Another MJER question

[Gabriel L]

Next year I'll be going to college, and since I've been quite keenly interested in the Japanese sword for a little while (just a couple of years, maybe 3 to 5 and getting more obsessed every second ;)) I've been jumping a few steps ahead and tentatively seeking out JSA in the areas I might soon call home.

Since my interest stems mainly from the art and history of the Japanese sword and not from sports or athletics, I'd preferably want to practice as well-established, historical, combative (a "jutsu," even if the term is interchangeable with "do" in Japan lol) and technique based art as possible. I don't mean I don't expect to grow in a variety of ways while beginning a martial art, but I do mean that I would chiefly be interested in broadening my appreciation for traditional aspects of the sword.

From this train of thought, I was especially interested in the koryu bujutsu, with kenjutsu being a main focus and hopefully other systems such as sojutsu, tantojutsu, jujutsu, etc. Learning as close to the types of skills a samurai would be expected to be proficient in, even if I couldn't hope to amass one hundredth of such skills or find a school that preserved its original forms so well.

True to my expectations, my goal is fairly unobtainable. No problem, as I'd be very excited to "settle" for ANY of the venerated koryu. Luckily, many of my potential colleges lie very close to major cities, such as New York and Boston (yeah, I'm a northeast guy). So I found MSR in NYC and apparently an especially good MJER dojo in Boston. Neither of them a heiho or kenjutsu, but still very appealing nonetheless.

And then I discovered that both MSR and MJER are somewhat controversial in their... "combat worthiness." Since they've had fairly non-combative foundations, gone through so many changes and revisions/evolutions, and their focus has changed somewhat, I'd like to get opinions on MJER's value as a true Japanese sword skill, effective in combat. I don't care about semantics with Iaido vs Iaijutsu and the whole history of each MJER line and the relative values of budo, etc... I've read many of the threads already here on this site regarding those topics.

What I'd really like to know is, does MJER teach at least *some* styles and techniques that were used 400 years ago, and on the whole does the curriculum consist of effective techniques? If anybody knew specifically about the MJER dojo in Boston that was alluded to (I think the sensei's name was a Mr. Stanley, could be wrong) then that would be particularly helpful.

Unfortunately I'm not applying to any schools near Philadelphia, otherwise Yagyu Shinkage Ryu would easily fit within my definition of an effective and real sword art. Other possible locations include New York City (btw, though I'd be more than happy practicing MSR, I get the impression that it's more of a modern iaido type art then my difficult-to-attain kenjutsu dream...), central Connecticut, central New Jersey, and Washington DC. Just in case there are any hidden dojo lurking around behind the scenes, lol.

Ah, what the heck. I should just fly to Washington state and take the full TSKSR (hope I spelled that right) curriculum. Now THAT would fit my definition of a true samurai art, LOL...

WOW, sorry about the long post, I'm kinda rambling now... :P

[Gabriel L]

Oh! Almost forgot! This is my stunning debut onto e-budo ;)! So let me take this second post as an opportunity to say hello to everyone, and I'm sure I'll have a great time starting on my road towards JSA!

-Gabriel L. Lebec

[dbeaird]

Welcome to E-Budo Gabriel,

All the niceties, now being completed, I hope you understand you've opened up the Pandora's Box of the Japanese Sword Arts. Prepare to get a whole lot of replies and don't expect any of them to form a consensus that will help you in your search. I'll go ahead and throw in my opinion and then stand well back to avoid the fallout.

I'm going to concentrate on your search for "combat effectiveness". I believe that you're chasing a chimera here Gabriel. If you want something combat effective, you should be learning to fly an attack helicopter or how to operate a 155 howitzer. Swords are not combat effective and have not been since the introduction of breech loading firearms and possibly before. A lot of people will talk about the combat effectiveness of this or that school or form, however keep in mind that no one who is alive and teaching today has used a sword in combat and is capable of telling you what is or is not effective in a sword fight.

I believe that all recognized Koryu teach "authentic" form, although they may have been modified over the years from the original forms. These modifications may have been made for many reasons and considering that the heads of these schools are not frequently given to explaining themselves to their students, these reasons may only be guessed at by the rest of us.

