Jo comes from dealing with an unarmored swordsman. On the other hand, the sword has both armored and unarmored traditions.

Well, professional boxers don't wear protective headgear when they fight but they do when they train, so the nature of the event you're training for doesn't have to rigidly dictate every aspect of the manner in which you train.


Second, many of the Jo Waza take advantage of unprotected (unarmored) parts of the human anatomy. To do Jo in Bogu, one would have to either limit the Jo Waza to those that would work under unarmored and armored conditions, or change the Bogu design to accomodate more Waza. However, the target areas would most likely be restricted as they are in Kendo.

No need to limit or change the waza. We're only talking about Bogu for randori here, the tradition (as you said yourself) is jo vs an unarmoured swordsman and that remains the same.


Third, as the Bokuto/Bokken transitioned to the Shinai for use in Bogu for safety reasons, so the wooden Jo would have to be replaced with a Shinai-like analogue, a mock-Jo. However, just as the feel of a Bokuto/Bokken is quite different than a Shinai, so also the feel of a Jo would be different from a mock-Jo. Just as there are differences in Waza for Kenjutsu and Kendo, there would be Waza differences between Jodo and this Jikeiko in Bogu with a mock-Jo -- let's call it "Atarashii Jo" to give it a name.

Since the hands basically are worked over the entire length of the Jo, imagine coming up with a mock-Jo design that would still be as manipulatible as a Jo while wearing Kote (most likely Naginata-style Kote which are designed to facilitate grip changes, and not Kendo-style Kote).

Any way that you look at it, it would take a tremendous effort to bring this kind of practice into being. What you would end up with would certainly be fundamentally different from the original practice.

Why do we need a mock-jo? Tomiki Aikido guys randori with wooden tanto. With suitable protection, couldn't randori with real jo be just as safe?

Cheers,

Will

R A Sosnowski
28th November 2002, 18:00
Will Wetherell wrote:



Well, professional boxers don't wear protective headgear when they fight but they do when they train, so the nature of the event you're training for doesn't have to rigidly dictate every aspect of the manner in which you train.

Very true. However, we are talking about Japanese [Ko-]Budo here, which has a very conservative streak that runs through it.


No need to limit or change the waza. We're only talking about Bogu for randori here, the tradition (as you said yourself) is jo vs an unarmoured swordsman and that remains the same.

In terms of safety and using the current style of Bogu, I believe that changes in the Waza and limiting targets are inevitable.


Why do we need a mock-jo? Tomiki Aikido guys randori with wooden tanto. With suitable protection, couldn't randori with real jo be just as safe?

In the heat of Randori, I, for one, would not really wish to have a Jo or to face a partner with one. :D

Tomiki Aikido-ka that I know use a mock-Tanto for Randori. :)

Thank you for the response,

Will Wetherell
30th November 2002, 02:01
Originally posted by R A Sosnowski
we are talking about Japanese [Ko-]Budo here, which has a very conservative streak that runs through it.

But not everyone practices in Japan. Some of the greatest developments in Kodokan Judo took place in other countries.


In terms of safety and using the current style of Bogu, I believe that changes in the Waza and limiting targets are inevitable.

Who says we have to use the current style of Bogu? There are lighter and better materials available.


In the heat of Randori, I, for one, would not really wish to have a Jo or to face a partner with one.

Sparring really isn't anything to be afraid of. In Europe, sparring (and competing) with quarterstaffs has been around for centuries and the sport of single stick fencing (http://ejmas.com/jmanly/jmanlyart_wolf_0202.htm) (which was the sportive equivalent of combative sabre fencing before sabre fencing itself became a sport) was a popular pasttime, even among the upper classes, in the 18th and 19th centures.

I'm still not convinced by the argument against randori.

Cheers,

Will

will szlemko
2nd December 2002, 19:43
Hi all,

Sparring, even with a mock jo could be very dangerous. In kendo I have been laid flat more than once with a shinai. (a fantastically timed yoko men once and more often with tsuki) Others in the dojo have been flattened also. Even with bogu a hard shinai strike hurts, so it would even with an atarashi jo.

snip
But not everyone practices in Japan. Some of the greatest
developments in Kodokan Judo took place in other countries.

I suppose it depends on what you consider great developments. Certainly judo has changed, for the better maybe, for the worse, maybe. I have not seen any modern practioners who achieved a level even close to Mifune, yet there are many more training now then there was then.

snip
Who says we have to use the current style of Bogu? There are
lighter and better materials available.

True, but target changes would still likely need to be made. Also, effective bogu of any type will lesson the threat of engagement, something that is inherent in the system we train in. Look at how point fighting has devolved from power techniques that can end a fight to fast flashy waza that score points but would not be likely to do any real damage. Personally, I enjoy training with the threat of injury if I do not react properly, or in time. My experience in training with bokuto is that after training kata (not kendo kata) for 2 years rather than working in the kendo dojo with sparring I was much more adept in the kendo dojo than were persons who were putting in an equal amount of time at the kendo dojo.

will

Earl Hartman
2nd December 2002, 21:30
If people are willing to risk being seriously injured or accidentally killed, I suppose that free sparring with a real jo would be possible.

If one wanted to create some kind of sparring jo made out of, say, PVC pipe or something, or some other analogue, and spar wearing bogu, then you would have something analagous to modern kendo: a vigorous and occasionally dangerous contact sport that bears no more than a passing resemblance to the kenjutsu on which it was originally based. There is perhaps a value in this, although it would no longer be jo, just as kendo has its value but is no longer really real swordfighting.

This is similar to foil fencing, which bears a passing resemblance to the traditional use of the smallsword, but is no longer real swordfighting.

pugilist
2nd December 2002, 21:42
Originally posted by will szlemko
Hi all,

Sparring, even with a mock jo could be very dangerous. In kendo I have been laid flat more than once with a shinai. (a fantastically timed yoko men once and more often with tsuki) Others in the dojo have been flattened also. Even with bogu a hard shinai strike hurts, so it would even with an atarashi jo.



Why? Could you give me some examples of
what kind of strikes etc, you consider "very dangerous"? There is always the chance of a busted knuckle (or worse), protective equipment or not. However, if you practice control it should be
relatively safe. Yes, it "hurts". This isn't pattycake, afterall.



True, but target changes would still likely need to be made. Also, effective bogu of any type will lesson the threat of engagement, something that is inherent in the system we train in. Look at how point fighting has devolved from power techniques that can end a fight to fast flashy waza that score points but would not be likely to do any real damage. Personally, I enjoy training with the threat of injury if I do not react properly, or in time. My experience in training with bokuto is that after training kata (not kendo kata) for 2 years rather than working in the kendo dojo with sparring I was much more adept in the kendo dojo than were persons who were putting in an equal amount of time at the kendo dojo.

will

Didn't you say it was too dangerous to spar? For me, pain is a
pretty good motivation to move out of the way...
What kind of free response training do you do if you are not sparring?
Sparring aint combat, it's just a tool.

Diane Skoss
2nd December 2002, 22:08
A strike aimed at your temple and delivered with cutting intent (i.e. to slice through your entire face) could easily prove lethal. This is a final target in quite a few moves in Shinto Muso-ryu. I certainly wouldn't be willing to risk it myself. We train strikes in most cases to reach the intended target with full force; the only reason we don't make contact is because our opponent is smart enough to get out of the way, or we slightly alter the distancing so that the opponent's sword is struck instead of the head.

Cheers!

Diane Skoss

Jack B
2nd December 2002, 22:55
I have to agree with Earl and Diane. Jo randori would be Kendo without a tsuba.

The jodo katas at full speed are as close to randori as you need to get. In addition to the explicitly deadly and maiming targets, many of the strikes have alternate targets that are worse. The jo is designed to slip nicely into an eye socket. There are throat and groin shots. (Don't tell me we'll have to give them up!)

There is a difference between an institutionalized sport system, and experimenting with the kata. In SMR you learn randori from the completeness of the system. Every situation has alternate responses and you learn which to do from the kata.

What replaces free practice is when you or your partner makes a mistake and you have to immediately respond correctly to prevent injury. You will find yourself leaving one kata and picking up another in the middle, without missing a beat or even realizing it till you finish. Or you find it's just over real quick, since the kata has everybody doing the right thing to survive to the end.

If you like pain as a teacher, why use bogu? You can just grab a stick and come at each other to see what happens. If you're not sparring for blood or trophies, you should be able to play with kaewaza and situational drills to your heart's content. But it's in the katas. Try pulling a fast one on your jo teacher and tell me if he/she is lacking something for not free sparring.

Earl Hartman
3rd December 2002, 02:44
Pugilist, I'm not exactly sure where you are coming from. You talk about "practicing control"; I assume by this that you mean people would pull their strikes, a la karate "sun dome" or something like that. What would be the point of that? We do that in kata already.

Getting hit with a jo or a bokken moving at full speed would result in a lot more than a cracked knuckle, and your teacher would be a great deal more than just pain, however trifling or severe. I am more than willing to learn from the asssumed death or maiming than the actual event, if it's all the same to you.

Having practiced both gendai budo (kendo) and koryu budo/bujutsu (jojutsu), I can say that there is a great deal of value in each. They are just not the same. Kendo is good as far as it goes, but the instant one assumes that some areas are off limits, or that certain things are illegal, everything changes. People in a kendo match do things they wouldn't dream of attempting if the weapons were real, and they know it. As an example, I once watched a match between a guy using nito (two sword) technique and a man using only one sword; every time they would close and get their long shinai tangled up, the nito guy would use his short sword to do a drum roll on the other guy's head. However,the judge's flags didn't budge. Now, with a real sword the fellow would have had his head split open on the first go, but when I asked my senpai "Uhhh...wouldn't the guy dead by now if that was a real sword?" I was told "This is sport kendo" (apparently the short sword is considered primarily for defense). And this from the riot squad cops, the toughest kendo men you will ever meet.

So, I rest my case. You could probably make some sort of jo that would allow you to spar in a semi-semi-semi "realistic" manner. However, it really wouldn't feel like a real jo, just like a shinai, as much as it hurts when you get hit with it, doesn't act or feel like a real sword.

All of that being said, I assume that it might be theoretically possible for two very highly trained jo practitioners, who understand each other well, who are aware of the inherent dangers, and who understand what the value of free sparring might be, to undertake some form of it as an adjunct to regular practice without killing each other. They would have to be incredibly skilled, and very mature, to do that, and such training could never be undertaken by people who weren't good enough to do it safely. However, the kind of armor you would need to wear to prevent serious injury or death using a real jo to engage in unrestricted sparring would render the whole exercise useless, it seems to me. In any case, as was posted upthread, the jo kata, understood and practiced correctly with the right intent, will accomplish the same thing as any kind of free sparring that is not an actual duel.

People who want to just fight with sticks would proably be better served by going to an SCA tournament or a Dog Brothers event.

Jeff Hamacher
3rd December 2002, 03:35
i don't have much to add to the wise words posted above, but i just thought i'd pass along a favourite quip from my jo teacher. he always reminds us to practise every step of every kata "thoughtfully, with an eye to why each interaction takes place as it does. otherwise it just turns into chambara or some damn thing." it's not like chambara doesn't already afford people the opportunity to strap on armour and try beating each other up with mock weapons (including a "jo"), so why should Shinto Muso-ryu feel inclined to expand into this "market"?

George Kohler
3rd December 2002, 06:42
Originally posted by pugilist
Why? Could you give me some examples of
what kind of strikes etc, you consider "very dangerous"?


I've never studied Shinto Muso ryu jo before, but have seen it done several times. After seeing some of the stuff they do, it appears that the targets are more than just knuckle busting. There seems to be a lot of strikes to suigetsu (solar plexus), kote (wrist and forearms), kasumi (temple), ribs (sorry, don't know the terminology in SMR), and some possible strikes to the eyes.

pugilist
3rd December 2002, 09:27
Guys, I'm definately not talking about full-contact sparring with a real Jo or Bokken. I have the admit that
my experience with padded weapons is mostly of sword simulators (used by historical fencing groups suchs as ARMA),
so it might be more difficult to make an accurate staff weapon.
I do no not know too much about Kendo, but I have done some shinai sparring and the feel you get from this
kind of padded sword is vastly different than a shinai, which doesn't feel much like a sword-like object at all.
When talking about control, I simply meant not striking full power. This is not the same as pulling the strikes;
you still get a telling blow with bodyweight behind. In this kind of free play it is more about not getting hit rather than rush in
and bash each other. It's for working your timing and distance, testing your stuff in a stressful enviroment. For example,
getting the distance right for a tsuki to the face, is hard to train without a helmet.
For targets, it's pretty much everything goes, depending on how much protective equipment your partner is wearing at the moment
- you just have the mutual respect for each other as safety.
But this is but one aspect of training. It does not have to turn into sport if your intention is combat effiency.

Just to make things clear; It would ofcourse be silly for me to come and tell you how to practice Jo, I merely
wanted to offer a different point of view.

john mark
3rd December 2002, 11:17
read Hunter Armstrong's article in Koryu Bujutsu: Classical Warrior Traditions of Japan (http://www.koryu.com/store/book1.html) and George Bristol's essay in Keiko Shokon: Classical Warrior Traditions of Japan, volume 3 (http://www.koryu.com/store/ks3.html).

Aozora
3rd December 2002, 17:03
To add my $.02...

Those of you who want to do randori with jo, I say by all means go ahead. There are barely enough qualified instructors in jodo left and certainly not enough to send around the jo police to tell you not randori. Of course, you probably won't be doing it for very long after those first few concussions...
I can appreciate those wanting to bring a different point of view or to play around, but c'mon! Isn't the training methods as set down by the style's founder and subsequent teachers over the past 400 or so years not enough? I don't agree with being conservative for the sake of being conservative, but in some cases (particularly where budo is concerned) there's a reason it's done that way and it really doesn't need "improvements." Especially ones similar to the recent "improvements" in judo. :rolleyes:

Andy Watson
3rd December 2002, 17:19
I absolutely agree Neil.

I have seen a small amount high level jodo from people like Yano sensei and realised the amount of intricacy in the kata. In a lot of the koryu you would have no way of knowing what was going on without being properly taught by an experienced teacher.

Jodo is not about getting a lucky thwack in on someone's head. It is an extremely technical and complicated art. Furthermore there is SO much to learn without adding more to it.

It is not enough to compare iaido and kendo: in truth they are really nothing like each other and their aims and means are also quite different.

By all means grab some PVC pipe and have a play but I don't think it will make you any better at jodo. You will just be good at hitting people with pipe.

Earl Hartman
3rd December 2002, 19:26
I used to be a fighter in the SCA; since it was intended that the sticks represented swords, and people eventually became pretty well armored, it was possible to hit the other fellow pretty much as hard as you could without seriously injuring him. However, blows below the knee were not allowed, and eventually blows to the hand were also outlawed, since people were getting their hands broken woth alarming frequency. I broke a couple of guys' hands in my day, and I neary got my neck broken once. Concussions were common, and serious bruising was the order of the day. However, there were rules and limits. When I think back, it's amazing that no one was killed or incapacitated in the early days before armor got really protective. In the beginning, you were considered well armored if you had motorcycle gloves, a leather jacket, and a heavy saber fencing mask. Nowadays, you cannot even enter the lists unless you have complete head protection made out of 14 gauge steel as a minimum. Ah, the folly of youth.

I think this sort of training has value; this is, basically, what kendo is. This would be difficult if not impossible with a jo; too many techniques depend on quick sliding motions of the hands on the jo and/or grip reversals. Any kind of hand protection would make these techniques difficult or impossible. Besides, a jo is not intended to be used against an armored man, generally. Whacking someone in the head with a stick isn't going to do you much good if the guy is wearing a helmet, and a thrust to the solar plexus will not help against a man wearing a cuirass. Unless, of course, the staff you are sticking him with happens to have a sharp pointy metal thing on the business end.

ChrisHein
5th December 2002, 02:06
funny i was looking at the thread i wroght, and till right now i didn't notice this one. you guys should go online and look at
http://www.montrealmartialarts.com/french/html/dogBros.htm
look for other dog brothers stuff, they do escreama sticks, and staffs, and anything else made of wood that you might wanna fight with, they use ratan, so there are fewer injurys, there are still lots of bumps and brusis, but thats how we learn huh.
chris hein

Amir
5th December 2002, 12:17
We routinely practice Randory with Jo in my Dojo, with both sides attacking and defending as openings are created.

I know it isn't exactly the "traditional approach", a more traditional approach would be just Jo Vs Ken Randori (we practice those too) or probably just Kata, but when my Sensei trained in Japan, at Korindo Aikido center, this was part of their training and this was under Korindo Aikido founder - Minoro Hirai Guidance. Hence this training is part of our art.

Korindo Aikido Jo work seems to be a descendent of shindo muso ryu, at least the major parts of it. I do believe our style has been influenced by other styles as well. Since Hirai didn't consider the techniques to be the center of M.A. and preferred concentrating in movement & tactics, he added into the Korindo Aikido curriculum knowledge brought by his students as well.

As for safety, we find it in keeping our Randori speed and intensively at a level we can bear. Proper matching of partners, a "beginner" should train with a more advanced student hopefully capable of saving himself if the need arises and mature enough t stop the Randori if it goes in the wrong direction - becomes too competitive. We often get hits on our hands and fingers, yet using control we rarely have more serious injury (a hit at the head, a touch to an eye). I actually don't recall any serious injury in a Jo Randori, since even if a hit did land, normally the hitter have felt this and started stopping it before-hand.

Korindo Aikido method of learning is a spiral of 3 components : Tai-sabaki & Kihon, Kata and Randori. All the curriculum is studied through these 3 chapters, empty hand and weapons. One starts learning the Kihon & tai-Sabaki then studies some Kata with it (be it a traditional Kata from one of the styles in Korindo Aikido's origin or a simple predetermined drill set by the teacher - both are Kata), Once one becomes proficient in Kata and attains control of the weapon, light randori practice will start (at first extremely low intensity, slow and with a cooperating partner). Once proficiency in Randori is achieved, one returns to the Tai-Sabaki and Kihon and improves them using the insight gained, returning to the same place, only at an higher level and so forth ... hence the spiral approach - you keep returning to the same 3 elements, yet the level is higher every time.



Amir

Usagi
13th December 2002, 02:35
Any kind of armour would destroy the logic of Jo movement.

Not only gloves of any kind would make the changes in grip impossible (as mister Hartman has mentioned), there would be a restriction of many targets (such as ribs, hip bone, knees, etc...) that would de-characterize the weapon itself.

In fact, the final result already exists and is avaiable in Japan.

Its name? JuKenDo.

Take out the change of grips and restrict the targets of the jo and you will end up with a bayonet (juken).

In my opinion, a "light randori" done by a senior with his junior isn't that much diferent from a kata.

When acting as UchiDachi to a junior you know how he is SUPPOSED to move, but you have to keep a "combative" attitude for the moments when he is going to make wrong movements that will put you in real danger if you don't react in time (been there).

If you want soo bad to test your refexes against someone with a jo, i still believe JuKenDo to be closest you will get for that intent.