Ask yourself why you want to study JSA. If your answer is that you wish to be ready for your next sword fight, then I'd suggest you take the first exit out of fantasy land you see. A lot of people, me included, tend to see their own chosen school or form as best, as I think is only natural. But under it all, somewhere, I think we all agree that we have, all of us, chosen to study a demanding art that also allows us to forge a link between ourselves and history, since our work not only helps us improve ourselves, but also keeps alive an important art form that has been born of legends.

We've become part of the chain that leads back to heroes. The school you choose, I believe is of minor importance compared to the dedication you bring to the school. Do your homework, try to find the best teacher available to you, but even if you were to be able to learn from Musashi or Eishin, they could not do anything unless you are willing to work for it.

[dbeaird]

On another note, I had the good fortune to meet and learn from Warren Stanley-Sensei last October during the second annual Texas Enbu in Denton. I formed an extremely high opinion of him while learning from him and watching his iai. What really struck me is that his sword work loooked exceptionally powerful, while his instruction style felt very traditional. If you are fortunate enough to be close enough to train with him then I highly suggest you go meet him and see his work first hand. I know you won't be dissapointed.

[Gabriel L]

Thanks for all the information. Hmm, everything you said makes sense to me, all good points. Yes, I understand that "combat effectiveness" is a moot point and that in any case all of the koryu are "authentic" per se... plus, I've also come to the conclusion that unless you're willing to move to another state or country, you just can't pick and choose. So on that note, I'm happy to hear (from some other sources as well) that Mr. Warren Stanley is such a well respected teacher, and I wish to stress that if I end up going to Boston then I would be delighted to at least visit his dojo and see if authentic JSA is really right for me (lol, sounds corny, sorry).

[Scott Irey]

Gabriel,

I am going to back up what Dan had to say (by the way Dan, you may have single-handedly closed up that can of worms :) . Warren Stanley is an exceptionally talented swordsperson with a very deep understanding of budo that comes from a broad base built on years of martial arts practice. He is without a doubt one of the top iai (and not just in MJER circles) practitioners outside of Japan today. If you end up in the Boston area and decide to pursue JSA I think you will find Warren Stanley's instruction not lacking..provided he is accepting new students in iai.

Regards,

[tddeangelo]

Gabriel,

I train at Shu Do Kan dojo in Stroudsburg, PA, which isn't a terribly long car ride from NYC or Central NJ (around 90 min., and I know a student who travels from NYC, so there would even be carpool possibilities). If you have interest in Mei Shin Muso Ryu Iaido, Kendo, Danzan Ryu Jujutsu, and/or taijutsu, they are all offered in this location (as is tae kwon do, but I thought that was less where your interest lies). I personally attend the iaido and jujutsu classes, and I will hopefully take up kendo in the relatively near future. This dojo is not on the web, so you probably aren't aware of it's existence.

If you have an interest, let me know and I'll get you some directions in a PM or email.

-Tom

[Andy Watson]

I would like to contribute by saying that I stand by everything that Dan wrote. Well said, I have never read a better way of putting it.

Can I also just add that a lot of MSR/MJER/Seitei dojo's combine Jodo as part of their training (at least they do in the UK and I'm pretty sure they do in the colonies). Within Jodo there are various other weapon systems which have arguably been "combat tested".

Once again, nice writing Dan.

Best regards

[allan]

Hello Gabriel,

I am a Muso Jikiden Eishen Ryu pracitioner, though I have no long history of practice. Here is my point of view as to your question:

Most MJER dojo, to my knowledge, do not spend much time on practicing two person kata (unless perhaps one is very advanced). Maybe they will work on kendo kata.

I BELIEVE that two person kata are very important in developing ma-ai and other skills and intuitive qualities which are essential to 'combat.'

Solo iai forms are useful in developing many qualities, such as zanshin, which are important for 'combat.'

Depending upon the dojo and the sensei, an iaidoka may come to appreciate a sense of lineage, history, and other intangibles by practicing Muso Jikiden Eishen Ryu. My own practice has been personally very rewarding.

As far as 'combat' goes (which others have righty pointed out is a 'moot point' in a way in this day and age and cultural context) I must say that I have no doubt as to the potential of my own teachers (who are exceptional). I would conjecture that this may be, in part, due to the mental qualities that they have developed through diligent practice.

As a closing note. After having visited a very traditional koryu bujutsu dojo in Japan and after watching other ryuha in demonstration I have a different feeling about these arts than I do about much of the iaido that I have seen.

We in North America live in a different context. If one finds an excellent teacher (even if not in the art of which we MOST admire)
then we are very lucky.