Best wishes

R A Sosnowski
26th January 2003, 04:25
I came across this on a historical fencing list yesterday:

People should check out the Jogo do Pau armor and sequences at www.jogodopau.com This is a European art, going back to at least the 17th century. The armor is new, the sticks are new -- this is traditionally practiced with flexible wooden poles without contact (unless they were mad at each other, then they hit for real).

The actual URL is http://www.geocities.com/vasco_preto/index.html

It looks like what could be used for Jo Randori if you are so inclined.

Enjoy.

Dave Fulton
3rd April 2003, 22:01
May be it would be better to let sleeping dogs lie but, ...

I am not from SMR, but I think that an experienced player could do it using a rattan Jo. A key would be making sure that the "nodes" on the rattan are sanded down sufficiently so that you could affect the sliding grip changes.

Using rattan instead of hard wood, and wearing with just headgear and lacrosse gloves, I have been on either end of this weapon several times. Does it hurt to get hit? Heck yes! Can you get seriously injured? Heck yes! Would you learn a thing or two? Heck yes!

It may not be a part of the tradition, but that does not mean that one's development would not benefit from it.

Respectfully,

Dave Fulton

Douglas Wylie
4th April 2003, 03:33
The question is WHY rather than WHY NOT.

What purpose do you hope to serve by doing randori?

I havent heard of people being defeated using jodo as it is. Is this a problem I am not aware of?? Are people really getting jumped in parking lots late at night by swordsmen WHILE carrying their jo??:D

If it isnt broken, why the sudden need to fix it.

So, answer this-

Why do you need randori?

BTW- It is a culturally historic art form and should remain in its purest form. Every one knows if you alter an antique you lower its value.

BTW2- Some strikes are hard contact on the weapons (hikiotoshi, dobarai, etc...) and would splinter rattan. We even splinter kashiwa once in a blue moon.

Earl Hartman
4th April 2003, 04:00
I can easily understand the desire to try to mix it up with weapons that are as close to "real" as possible while providing protective equipment that would offer some minimal protection. That's why I did kendo.

If the jo were to be made of rattan, then the sword would also have to be made out of rattan. I'm not sure how well the weapons would work if they were made like this, though. A rattan jo the same dimensions as an oak jo would be far too flexible to act like a real jo, so I'm not sure what would be gained.

As I have said in other places, some kind of free sparring is a good addition to standard kata training. I just don't see how to make it work very well with an analogue of a jo. In addition, there is the danger of falling onto the kendo slippery slope: there is so much concentration on competitive matches that people have completely lost touch with the idea that a shinai was originally developed as a training weapon for learning how to use a real sword. Becoming skilfull at shinai kyogi, or shinai competition, was never the end objective. However, that is precisely what it has become. I don't think such an outcome would be good for jo at all.

As far as "would the jo man be jumped by a swordsman in the parking lot of the 7-11 while he was carrying his jo" question is concerned, if you are worried about "street practicality" learn BJJ or ultimate fighting or something like that. Don't waste your time with jo.

I can see the advantage of randori with a practice jo ONLY if it were done sparingly (not "sparringly") by advanced, mature practitioners under the close supervision of a master instructor. Otherwise, I see no real value in it.

Dave Fulton
4th April 2003, 15:11
Originally posted by Douglas Wylie
The question is WHY rather than WHY NOT.

What purpose do you hope to serve by doing randori?

I havent heard of people being defeated using jodo as it is. Is this a problem I am not aware of?? Are people really getting jumped in parking lots late at night by swordsmen WHILE carrying their jo??:D

If it isnt broken, why the sudden need to fix it.

So, answer this-

Why do you need randori?

Those are all fair questions, but here's one for you to consider that actually answers your questions. How do you know that it isn't broken if you do not test it?


Originally posted by Douglas Wylie
BTW- It is a culturally historic art form and should remain in its purest form. Every one knows if you alter an antique you lower its value.

Yes, but it's also a martial art, implying applicability in combat and that brings us back to my previous question.


Originally posted by Douglas Wylie BTW2- Some strikes are hard contact on the weapons (hikiotoshi, dobarai, etc...) and would splinter rattan. We even splinter kashiwa once in a blue moon. [/B]

Yes, plenty of hard, weapon to weapon contact, but the rattan does not splinter the way that hard wood does. That is one of the benefits of rattan. Rattan will gradually fray until the weapon needs to be replaced. This characteristic actually makes rattan safer to use than hard wood, which can and does splinter or shatter under contact.


Originally posted by Earl HartmanIf the jo were to be made of rattan, then the sword would also have to be made out of rattan. I'm not sure how well the weapons would work if they were made like this, though. A rattan jo the same dimensions as an oak jo would be far too flexible to act like a real jo, so I'm not sure what would be gained.

Yes, the sword could be made from rattan as well. A rattan Jo of the same dimensions as an oak Jo would not be "far too flexible to act like a real jo,". I should know, I have some of each. The rattan is a little more flexible, but not enough that it could not over come. You have to buy good rattan, with the skin intact, from someone who knows how to prepare it though. Also, you will have to be very specific about dimensions when you order the rattan in order to get as close as possible to the correct diameter. The diameter will never be perfect, but again, not something that could not be over come.


Originally posted by Earl HartmanAs I have said in other places, some kind of free sparring is a good addition to standard kata training. I just don't see how to make it work very well with an analogue of a jo. In addition, there is the danger of falling onto the kendo slippery slope: there is so much concentration on competitive matches that people have completely lost touch with the idea that a shinai was originally developed as a training weapon for learning how to use a real sword. Becoming skilfull at shinai kyogi, or shinai competition, was never the end objective. However, that is precisely what it has become. I don't think such an outcome would be good for jo at all.

I am not advocating competative sparring as in Kendo, Judo or Karate. Personally, I hate martial arts tournaments! I am talking about something that is used as a tool for learning and attribute development.

This is where maturity and mind set comes into play. Not only would the participants need to be pretty experienced with Jo and sword, but they must approach it as a learning tool rather than as a competative event. Once it becomes a "competition", ego comes out and the learning usually stops. It can be very intense, but should always remain friendly and in the spirit of furthering one's knowledge and ability within the context of the art. Because of this, the type of sparring/randori that I'm talking about would have to be by invitation only.

Respectfully,

Dave Fulton

Andy Watson
4th April 2003, 15:28
Those are all fair questions, but here's one for you to consider that actually answers your questions. How do you know that it isn't broken if you do not test it?

I don't think there are any fixed or broken parts of SMR jodo. It is a martial art whose curriculum has been developed over many years based on actual combat experiences. The people who have handed down this art have been in more touch with its practise than we will probably ever have.

The jo randori just sounds like another example of the West taking something apart and putting it back together again in their own special way. Jodo has become what it is because of what it is. There is enough to learn and improve on as it is without adding more to it!

Jack B
4th April 2003, 16:27
Those are all fair questions, but here's one for you to consider that actually answers your questions. How do you know that it isn't broken if you do not test it? The way to test it is to try something with someone who has trained in the existing methods. Some people are going to be lousy martial artists no matter how long they train (to paraphrase Dan Harden sensei), but you will know when you get hold of someone who really knows what they're doing. I could give you a list of people not to mess with.

I agree with the idea that a martial art can degenerate into fantasy if it is not tested. I do not think that Jodo has that problem. As has been flogged at length, too much focus on competition creates its own form of fantasy.

The Jodo kata system includes multiple answers and a variety of decision points where techniques can interchange. My perception is that the kata become real (a) when your partner presses you within the form by increasing the speed/power/timing/off-balance to challenge you, and (b) when your partner forgets what he is doing and responds incorrectly, forcing you to adapt instantly to what is really happening instead of what is choreographed. The latter can also be done (and sometimes is done) deliberately to keep a student alert and force true responses to develop.

Dave Fulton
4th April 2003, 16:52
Originally posted by Andy Watson
The jo randori just sounds like another example of the West taking something apart and putting it back together again in their own special way. Jodo has become what it is because of what it is. There is enough to learn and improve on as it is without adding more to it!

The "west"? Isn't that what the Japanese themselves have done? If not, then how did so many different koryu schools of jo, sword, jujutsu, etc. develop? However, that is not the point. I am not advocating changing the art, just trying to increase your (in the collective) understanding of it.

If you're talking about adding content, as in another kata or technique, then who is adding more? Is test cutting adding more content to kenjutsu? No, it's a tool to determine whether a student has correctly learned the mechanics of cutting with the sword. Randori/sparring could be used for the same purpose and that is my point.

As for what Jo has become, I think that will differ from one person to another depending upon they approach it.

Respectfully,

Dave Fulton

Dave Fulton
4th April 2003, 17:20
Originally posted by Jack B
As has been flogged at length, too much focus on competition creates its own form of fantasy.

You should read my post again, in particular the last two paragraphs because I agree with you on this. That is why I said:

"I am not advocating competative sparring as in Kendo, Judo or Karate. Personally, I hate martial arts tournaments! I am talking about something that is used as a tool for learning and attribute development.

This is where maturity and mind set comes into play. Not only would the participants need to be pretty experienced with Jo and sword, but they must approach it as a learning tool rather than as a competative event. Once it becomes a "competition", ego comes out and the learning usually stops. It can be very intense, but should always remain friendly and in the spirit of furthering one's knowledge and ability within the context of the art. Because of this, the type of sparring/randori that I'm talking about would have to be by invitation only."


Originally posted by Jack B
The Jodo kata system includes multiple answers and a variety of decision points where techniques can interchange. My perception is that the kata become real (a) when your partner presses you within the form by increasing the speed/power/timing/off-balance to challenge you, and (b) when your partner forgets what he is doing and responds incorrectly, forcing you to adapt instantly to what is really happening instead of what is choreographed. The latter can also be done (and sometimes is done) deliberately to keep a student alert and force true responses to develop.

I'll have to disagree with you here though. My perception is that no kata becomes "real" until you understand it well enough to apply it's strategies and tactics spontaneously under the kind of stress that you would experience if your opponent was trying to maim or kill you, i.e. real combat. I am not going to go looking for real combat, but I do try to simulate it as closely as possible using sparring/randori.

Respectfully,

Dave Fulton

Jack B
4th April 2003, 18:41
Fair enough! I'd like to submit that when your partner does something unexpected for any reason and the bokken comes whistling at you, it is plenty stressful and you get to apply those strategies and tactics spontaneously or get whacked really bad. This happens all the time in hard training.

Another thought: a lot of people in kata training also "play around" with sparring just to test themselves. So it happens. The question is whether it should be established as part of the curriculum. As you know, the common wisdom is that the koryu arts have been passed down completely unchanged for centuries, and only in the modern era has anyone ever tried to change them in any fundamental way. That's hogwash, of course, but people who seek out koryu (specifically us gaijin) generally do so to become part of a tradition, not to reform it. We leave that to Japanese, and decry change even when they do it. So you're not going to find a lot of support for changing anything in the Koryu section of E-budo. There are a lot of people who don't mind doing whatever works for them, and even the most "snobbish" koryu believer will say "more power to them".

There are also systems that use Jodo as an adjunct art for exploration of budo principles, and thus allow more leeway for experimentation and variation, even randori. They may satisfy your quest for demonstrability more than koryu.

Douglas Wylie
5th April 2003, 01:00
Originally posted by Dave Fulton
I am not from SMR

What are you from and what, if not jodo, are you basing your opinions about jodo on? I have 8yrs in jo, not long as the world goes but enough to discuss it.

How do you know what stresses are put on the jo, having never done it.

How do you know what variations in a jo's construction would affect the waza, not knowing the waza?

I dont believe you are aware that any damage to the weapon requires that it be removed from practice.


Originally posted by Dave Fulton
How do you know that it isn't broken if you do not test it?


Word of mouth, in a long and unbroken chain back to a time when people actually used this to survive. The teachings are relatively unchanged since feudal times. If you require more than that I cant help you.


Originally posted by Dave Fulton
I'll have to disagree with you here though.

Wonderful, but Jack has been doing jo for longer than some e-budo members have been alive. I'll have to go with the expert on this one.

Jack B
7th April 2003, 15:20
Jack has been doing jo for longer than some e-budo members have been alive. Hardly! Except perhaps those who can't drink yet, and they don't count.

I do appreciate your confidence, but there is a whole world of experience and different POV. I have to respect Mr. Fulton's concerns and sincere inquiry.

:cool:

Dave Fulton
7th April 2003, 22:14
Jack,

Yes, I agree that it is stressful when your partner un-expectedly breaks from a set training patter, but it is not as stressful as sparring ... in my experience anyway. Perhaps it's simply because (when breakin the pattern) by the time you have a chance fully appreciate what's happening, it's over ... one way or another, but in sparring you are anticipating that they're comming for you.

Other than that, I'll just reitterate that I never said anything about adding it to anyone's curriculum. I think I even said that it should be by "invitation only". By that I mean, if a student is interested AND if those in the sparring group think that the student would be a good fit, then the student could be invited to participate. Not everyone is a good candidate for the sparring and a sense of mutual trust is imperative. It's an extra-curricular development tool. What each person comes away with is a very personal thing. Interestingly enough, it can be a very Zen experience.

This has been an interesting discussion and I appreciate everyones's input. The respect is mutual Jack.

Mr. Wylie,

There is no need to get bent out of shape just because you don't like my opinion. Don't shoot the messenger just because you don't like the message.

Are you trying to say that SMR is the only system that knows how to utilize this class of weapon? If so, that's pretty narrow minded of you. I have already said I'm not SMR, but I am not ignorant of SMR methodology and I am quite familiar with both this class of weapon as well as the characteristics of rattan. You said:

"I dont believe you are aware that any damage to the weapon requires that it be removed from practice."

Your comment leads me to believe that you are not familiar with the affects of impact upon rattan and that you're applying a requirement from hard wood to rattan when they are quite different in this regard. However, I have already addressed this point in previous posts, so you'll need to review them for more details.

Since you asked, I have actively sparred (using a Jo) for the last two years if my memory is correct (note: I have been hit in the head a few times, so ... ;) ). During that time, I have used it numerous times against various weapons including, but not limited to: jo, ken & spear (all represented by the appropriate length rattan sticks) and a 3 section staff. In addition, I have another 2+ years of active sparring using weapons of various types. Again, we spar full-contact, i.e. we're hitting as hard as we can w/slight variation to targets for safety's sake. This is what I base my opinion on.

The original question was why randori/sparring is not used in Jodo and several answered that it could not be done safely or realistically. I simply submitted that it could be done safely and realistically based upon first hand experience.

Respectfully,

Dave Fulton

Nashie
8th April 2003, 20:18
_____________________________________________________________________
The original question was why randori/sparring is not used in Jodo and several answered that it could not be done safely or realistically. I simply submitted that it could be done safely and realistically based upon first hand experience.

Respectfully,

Dave Fulton
_____________________________________________________________________

Yes it could be done safely and maybe realistically, however if someone does get injured. where does that leave us with regards to insurance/liability with regards to court cases etc.
I know this will change with differant countries insurance policies, but in the U.K. insurance companies are clamping down on what they pay out on (nothing new there) and with the rise in claims for negligence etc, we are putting our self's at risk.
I am not even sure if signing a disclaimer would protect you in this country.:rolleyes:

Dave Fulton
8th April 2003, 20:27
Originally posted by Nashie

Yes it could be done safely and maybe realistically, however if someone does get injured. where does that leave us with regards to insurance/liability with regards to court cases etc.
I know this will change with differant countries insurance policies, but in the U.K. insurance companies are clamping down on what they pay out on (nothing new there) and with the rise in claims for negligence etc, we are putting our self's at risk.
I am not even sure if signing a disclaimer would protect you in this country.:rolleyes:

This is a very good point. Maryland is pretty bad with regard to enforcing liability waivers, so this is one of the risks that we take whenever we spar. This is yet another reason why our sparring sessions are by invitation only.

Respectfully,

Dave Fulton

Will Wetherell
9th April 2003, 00:58
Thank you very much for all your interesting and informative replies. It seems to me that the issues of how to practice jo randori safely and practically have been answered and the big question, as Douglas Wylie very concisely put it, is


Originally posted by Douglas Wylie
Why do you need randori?

I'll post my thoughts on that later.

Cheers,

Will

Douglas Wylie
10th April 2003, 00:35
Originally posted by Dave Fulton

There is no need to get bent out of shape just because you don't like my opinion.

I'm not upset, dont read more than my words into my message. Just because someone disagrees with you doesnt mean they are jumping up and down on their desk screaming at the monitor.

Are you trying to say that SMR is the only system that knows how to utilize this class of weapon?

No. However you are posting in the KORYU section, subsection JO. It is expected for the topic to involve koryu jodo I.E. SMR and other really obscure schools dating to before the late 1800's. Anything else would probably belong in GENDAI- CLOSE QUARTER COMBATIVES or its art's parent section.

I have already said I'm not SMR, but I am not ignorant of SMR methodology and I am quite familiar with both this class of weapon as well as the characteristics of rattan.

Class of weapon?? This isnt role playing games we are talking about.

Interesting how you answer the question while not answering the question. I'll rephrase- What exactly do you practice? Who are your teachers and how long have you been doing it? What exactly is your experience with SMR?

I have seen kurhotty fellas doing "jo" before. It looks like bo kata done with a shorter stick, nothing like SMR. Aiki jo is not like SMR. Ninjers like to swing jo also, nothing like SMR.

SMR takes several years practice just to get introduced. A cursory knowledge is no knowledge at all. Videos, watching live demonstrations and 3 day seminars hardly count as knowledge.

Your comment leads me to believe that you are not familiar with the affects of impact upon rattan

Having done arnis/ escrima sparring with rattan sticks and having splintered them, I would say I have a rather good idea of the characteristics of rattan.

Were you to have actual SMR knowledge you would know that in most waza the hand must slide along the length of the jo. Any splinter at all will catch in your hand/ glove/ robotic attachment/ or anything else you can think of.

Since you asked, I have actively sparred (using a Jo) for the last two years

Under what dicipline?

Koryu?
Other?
What exactly?

The original question was why randori/sparring is not used in Jodo and several answered that it could not be done safely or realistically. I simply submitted that it could be done safely and realistically based upon first hand experience.

I contend that your first hand experience does not include or apply to koryu jodo and is therefore irrelevant for the discussion at hand.

But I wont bandy words about it. I'm not looking to win an argument or convince anyone of anything. It doesnt matter what I think, I'm a small fish in a very big ocean.

Back to the discussion-

The truth is it doesnt matter. The reason there is no randori is that there is no randori. Find the highest jodo sensei in the world and ask him about randori, I have $50 the answer will be short and along the lines of "no randori".

Everyone wants to take Kano's idea (as if no one else has EVER considered it- soke's/ 10dans etc... and all. If they thought it was not necessary, who are you to doubt them?) and apply it with great effect thereby becoming "the man". The reason it worked for Kano is there was a NEED for it. The reason it wont work for you is there is NO NEED for it.

My last post on topic. I'm not here to bicker.

Dave Fulton
10th April 2003, 14:19
Originally posted by Douglas Wylie

No. However you are posting in the KORYU section, subsection JO. It is expected for the topic to involve koryu jodo I.E. SMR and other really obscure schools dating to before the late 1800's. Anything else would probably belong in GENDAI- CLOSE QUARTER COMBATIVES or its art's parent section.

I see.


Originally posted by Douglas Wylie Class of weapon?? This isnt role playing games we are talking about.