All the best,

[kabutoki]

hello,
just my two eurocents of opinion.
i study mjer in japan and germany, the latter only occasionally, and i found it to be a very good way to improve what i understand under combat effectiveness. imho it is not about techniques but about you using techniques and weapons. a good tool doesn´t make a good craftsman. the readiness can be learned in most martial arts, the zanshin, awareness is vital in combat and has always been. combat to me seems to be a lot more than beeing able to handle a lethal weapon. there is distance, timing, the need for full control over your body and the need for beeing able to decide whether or not to fight and possibly injure or kill a human beeing. these basic things have, imho never changed and can still be achieved by learning iai.
i know that this is not exactly what you asked, but it might be interesting aspect one might also read into your question. apart from that i think most iai/ken... styles are still effective and the evolution you mentioned is not an invention of the more peaceful times in japanese history but a vital part for the surviving of an art. take for example an assumed change in typical clothing in times when a combat situation might appear, i.e. from armour to some layers of silk-kimono. a style has to adopt this in order to maintain claims of beeing "realistic".

hope the aspect i wanted to stress can be seen in the above...

karsten

[Gabriel L]

Thank you all for your input, it's really very helpful, as well as encouraging. I'll be sure to keep this thread in mind when I look at potential martial arts more seriously next year. Hopefully I'll find that whatever's available in my area suits me... I really would like to become involved in JSA if I can. So, thanks once again.

[David A. Hall]

I would generally support your comments here. However--and this is not to disparage "iai"--but solo practice alone, such as is the norm in schools concentrating on iai or batto, does not provide sufficient training in "distance, timing..." etc. For that, a competent partner is needed as in the various schools of kenjutsu and other weapons arts. Approach, closing, engagement, looming, etc. are necessary in addition to the actual weapon technique in order to train for combat. Without a competent partner/instructor on the other end, you end up performing an aesthetic exercise; not combat training.

Dave Hall


Originally posted by kabutoki
hello,
just my two eurocents of opinion.
i study mjer in japan and germany, the latter only occasionally, and i found it to be a very good way to improve what i understand under combat effectiveness. imho it is not about techniques but about you using techniques and weapons. a good tool doesn´t make a good craftsman. the readiness can be learned in most martial arts, the zanshin, awareness is vital in combat and has always been. combat to me seems to be a lot more than beeing able to handle a lethal weapon. there is distance, timing, the need for full control over your body and the need for beeing able to decide whether or not to fight and possibly injure or kill a human beeing. these basic things have, imho never changed and can still be achieved by learning iai.
i know that this is not exactly what you asked, but it might be interesting aspect one might also read into your question. apart from that i think most iai/ken... styles are still effective and the evolution you mentioned is not an invention of the more peaceful times in japanese history but a vital part for the surviving of an art. take for example an assumed change in typical clothing in times when a combat situation might appear, i.e. from armour to some layers of silk-kimono. a style has to adopt this in order to maintain claims of beeing "realistic".

hope the aspect i wanted to stress can be seen in the above...

karsten

[kabutoki]

hello david,
when i wrote about distance and timing i thought of two things. the one is tameshigiri and the other are the two person kata, that are taught in mjer. my teacher in japan only taught them from 5th dan and above, a very long way to go, but still a place to learn distance and timing. my point was that there is more in iai than some migth think and that mental preparations for combat are at least equally important to techniques.

karsten

[Charles Mahan]

Originally posted by allan
Hello Gabriel,
Most MJER dojo, to my knowledge, do not spend much time on practicing two person kata (unless perhaps one is very advanced). Maybe they will work on kendo kata.

The more I learn about sword fights the less I wish to end up in one.
--C.Mahan

Wow. I've been quoted in a sig. I'm hitting the big time boys watch out :) Down ego down. Good boy.

As for 2 man katas, I think perhaps your view of what is very advanced is a little off. It is true that most MJER dojo in the states do not do a lot of Tachi uchi no Kurai(2 man forms), but that's because they are not generally taught until 4th dan and up, and really 4th dan is a little early as I understand it.