Interesting how you answer the question while not answering the question. I'll rephrase- What exactly do you practice? Who are your teachers and how long have you been doing it? What exactly is your experience with SMR?

I have seen kurhotty fellas doing "jo" before. It looks like bo kata done with a shorter stick, nothing like SMR. Aiki jo is not like SMR. Ninjers like to swing jo also, nothing like SMR.


Yes, I realize that this isn't role playing games that we're talking about ... do you ... really? Do you really consider someone who wants to know first hand that the strategies and tactics of their system are in fact valid and that they have the ability to apply them, to be playing "role playing games"? Yet you think that wearing hakama, blinding accepting the experiences of people long since dead, then espousing the superiority of that knowledge without having validated it for yourself, and looking down your nose at anyone who doesn't do the same and isn't koryu, isn't "role playing"?

The brutal truth of the matter is that anyone, who trains with Jo, swords, spears, etc. could be considered to be engaging in "role playing games" because these weapons are not relevant to contemporary combat. I think you were the one who said that they hadn't heard of anyone being defeated while using a Jo lately. I'd accept that, to some degree, I engage in "role playing games". However, some people buy into their own role playing game so far that they develop the delusion that what they are doing is in fact reality. Look at what you do and decide where you fall on the spectrum. You don't need to tell me because it's a personal matter and frankly it doesn't make a difference to me.


Originally posted by Douglas Wylie
Were you to have actual SMR knowledge you would know that in most waza the hand must slide along the length of the jo. Any splinter at all will catch in your hand/ glove/ robotic attachment/ or anything else you can think of.

"Since you asked, I have actively sparred (using a Jo) for the last two years "

Under what dicipline?

Koryu?
Other?
What exactly?

I contend that your first hand experience does not include or apply to koryu jodo and is therefore irrelevant for the discussion at hand.


Yes, I'm aware of how the hand slides along the length of the Jo. Again, I've used it in sparring, with rattan, and have yet to have a problem with it. I'm not saying that it's impossible, just that I have not found it to be the problem that you are speculating it would be.

I was getting ready to tell you what my first hand experience includes, but changed my mind for 2 reasons:

1.) I find your koryu snobbery to be boring and irrelevant. Besides, I know that it's bugging you. :D

2.) (as I said before) What you take away from the sparring/randori is very personal so instead of bickering about this any longer, I would just encourage you to try it for yourself and find whatever you find.

The way I see it, it boils down to this (addressed to no one in particular):

1.) I strive for a higher level of ability and understanding of my art by testing myself and my art through sparring/randori.

2.) Try sparring/randori or not as you wish, but if you choose not to try it then please don't proclaim your superiority or the superiority of your art based upon your faith and speculation.

3.) Drop the koryu snobbery because it accomplishes nothing of a positive nature.

4.) Interestingly enough, sparring/randori seems to cure people numbers 2 & 3. It's tough to claim superiority and look down your nose at someone after you've had your butt kicked.

Respectfully,

Dave Fulton

P.S. If anyone has any other logistical questions about sparring/randori, please feel free to e-mail me.

Diane Skoss
10th April 2003, 15:12
Dear Mr. Fulton,

I'm sorry you thought that Mr. Wylie was evidencing koryu snobbery. It is true, however, that this forum is supposed to be focused on koryu jo; that's why it is located in the koryu subsection. That's not to say that discussions such as this are not productive.

We've established

1) jo as practiced withing the SMR does not include randori in its curriculum

2) certain sorts of spontaneous interaction does occur in SMR, both intentionally and unintentionally

3) sparring between agreeing individuals might well be a useful exercise providing the equipment will safeguard the participants

4) sparring training is a useful adjunct to martial arts training in general (I did jukendo)

5) people who haven't done sparring have less informed opinions about sparring; people who aren't members of koryu have less informed opinions about koryu

Let's leave it there, please. I don't have a lot of time to moderate this as I've got knee surgery coming up. Stick to the topics; play nice. Everyone is entitled to an opinion; everyone is entitled to judge the validity of that opinion and to query the basis on which it is made. Beyond that, leave out the personal judgements; judge opinions and statements of fact, not the motivations or characteristics of the person who makes them.

Cheers,

Diane Skoss

Aozora
10th April 2003, 18:29
Begging Ms. Skoss's leave (good luck with your surgery, BTW... ACL, maybe?), I'd like to politely address a couple points in Dave's post.


Originally posted by Dave Fulton


Yes, I'm aware of how the hand slides along the length of the Jo. Again, I've used it in sparring, with rattan, and have yet to have a problem with it. I'm not saying that it's impossible, just that I have not found it to be the problem that you are speculating it would be.


The differences between rattan and white oak jo (chemical compositions aside) do play a significant role in use of the jo:

1) Rattan is lighter and therefore easier to use. Many of the SMR jodo warm ups are also cleverly designed to get the practitioner used to both the weight and length of the jo in their muscle memory. To change this is to change the way you practice (bad from the stand point of the use of the jo vs. the sword).

2) Knots and nodes along the length of the rattan can potentially stop hand motion along the length of the jo or worse, serv4e to weaken the grip at a critical time. While I'd imagine this wouldn't happen all the time, the smoothness of white oak is an advantage.

3) Rattan would not hold up anywhere near as well as a white oak jo under punishment from other, particularly metal weapons (and the gods help you if one fo those weapons has an edge on it!). While I realize that rattan is used in Phillipino and Indonesian arts vs. daggers, machetes and the like, katana, juttes and kusari gama are different animals completely.



Do you really consider someone who wants to know first hand that the strategies and tactics of their system are in fact valid and that they have the ability to apply them, to be playing "role playing games"? Yet you think that wearing hakama, blinding accepting the experiences of people long since dead, then espousing the superiority of that knowledge without having validated it for yourself, and looking down your nose at anyone who doesn't do the same and isn't koryu, isn't "role playing"?



This part seems to me rife with the snobbery you accuse Doug of. You're saying that because you have spent 2 1/2 years "sparring" that you have a better insight that many generations of folks who inherted their art from people who actually lived and died by their techniques. You're right, it all is just a game and I would be reticent if I were you to say that your techniques are "tested" because you've "sparred" with them. You mentioned the Dog Brothers in an earlier post. On their website, they specifically point out that what they are doing is having fun at 3 minute intervals walloping the crap out of each other with all manner (or lack thereof) of non-fatal weaponry. I don't really have a problem with this, becaue they aren't fooling themselves as to whether or not this is real life-or-death stuff (probably because of the exteremly remote possibility that they'd ever be called upon to defend their own lives with such weapons). As such, they have plenty to contribute to sparring and the like. What they do not know about, nor even approach is a real life situation with one of those weapons. The best and the only method of achieving that is to either a: do it for real or b: rely on the experiences of those who have. In the koryu curriculum we are doing b.

Don't think for a second though, that what we're doing is patty-cake. None of what we do is taken on faith for very long, although some of it is a matter or faith as it is impossible to prove without killing someone (and yes, this is a refutation of the idea that the experience with a padded weapon is a legitimate subsititute. The only way to prove the lethality of these techniques is to actually kill someone. We have proof from those "bunch of dead guys in hakama" :rolleyes: that is such and don't need to prove it to ourselves). I could have easily posted my own little web site with pictures of busted knuckles and bruises from jo practice. Further, I've done jo with Mr. Wylie. 1) He's a big guy and 2) when he swings the bokken, he does it with the intent to smash it into the target he's aiming at, usually my head, ribs or collarbone. If I don't get out of the way, I'm going to get hit in a bad way. So there's plenty of realism there.

As to testing my own abilities for the betterment of myself, two additional things apply:

1) I'm fairly confident there isn't anyone out there who has more experience or insight into their art than Muso Gonnosuke did. This includes me and you. He did prove his ability and the techniques he used and his legacy and the [legitimacy] of his training methods stands to this day.

2) Through practice of kata alone, I have faced situations with the aforementioned large guy in which I had to spontaneously adapt my technique to avoid the aformentioned consequences of his intent. About a month ago while we were giving a demonstration indoors, the waza we were wroking on called for more space at the end of the technique than the environmental factors would allow. As a result, Doug was uncomfotably within my ma-ai (spacing) and yet he didn't seem to have any qualms about continuing the technique. Without thinking about it, without losing form or punching him in the head or yelling to stop (which all seem to be legitimate parts of the "art" of sparring) my body fell into a different kihon that the waza called for, but it was right to the situation.

By relating this, I am by no means saying I have achieved the be all end all of of jodo, far from it. But, I have proven it to myself that the techniques do sink in through even a hard head like mine and can apply.

On a personal note, I think you should probably try a koryu or two for a period of time longer than your current experience before dismissing it a ineffectual. Like you, I used to freely spar with padded weapons back in college Dog-bros. style (although we did have a pont system) and I learned a few valuable lessons. However, there's absolutely nothing like muscle memory reinforcement of basic techniques for true progression. You should be old enoguh by now to know the value in listening to more experienced folks. There's a reason people invest time in sensei and sempai and for the most part, it's not wide-eyed faith that they're going to turn us into the next Musashi with Buddha's wisdom to boot. I know that I've improved much more and much faster under tutelage than I ever did as a numbskull with a foam-encrusted dowel beating the crap out of my other friends and taking my own lumps to prove it. You're not proving anything by just jumping on others like that, as far as developing your art goes. The proof is there in the system, you have to stick with it long enough to get there and by that time you have a solid foundation to determine whether what you're doing is real or not.

Sorry for the rambling post. I mean no offense to you Dave, I simply think you should spend a little more time with learning the basics before you try to get out there and "prove" something to yourself and others.

Douglas Wylie
10th April 2003, 18:35
I do aikido and judo as well as jodo and iaido. I AM a snob, just not a koryu one.:D

I apologize for all my shortcomings.

Good luck on the knee.

Jack B
10th April 2003, 20:00
I just got back from the AAAA convention (Army Aviation) and came away with a classic quote from the training division:

ALL BUT WAR IS SIMULATION

Also, Dave, you have your email options turned off, so no one could contact you to take this off-line if we wanted to...

Dave Fulton
11th April 2003, 01:09
I shall attempt to respond the last several posts, so bare with me if I get anything mixed up.

Ms. Skoss,

I do not have a problem with the fact that this forum is about Koryu Jo. Someone asked a question about the use of sparring/randori within the context of Koryu Jo and I simply refuted some people's assertions that sparring/randori could not be done realistically or safely with a Jo. I did this based upon my own experience (i.e. I wasn't making stuff up), in an attempt to make a positive contribution. I did this while trying to stick to the issue and stay away from taking pot shots at people. Only two things have bothered me in this discussion.

1.) Mr. Wylie's repeated assertions that my opinion is not relevant because I am not Koryu Jo.

2.) The fact that you called me down for making "personal judgements" and admonished me to "play nice", while saying nothing to Mr. Wylie in spite of the fact that he is at least as guilty I am and he fired the first shots. I'm not asking for special treatment, just equal treatment.

The best of luck on your surgery. I haven't had surgery, but as someone with a bad knee, I certainly sympathize.

Mr. Aozora,

1.) The weight of rattan is extremely variable. Different species of rattan are lighter, heavier, softer, harder, etc. Also, even within the same species there can be surprising variation in terms of density, which affects the weight, from one batch to another. Then there is the matter of whether the skin is left on or peeled off.

2.) The "nodes" of rattan are an obsticle, but not an insurmountable one. One option is to peel the skin off, whick would remove the nodes entirely, but also lighten the rattan and cause it to deteriorate more quickly. Another would be to file/sand them down smooth, which is the preferred method ... in my opinion (having tried both).

3.) Rattan will not hold up forever under the heavy impact, but then Oak won't either. Nothing will. By the way, the Filipinos didn't use rattan as a weapon traditionally. They're preferred wood (of course they preferred and usually did use edged weapons), if they were going to fight with a stick would have been Bahi or Kamagong because they are denser and heavier. Note, they might have used rattan in a pinch, but given their choice would likely have choosen Bahi or Kamagong .. if not a sword. The wide spread use of rattan is a modern convention for safety in training.

All that said, I never said that the method was perfect and I think I even said that the rattan Jo would not be exactly the same as a wood Jo. However, it is the closest that I come so far and (in my opinion) is close enough that one should be able to adjust and replicate the real thing enough to serve the purpose ... to learn.

Ok, that one part came out a little more harshly than I had intended. Wearing a hakama, practicing only kata (ie no sparring/randori) are all part of koryu and are forms of role playing. The "snobbish" twist came from my being insulted by Mr. Wylies flip dismissal of my opinion because I am not a student of the Koryu.

However, you seem to be operating on the misconception that I am making up my own tactics and strategies. I am not. I am taking classical tactics and strategies and testing them and my ability to apply them in a completely spontaneous enviroment. The tactics and strategies that I use were developed by people who's lives depended upon them and although my life isn't at as much risk as their's were, I do take substantial risk to test and validate them for myself. Therefore, although I would not claim to have better insight than those who actually fought in combat with these strategies and tactics, and wouldn't make that claim of anyone with vastly more experience than myself either, I certainly do feel comfortable making such a claim against your average martial artist. Especially when they use the boiler plate claim that it's "too deadly to spar with" and have never even attempted it.

Further, I did not bring up the Dog Brothers and our sparring matches are not held to any specified length of time, but then I'm not sure how that matters anyway. Also, you said "As such, they have plenty to contribute to sparring and the like. What they do not know about, nor even approach is a real life situation with one of those weapons. The best and the only method of achieving that is to either a: do it for real or b: rely on the experiences of those who have. In the koryu curriculum we are doing b." There is no "best" method to achieve this. The "surest" way would certainly be to do it "for real", but the next "surest" way (in my opinion) would be to simulate "for real" as closely as is practical. Also, you should revisit the Dog Brother's site ... they don't use "padded weapons". Neither do we.

If it really is "too deadly to spar with", then how is it that I'm typing this and how is it that no one has died in one of the Dog Brother's matches? Are we all just really lucky? Also, who has used SMR to kill someone? The main battle (the only one as I recall) involving SMR was between Muso Gonnosuke and Musashi and as I recall Musashi lived. I'm not saying that SMR couldn't kill, I'm just asking you to tell me who it did kill because you're implying that it did. And for the record, I never "dismissed" SMR as "ineffectual" or called it "patty cake", never. I simply said that it was possible to spar/randori with it in a relatively safe and realistic manner ... that's it.

You also seem to think that all I do is spar and that I have no basis or foundation that is classically trained and on that note you are totally incorrect, as I have already indicated. I spend a lot of time working on basics like: body mechanics, footwork & evasion, basic striking/blocking, etc and the principles that govern them. The sparring is not the whole of my training, not even close.

Finally, you have no idea at all how long I have trained, so how do you justify admonishing me to "know the value in listening to more experienced folks"? Remember, I said 2 years of "sparring", not "training". Besides, the topic was sparring/randori with the Jo. I have 2+ years of sparring/randori with the Jo and another 2+ with weapons in general (again, that's "sparring", that's not when I started "studying" weapons). I think most of my detractors have admitted to 0 sparring with the Jo. So, who in this discussion am I supposed to look to as having more experience?

No offense intended, but you're making unsupported assertions.

Mr. Wylie,

I guess we all have our faults, don't we? I certainly have mine. Unfortunately, one of mine was being naive enough attempt to make a contribution.

I shall attempt to simply observe this forum in the future so as not to cause any more disturbances in a house that I am a guest in.

Jack,

I agree, it all is a simulation. However, I think you would agree that the military attempts to simulate combat as closely as is practical and safe.

As for the e-mail settings, I was not aware that they were turned off. I should look into it.

Respectfully (to all),

Dave Fulton

P.S. What determines the "Rating" of a thread? I noted all the stars on this one.

Diane Skoss
11th April 2003, 01:24
Dear Mr. Fulton,

I should have addressed my message to both you and Mr. Wylie. My policy is to "gently admonish" all parties to any potentially disruptive interaction. I do apologize; I mean for everyone on this forum to play nice and not get personal. I did not mean that only you should be held to that standard. I appreciate everyone's efforts to keep this discussion focused on randori and the jo. There's a bit too much argument on what was said by whom to my taste (I honestly don't believe arguing about what was said in a thread to be particularly productive), but as long as it is done respectfully and with good humor, I'll keep my mouth shut.

Cheers,

Diane Skoss

Aozora
11th April 2003, 16:29
Originally posted by Dave Fulton


1.) The weight of rattan is extremely variable. Different species of rattan are lighter, heavier, softer, harder, etc. Also, even within the same species there can be surprising variation in terms of density, which affects the weight, from one batch to another. Then there is the matter of whether the skin is left on or peeled off.

2.) The "nodes" of rattan are an obsticle, but not an insurmountable one. One option is to peel the skin off, whick would remove the nodes entirely, but also lighten the rattan and cause it to deteriorate more quickly. Another would be to file/sand them down smooth, which is the preferred method ... in my opinion (having tried both).

3.) Rattan will not hold up forever under the heavy impact, but then Oak won't either. Nothing will. By the way, the Filipinos didn't use rattan as a weapon traditionally. They're preferred wood (of course they preferred and usually did use edged weapons), if they were going to fight with a stick would have been Bahi or Kamagong because they are denser and heavier. Note, they might have used rattan in a pinch, but given their choice would likely have choosen Bahi or Kamagong .. if not a sword. The wide spread use of rattan is a modern convention for safety in training.


1&2) I recognize that there are variable weights to rattan and methods of smoothing them. My point was to train with something other than a jo is to train with that weapon and there are differences when you use the "real" thing. To be fair, I think after a certain amount of time weapons are weapons, and you can pretty much pick up anything and commence to beating with it. However, this is after years of training, certainly beyond my current status. However, I will say that that the weight and length do make a whole lot of difference and affect the force multiplier of the weapon in question.

3) You must admit, white oak goes a whole hell of a lot longer than rattan does, esp. under heavy use. Thanks though for the info about the Phillipino use of rattan. I admit a certain amount of ignorance in the area of escrima and kali, so thanks for letting me know.



All that said, I never said that the method was perfect and I think I even said that the rattan Jo would not be exactly the same as a wood Jo. However, it is the closest that I come so far and (in my opinion) is close enough that one should be able to adjust and replicate the real thing enough to serve the purpose ... to learn.


Fair enough. And you're entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that sparring for greater knowledge of the art is a dangerous waste of time that lures one into thinking he's great because he's been able to defeat x number of people with what he's got. Kata is a much better milieu to train with because it allows the practitioner to develop at their own pace and allows a gradual introduction of random elements into the system. You assert below that kata is little more than role playing, which seems to be your disposition to koryu as a whole. My suggestion is you look no further than Ms. Skoss and her husband to view what kata is like at the upper levels.


Ok, that one part came out a little more harshly than I had intended. Wearing a hakama, practicing only kata (ie no sparring/randori) are all part of koryu and are forms of role playing. The "snobbish" twist came from my being insulted by Mr. Wylies flip dismissal of my opinion because I am not a student of the Koryu.

It's more or less to keep the same spirit of training in a traditional martial art in the minds and hearts of practitioners. Wearing traditional clothing makes a break in the mind of the exponent form the work-a-day world, critical for most people and a nice comfort for the rest. It's not game playing, it's serious psychological alteration that crosses into many different cultures and areas, esp. outside the martial arts. Are we to assume that the military is playing at war when they don a uniform?