That breeds a problem in the US. There aren't too many dojos in the US with a population of 4th dan + students, and not all that any instructors qualified to teach them. I was shown the Tachi Uchi no Kurai for the first time on Sunday. I've been doing this for more than 5 years as my primary, and now my exclusive, art. If that qualifies me as advanced, I'd say your vision of advanced is very much in error. Come back in another 5 years and I might feel like an intermediate student. The dojo I train in now has three 4th dans, and three more individuals have just tested for the rank. I'm kinda hoping that will give us a large enough population of 4th dans that we can start working on the 2 man forms.

I understand that not all dojo's hold off on the Tachi Uchi no Kurai, even within the Seitokai, much less the other branches of MJER. Ours however does.

Now as for MJER not being combat oriented, well my opinions on the subject are very well documented. I'm with Scott and Dan. Anyone who disagrees is simply unaware of what MJER is really about.

[Charles Mahan]

Originally posted by David A. Hall
I would generally support your comments here. However--and this is not to disparage "iai"--but solo practice alone, such as is the norm in schools concentrating on iai or batto, does not provide sufficient training in "distance, timing..." etc. For that, a competent partner is needed as in the various schools of kenjutsu and other weapons arts. Approach, closing, engagement, looming, etc. are necessary in addition to the actual weapon technique in order to train for combat. Without a competent partner/instructor on the other end, you end up performing an aesthetic exercise; not combat training.

Dave Hall



I'm in complete agreement with David, at least in the part where he is correct. Partner training is essential to developing proper timing and maai. Where he is incorrect is in the thought that iai is strictly solo. MJER certainly isn't. Read the previous post. MJER is still pretty much in it's infancy in this country. There are only a handful of american trained students 4th dan and up, and that's really a matter of time. I particularly agree with the part about needing a competent partner, which is of course part of the reason tachi uchi no kurai is not taught to 1 year students.

[OkudenDojo]

Grabriel:

Your invited... Brooklyn, NY

www.shinkenbutsu.com


or you can purchase the video tape of Sensie Svaral...
Jujutsu, Bojutsu & Kenjutsu...

[Charles Mahan]

I think there's a typo in that link. Probably should be
http://www.shinkenbujutsu.com/

Doesn't seem to be a whole lot of info on the web site. There doesn't seem to be a clear line of lineage, nor even a particular style being offered here.

Can we get a little more info on the instructor and some more particulars on the styles being practiced?

Oh and there's a forum rule that you always sign your real name to your posts. The easiest way is to edit your profile and add your name to your signature.

[dbeaird]

Originally posted by David A. Hall
I would generally support your comments here. However--and this is not to disparage "iai"--but solo practice alone, such as is the norm in schools concentrating on iai or batto, does not provide sufficient training in "distance, timing..." etc. For that, a competent partner is needed as in the various schools of kenjutsu and other weapons arts. Approach, closing, engagement, looming, etc. are necessary in addition to the actual weapon technique in order to train for combat. Without a competent partner/instructor on the other end, you end up performing an aesthetic exercise; not combat training.

Dave Hall



I'm going to toss in an opinion here that basically says in effect, you're dead wrong (smile) I'll try and support it as best I can and see where the discussion leads. See my original post for my thoughts on the fantasy aspects of "combat training" as far as swords are concerned. Nobody who is doing sword work is training for combat. They may be telling themselves that they are, but that doesn't make it so.

To the more specific issues of things such as distance and timing: True these things may be learned in two person drills and sparring, but I'd like to point out that what is learned in these exercises is actually FALSE distance and timing. Allow me to explain:

In order to learn distance it is necessary to carry through complete attacks with full intent. When practicing with a partner, one either works out of distance, checks attacks before completion or goes through a great many training partners. So the lessons learned would need to be modified in order to be used in combat anyway, really no different than single kata which at least allows use of fully commited attacks and distance. One of the requirements for doing effective single person kata is the ability to visualize an opponent in time and space, see him, react to him and cut him down.

I'm not saying that two person exercises have no use, but I am saying that they are just as artifical a simulation of combat as single person kata and have drawbacks maybe even more restricting than single person exercise. In the curriculum of my school, two person exercises are considered an advanced training tool, perhaps even for the very reason that what they teach must be tempered with understanding that they are only usefull if we understand their limitations.

I'm not an expert in JSA by any stretch of the imagination, but I've worked with swords on and off most of my life and have come to accept that there is more than one way to become a competent swordsman. Each may have various strengths and weaknesses, perhaps some may be outright useless, but we are past the stage of the game where we can make truly informed declarations such as you have tried to make above.