As to the other half of the equation, kata, I take exception to this comment. This in itself seems to say that you think there is no merit or testing going on during the practice of kata. Nothing could be further from the truth. Again, you need to do more research. To this end, I agree with Doug in that until you practice such, you cannot have an understanding of what it's like.


However, you seem to be operating on the misconception that I am making up my own tactics and strategies. I am not. I am taking classical tactics and strategies and testing them and my ability to apply them in a completely spontaneous enviroment. The tactics and strategies that I use were developed by people who's lives depended upon them and although my life isn't at as much risk as their's were, I do take substantial risk to test and validate them for myself. Therefore, although I would not claim to have better insight than those who actually fought in combat with these strategies and tactics, and wouldn't make that claim of anyone with vastly more experience than myself either, I certainly do feel comfortable making such a claim against your average martial artist. Especially when they use the boiler plate claim that it's "too deadly to spar with" and have never even attempted it.

Further, I did not bring up the Dog Brothers and our sparring matches are not held to any specified length of time, but then I'm not sure how that matters anyway. Also, you said "As such, they have plenty to contribute to sparring and the like. What they do not know about, nor even approach is a real life situation with one of those weapons. The best and the only method of achieving that is to either a: do it for real or b: rely on the experiences of those who have. In the koryu curriculum we are doing b." There is no "best" method to achieve this. The "surest" way would certainly be to do it "for real", but the next "surest" way (in my opinion) would be to simulate "for real" as closely as is practical. Also, you should revisit the Dog Brother's site ... they don't use "padded weapons". Neither do we.

If it really is "too deadly to spar with", then how is it that I'm typing this and how is it that no one has died in one of the Dog Brother's matches? Are we all just really lucky? Also, who has used SMR to kill someone? The main battle (the only one as I recall) involving SMR was between Muso Gonnosuke and Musashi and as I recall Musashi lived. I'm not saying that SMR couldn't kill, I'm just asking you to tell me who it did kill because you're implying that it did. And for the record, I never "dismissed" SMR as "ineffectual" or called it "patty cake", never. I simply said that it was possible to spar/randori with it in a relatively safe and realistic manner ... that's it.


It is too deadly to spar with, using white oak training tools. I don't need to stick my hand into the fire to know that it's hot, and I don't need anymore evidence than the history of koryu systems which is littered with crippling injuries and death to know that it's too deadly to spar with, particularly after only a few short years of training. If you would like a list of names, or sources, I'm going to have to go digging, but a cursory examination of any of the sources on koryu should reveal it. Again, I'd recommend Ms. Skoss's three volume set on koryu as a good start.

As to not getting killed, you guys aren't lucky, you're just not training by getting hit in the temple with wooden four foot long staves. If you were, you would see the rate of injury and death skyrocket, just like it did in feudal Japan. That's why there is no randori in koryu systems, and gendai randori involves armour and bamboo (ala kendo and atarashii naginata).



You also seem to think that all I do is spar and that I have no basis or foundation that is classically trained and on that note you are totally incorrect, as I have already indicated. I spend a lot of time working on basics like: body mechanics, footwork & evasion, basic striking/blocking, etc and the principles that govern them. The sparring is not the whole of my training, not even close.

In what system? That's not to say (assuming [here I go again] philipino-style training) it's not effective, but what system teaches you the use of jo outside SMR or Aiki-jo? Training with escrima/hanbo or training with a quarterstaff/bo are decidedly differnt than training with a weapon the jo's length and heft. The techniques are different.



Finally, you have no idea at all how long I have trained, so how do you justify admonishing me to "know the value in listening to more experienced folks"? Remember, I said 2 years of "sparring", not "training". Besides, the topic was sparring/randori with the Jo. I have 2+ years of sparring/randori with the Jo and another 2+ with weapons in general (again, that's "sparring", that's not when I started "studying" weapons). I think most of my detractors have admitted to 0 sparring with the Jo. So, who in this discussion am I supposed to look to as having more experience?
No offense intended, but you're making unsupported assertions.

No offense taken--you're right, I really don't know how much experience you have, I'm just going by what you wrote. I am also suspicious because you've yet to put down what style you train in and the length of time involved. That isn't to say you aren't legitimate, but I've nothing to go by aside from "2+ years of sparring."

What I do assert is that 2 years regardless of what it is, isn't sufficient time to make any assessments of the effectiveness of any martial art or training method. I don't know that you're saying SMR jo or its practitioners are ineffectual because it/they lack randori, but you certainly do seem to be leaning that way. To that I end, I most certainly do assert and admonish you for your ignorance and I justify it because it's the same admonisment I take on myself in other ways. More specifically, you're making assertions about koryu To turn the question back around, why should we upend centuries of martial arts training from people who lived and died by their techniques, just because in two years, you've seen a better way of doing things that we have evidence of training severe injury and death?

I'm not trying to attack you Dave, but it really does seem like you have a bone to pick with koryu stuff. Yes, many martial artists in koryu, as well as every type of martial arts, are fooling themselves as to the effectiveness of the techniques they've learned, or their own ability to deal with real combat. However, until you have trained for multiple years in a koryu system, you really don't know how effective kata is or why one should do it.

Respectfully,

Diane Skoss
11th April 2003, 16:57
Hi Mr. Melancon,

You wrote to Mr. Fulton:


I don't know that you're saying SMR jo or its practitioners are ineffectual because it/they lack randori, but you certainly do seem to be leaning that way.

I think this is an example of reading too much into what was written. Mr. Fulton may be implying that we don't know as much as we think we know if we haven't tested our techniques (personally) via randori. That's not an unreasonable statement, and in many cases, it is true. What you and Mr. Wylie and others are saying, that it isn't really that easy to evaluate the effectiveness of kata training, is also true; it is extremely difficult for someone who has not had a decade or so working with kata to see how it might function just as or more effectively than randori training.

Lt. Col. George Bristol has come to the conclusion that kata training is one of the most effective forms of training for combat. He's based the latest iteration [that doesn't look like I spelled it right!] of the Marine Corps combat training system on koryu principles. But I don't believe they've jettisoned free-sparring altogether; they're using both systems in a balance. George wrote about his thoughts on this in Keiko Shokon.

Personally, I advocate that all koryu practitioners get some experience with randori and/or shiai in one of the modern forms. But, the kihon and the kata are the key to the whole shebang, when it comes to koryu; getting too distracted by "making it work" is, in my opinion, counterproductive in the long run.

And a message to all:

I know it is annoying and frustrating, but the fact is that knowing enough to write anything meaningful about the koryu requires years (decades?) of training. There are so many layers, and I've seen time and time again (in myself and others) how assumptions are broken down as more information reveals itself. What you see is not what you get. The only way to get this stuff is to work under a qualified instructor, and to continue training. BSing about it on BBs won't get you very far. A beer with your sensei after a solid training session will do more.

Cheers,

Diane Skoss

Aozora
11th April 2003, 17:49
Hi Ms. Skoss,

I agree with what you're saying. I must admit that my own experiences with jo are tinged with randori experiences in Aikido, judo and kendo (and backyard walloping ;) ), so it's difficult to really look at jodo from a pure POV.

I will stand by the idea that kata eventually develops the full range of exchange bewtween two people, short of out and out killing one another. At the same time, it serves to preserve the kihon within the movements and as such, does away with the need to "lets just go at each other and see what happens." Still, I've a long way to go before fully exploring kata, and that I think is the most basic point I can take out of this.

Thanks!

Will Wetherell
13th April 2003, 03:55
I'd like to clarify a couple of points.

Firstly, my original question was NOT meant to imply that kata should be disposed of and replaced with randori. I was asking why randori is not used as an adjunct to kata.

Secondly, I didn't mean to suggest that the kata should be changed. That might be an interesting, if emotive, topic for a future thread but it certainly isn't the focus of this discussion.

Now to the big question: Why do you need randori?

In this age of firearms it could be argued that there is little need for a stick fighting art and hence even less need for randori within that art. However, a debate over the anachronistic nature of koryu bujutsu is a bigger issue than I want to get into here so I'd like to put it aside for the moment.

One place to begin the argument for randori might be in the schools of classical kendo which engaged in randori with shinai as well as kaho with bokken and edged out the schools which practiced kaho only, clearly demonstrating of the benefits of safe, free exercise in weapons training.

Another place to look might be the police tournament in 1886 in which Kano's Judo (training with randori and kata) beat the jujutsu schools (training with kata only) and became Japan's most prominant weaponless martial art. Another clear demonstration of the benefits of randori.

While in the past randori may have been excluded from jojutsu curricula on the grounds that it was impractical and unsafe, I believe we have established that modern training materials can change that.

In the absence of any way to really test a fighting art's combat effectiveness, as Kano did in 1886 and kendoka did in countless duels, there's no way of knowing for sure whether there's a need for randori or not. However, parallels with Judo and Kendo would suggest that there is, or at least that the matter should be investigated further before being dismissed out of hand.

Cheers,

Will

Earl Hartman
13th April 2003, 07:32
Will:

What do you mean by the kendo schools which practiced randori "edging out" those that didn't? Please explain.

I have practiced kendo for many years, and it is a plain fact that kendo simply does not bear much resemblance to actual fighting with a sword.

In kendo, there are rules. In a fight to the death, there are not. That one thing changes everything. If you go into a match relying on the rules to protect you (no thrusts to the nads, f'rinstance, or the knowledge that a strike not perfectly on target won't count so you can ignore it) at that instant the exercise ceases, in a fundamental sense, to bear much resemblance to a deadly contest, as rough and painful as it might be.

I was once doing kendo with a guy who slipped my strikes to his head like a boxer, moving his head out of the way at the last second so my shinai would graze off his men (since this was kendo, I instinctively pulled my strike when I saw it wasn't going to hit him squarely in the head). After about the umpteeenth time I got sick of it, since I though it was a chickens**t thing to do, so the next time I swung at him I simply continued the stroke, as I would with a real sword, with the result that I struck him sharply right at the junction of his neck and shoulder, which would, needless to say, probably have killed him had the sword been real.

He yelped in pain and got really pissed. "Hey", he said "you can't do that!" Some version of this happens in almost every kendo match I have ever seen.

Now, kendo does not need to be that way, but it is. While many kendo techniques are very strong, with rules, limited target areas, and limited attacks, kendo is far too restricted to resemble real swordfighting. Kendo matches are usually incredibly sloppy, with blows raining down all over the place, the majority of them ignored becasue they don't "count". in addition, people develop certain habits of body movement, like the guy I mentioned above, that would get them killed straight away in a real fight. All of this is a result of the introduction of competitive matches where the object is to take points off of your opponent rather than kill him.

Peoperly understood and practiced, sparring can be valuable. I believe that my experience in kendo was very valuable, and I have come to appreciate what sparring can and cannot accomplish precisely through my practice of koryu jo. However, sparring is very easy to misuse and misunderstand. It seems to me that it can only have value if it is restricted to use as a tool to understand real technique as opposed to becoming an end in itself.

Hissho
13th April 2003, 15:49
I am always intrigued with different takes on this subject.

Earl, I think Will is referring to comments made in Cameron Hurst's Armed Martial Arts of Japan as far as the shinai-geiko styles edging out the kaho styles.

While I can't speak with decades of experience in any kind of koryu, I can speak with experience in personally training and instructing others in combative methods using projectiles, hand held weapons, and unarmed tactics and applying same (well..except the shooting) in a law enforcement capacity.

Increasingly law enforcement is embracing the "force on force" training paradigm (i.e. full contact with protective equipment against active resistance)as superior for developing efficient and effective functioning under actual conditions. I think this paralells the development early on of the sword schools that were proponents of shinai-geiko. It also doesn't mean what some think of as "sparring."

In personal communications with Hunter Armstrong (Lt. Col. Bristol's teacher) he has stated that most koryu did practice shiai type training in their curriculums. The tradition he and Lt. Col. Bristol pracice still does so - and having had the opportunity to observe it, it is a very intimidating and pressure filled style of shiai with long spears. That's the whole point (ugh - even I didn't see that one coming!)

He has also noted, as have others even here in this thread, that at higher levels kata training becomes more fluid and "breaks," and greater speed, contact and lack of pattern are to be expected, with a more forceful and more realistic simulation of combat is hopefully provided.

This isn't necessarily sparring, and sparring isn't necessarily force on force, just like kendo isn't swordsmanship, and paintball isn't Simmunition and Simmunition isn't a real gun fight!

For firearms training, we use real guns adapted to fire Simmunition F/X marking cartridges. We wear unrealistic protective equipment due to the inherently dangerous nature of the training tool. We also use highly regulated safety guidelines and tightly scripted scenarios to ensure that the engagement 1) is safe 2) maintains an element of realism as far as situations encountered by balancing the freedom of action of the participants and 3)is within the skill level of the trainee to handle. All of this paradoxically provides a more stressful and better simulation of the emotion, the tactical decision making, and the performance anxiety that arises under real use of force conditions than would giving someone a paintball gun and a mask and letting them run around willy nilly in a warehouse to "practice."

As the trainees get better, they are faced with higher difficulty tasks - and incidentally, more realism thru freedom of action is built into the scenarios.

That should sound familiar to most koryu practitioners, if I have understood what my friends in koryu have told me and taught me as regards koryu training.

But there is a danger. You can "game" it and lose actual combative training value - by, say, using Simmunition as if it were paintball and not as if it were live ammo (though, interestingly enough, the idea for Simmunition developed from paintball.) Kind of like kendo in reverse.)

You can use a shinai "in the manner of a real sword," which certain past masters of, for example, the Jikishinkage-ryu required, or you can create a game based on the training tool and not the training goal and end up with point systems and combatively inane tactics that score in the game but would not be advisable in the real world. Eventually the goal changes and the game BECOMES the goal.

I am a firm proponent of sparring, even sportive, to develop core attributes. But it is not enough to just do Judo or BJJ or kendo or paintball and call that combat efficient training. It is my opinion that you have to train with the same physical intensity and resistance but in a way that is as close as possible an accurate simulation of what you face under real conditions - including the practical and tactical concerns that come with fighting with weapons, in any terrain/environement, and with legal and other concerns accounted for.

My own experience applying what I learn in the field, and teaching and watching others do the same has led me to the line of thinking that this kind of training needs to start almost from the beginning, alongside kihon, so that proper kihon is developed under pressure and not waiting until a high base level of skill is developed with kihon before attempting it.

I think a reason many don't believe the kaho/kata method is as effective as sparring for "real fighting" is a misperception of sparring, and with the koryu a perceived lack of realistic intensity in what is usually demonstrated to the public (and from comments and opinions I have been privy to) even in the dojo.

FWIW,

Kit LeBlanc

Will Wetherell
13th April 2003, 18:37
I was actually thinking of the chapter on Kendo in Draeger's Modern Bujutsu & Budo but Hurst's work would be relevant also.

In the late 16th century Bungoro Hikada began using the shinai for shinai-geiko training. By the mid-18th century all the other schools had either adopted this method of training or ceased to exist. That's what I meant by kendo schools which practiced randori edging out the ones that didn't. However, for reasons I'll go on to discuss, shinai-geiko then doesn't much resemble modern kendo randori now.


Originally posted by Earl Hartman
I have practiced kendo for many years, and it is a plain fact that kendo simply does not bear much resemblance to actual fighting with a sword.

Earl, you're absolutely right. But let's look at why that is. Martial arts were banned in Japan by SCAP in 1945. Kendo did not lose its combative focus because of the practice of randori and shiai, it lost it due to a specific prohibition of the practice of combative martial arts in Japan. Modern Kendo was reinvented in 1948 in a purely sportive form, initially without even the use of live blades or bokken, and this is the Kendo we have today; far removed from its pre-WW2 incarnation. A similar situation exists with Judo.


However, sparring is very easy to misuse and misunderstand. It seems to me that it can only have value if it is restricted to use as a tool to understand real technique as opposed to becoming an end in itself.

I agree. Sparring is a tool and like any other tool it can be used or abused.


Kit, you make lots of good points. The combative/sportive balance of any martial art is often an area of debate. My feeling (and Kano thought this too :D) is that while sport may not be real combat, it can be a good way to stay fit and motivated as long as one doesn't lose sight of the fundamental differences between playing games and reality.

Cheers,

Will

Earl Hartman
14th April 2003, 03:19
I think it is possible that those schools that specialized in sword only and which did not adopt shinai geiko (so as to have their techniques included in modern synthesized kendo as it was being developed as "gekken" for teaching the government-approved version of the warrior spirit to the masses) may have disappeared; but this can't be true of all of schools that taught sword. Just to take one example, the Katori Shinto Ryu is still around, and is, if Draeger is to be believed, the creme de la creme of Japanese bugei.

What is more likely is that those schools that didn't adapt to the new competitive style stopped being influential and were relegated to the sidelines, where some, but not all, faded away.

Anyhow, I think sparring, properly used and understood, can be very useful. However, it can easily degenerate, that's all, and if it is improerly taught to beginners it can be downright harmful. It is only comparitively recently that I have truly come to appreciate precisely how vitally important good strong kihon is (it became really evident when I was no longer able to compenstate for deficiencies in fundamentals through reliance on the strength and agility of youth and when I saw how easy it is to beat a person with poor fundamentals, no matter how young and strong they are). Also, I think sparring would be harder to do for jo than sword just because of the nature of the weapon. Still, the armor they showed on the website for that Portugese stick fighting looked intertesting.

Will Wetherell
18th April 2003, 21:17
Originally posted by Earl Hartman
I think it is possible that those schools that specialized in sword only and which did not adopt shinai geiko (so as to have their techniques included in modern synthesized kendo as it was being developed as "gekken" for teaching the government-approved version of the warrior spirit to the masses) may have disappeared; but this can't be true of all of schools that taught sword.

Schools certainly didn't stop teaching kaho with the sword but by the mid-18th century no school taught kaho alone. All practised with the live blade, the bokken and the shinai.


I think sparring would be harder to do for jo than sword just because of the nature of the weapon.

Absolutely, and this is almost certainly why jo styles have not practised randori in the past. However, I think with modern training materials the issues of practicality and safety can be addressed.

Cheers,

Will

Meik Skoss
19th April 2003, 00:58
Well, just to pick a nit or two, but "randori" is not the proper term for freestyle practice with weapons. That'd be ji-geiko.

And, much as I hate to contradict somebody, Mr. Will Wetherill's statement, "Schools certainly didn't stop teaching kaho with the sword, but, by the mid-18th century, no school taught kaho alone. All practised with the live blade, the bokken and the shinai" is not correct. Several *very* old schools that didn't/don't do that, then or now. Katori Shinto-ryu comes to mind. Jigen-ryu is another. And there are/were others.

Anyway, I'm picking nits to some extent. Regarding the question of why do (or don't) koryu practice free-style, that'd be something an individual instructor would most likely decide. I don't believe it can be said that any koryu is absolutely monolithic and that "this" or "that" is "always" the truth. It's case by case. In Japan, the only color is grey. (Really!)

Will Wetherell
19th April 2003, 02:34
Meik Skoss is, of course, correct. What I should have said is that by the mid-18th century no school that was actively engaged in testing its art taught kaho alone.

Cheers,

Will