As I'd mentioned, people will tend to think that their method/school/style is best. That's understandable, but doesn't reason lead you to believe that if someone chooses to do things differently that they may, just perhaps, have chosen a direction just as valid as the one you have chosen?

I knew going into this topic that we'd eventually run into the "This is the only way to learn and all other ways are dancing with swords." mindset. Why should we consider your techniques as anything more "real" or "effective" or " combat proven" than the techniques of other schools? To me, the difference between "dancing with swords" and martial arts is solely in the mind of the practitioner and not with the methods of training that are used.

Off the soapbox again...

[David A. Hall]

Dan,

Depends on the school you are training in (whether classical or modern) and the methodology used by the particular group. Several of the groups I've observed and/or trained with over the past 30 years are very combat oriented and the training they use is "exactly" on target. Depending on the weapon/mock weapon used, full force strikes can be practiced.

Additionally, there are many schools that do not do this and subgroups within a particular ryu that no longer practice combatively.

I believe you are using the term "fantasy" too liberally. Some ryu stand very close to combative reality (as far as distance, timing, closure, etc.), some stand quite far away from combative reality.

Training with an imaginary opponent does not cultivate these aspects well.

Dave Hall




Originally posted by dbeaird


I'm going to toss in an opinion here that basically says in effect, you're dead wrong (smile) I'll try and support it as best I can and see where the discussion leads. See my original post for my thoughts on the fantasy aspects of "combat training" as far as swords are concerned. Nobody who is doing sword work is training for combat. They may be telling themselves that they are, but that doesn't make it so.

To the more specific issues of things such as distance and timing: True these things may be learned in two person drills and sparring, but I'd like to point out that what is learned in these exercises is actually FALSE distance and timing. Allow me to explain:

In order to learn distance it is necessary to carry through complete attacks with full intent. When practicing with a partner, one either works out of distance, checks attacks before completion or goes through a great many training partners. So the lessons learned would need to be modified in order to be used in combat anyway, really no different than single kata which at least allows use of fully commited attacks and distance. One of the requirements for doing effective single person kata is the ability to visualize an opponent in time and space, see him, react to him and cut him down.

I'm not saying that two person exercises have no use, but I am saying that they are just as artifical a simulation of combat as single person kata and have drawbacks maybe even more restricting than single person exercise. In the curriculum of my school, two person exercises are considered an advanced training tool, perhaps even for the very reason that what they teach must be tempered with understanding that they are only usefull if we understand their limitations.

I'm not an expert in JSA by any stretch of the imagination, but I've worked with swords on and off most of my life and have come to accept that there is more than one way to become a competent swordsman. Each may have various strengths and weaknesses, perhaps some may be outright useless, but we are past the stage of the game where we can make truly informed declarations such as you have tried to make above.

As I'd mentioned, people will tend to think that their method/school/style is best. That's understandable, but doesn't reason lead you to believe that if someone chooses to do things differently that they may, just perhaps, have chosen a direction just as valid as the one you have chosen?

I knew going into this topic that we'd eventually run into the "This is the only way to learn and all other ways are dancing with swords." mindset. Why should we consider your techniques as anything more "real" or "effective" or " combat proven" than the techniques of other schools? To me, the difference between "dancing with swords" and martial arts is solely in the mind of the practitioner and not with the methods of training that are used.

Off the soapbox again...

[Charles Mahan]

Originally posted by David A. Hall
Dan,
Training with an imaginary opponent does not cultivate these aspects well.

Dave Hall


I think perhaps you almost have it. Try "Training exclusively with an imaginary opponent does not cultivate these aspects well."

Solo kata work plays an extremely important roll in building a fundamental and rock solid grasp of the kihon. Two man kata work plays a very important roll towards fine tuning the students proper understanding of maai and "taimingu". Kai Waza(not sure I spelled it right, might be Kae Waza) plays an important roll in getting students to think outside the kata. I'm sure there are other portions of the curriculum that I am not even aware of.

The solo forms are a fundamental part of the curriculum. The two man forms are added to the curriculum for intermediate level students. The Kai Waza(variations) are an advanced level training tool as I understand it. Not until you see someone who is adept in all these can you truly get a feel for whether the system is effective. Until this point the students really don't have a grasp of what MJER is really about. Even seeing someone who is adept in all aspects of MJER might not give you a good feeling for the effectiveness of the techniques, because many of the things that go on in our kata are extremely subtle when done well.

[allan]

Charles Mahan wrote:

"As for 2 man katas, I think perhaps your view of what is very advanced is a little off. It is true that most MJER dojo in the states do not do a lot of Tachi uchi no Kurai(2 man forms), but that's because they are not generally taught until 4th dan and up, and really 4th dan is a little early as I understand it."

I do not mean to suggest that 4th dan is advanced. What I meant is that, compared to many (most?) classical schools, the time in one's training during which one begins to train in these partnered forms is RELATIVELY late.

Thank you for helping me to clarify my language.

[Charles Mahan]

Originally posted by allan
I do not mean to suggest that 4th dan is advanced. What I meant is that, compared to many (most?) classical schools, the time in one's training during which one begins to train in these partnered forms is RELATIVELY late.


I do not know much about other koryu, but the reasoning in MJER is quite simple. The Seitokai really emphasizes the kihon of the system. That is largely because the kihon ARE the system. So until the students have a fairly decent grasp of the kihon there simply is no reason to work on anything else. Solo kata are very good for working on the kihon. Thus new students do a LOT of solo kata before they ever see Tachi Uchi no Kurai.

I fully understand and acknowledge that this view is not shared by all koryu. As I understand it, that's not necessarily the way things are done within other brances of MJER. It may not even be consistent throughout the Seitokai as the training methods from one dojo to the next vary a bit, but I'm pretty sure the party line which comes down from soke is consistent with the way we do things.

[Erik Tracy]

Originally posted by allan
Charles Mahan wrote:

"As for 2 man katas, I think perhaps your view of what is very advanced is a little off. It is true that most MJER dojo in the states do not do a lot of Tachi uchi no Kurai(2 man forms), but that's because they are not generally taught until 4th dan and up, and really 4th dan is a little early as I understand it."

I do not mean to suggest that 4th dan is advanced. What I meant is that, compared to many (most?) classical schools, the time in one's training during which one begins to train in these partnered forms is RELATIVELY late.

Thank you for helping me to clarify my language.

We do the 10 Tachi uch no Kurai in our dojo (MJER, Jikishin-Kai, Shimabukuro Hanshi). New students start on them early. It seems to work for us.

Erik Tracy

[Charles Mahan]

Like I said. It's not necessarily uniform within the various branches of MJER.

[pgsmith]

Hi Guys,
Perhaps it's just a matter semantics, but I still keep seeing words like 'combat oriented' and 'effectiveness'. Gotta ask yourselves just what that means. We all have some idea of what 'combat effective' would means to us, but in the end it's only our opinion. While I would grant more weight to the opinion of someone that has been studying this art for several decades, in the end it is still just their opinion and so could be totally wrong. Since no one engages in combat with swords, or is ever likely to again, that makes it just a matter of opinions.
David said ...
Some ryu stand very close to combative reality (as far as distance, timing, closure, etc.), some stand quite far away from combative reality.
How can you possibly prove something like that? That is merely your opinion and is impossible to conclusively prove without going out and killing another swordsman. I think Dan hit that nail on the head when he said ...
the difference between "dancing with swords" and martial arts is solely in the mind of the practitioner and not with the methods of training that are used.

Of course, this is just my opinion! :)

Cheers,

[Douglas Wylie]

Originally posted by David A. Hall


...no longer practice combatively...

...combative reality (as far as distance, timing, closure, etc.)...




Could you define these phrases so it is clear precisely what you mean.

I know what they mean to me but we may differ in definition.

I define "practice combatively" as practice with a constant awareness of your enemy, as if you would have to use your knowledge to survive. Considering all aspects of his state.

i.e. His attack and its strengths and weaknesses, his position in relation to you, faults that can occur in your technique that he can take advantage of, awareness to unexpected openings for him to attack, variations that may be applicable, etc...

Combative reality, to me, carries a heaver burden because- what is the reality?

I have not seen it. I dont think many still alive have.

[David A. Hall]

Douglas,

If one is training for combative reality, one should be training to develope technique, timing, distance, targeting, and a "mind set" which can be then be applied to a combative situation. The exponent should be able to dominate and eliminate his enemy. Obviously, a specific sword vs sword technique from "X Ryu" may not find expression today in the exact same context as the kata presents...however, even in classical times kata were not meant to be that restrictive.

Modern examples would be 1) the way in which Japanese riot police train with various weapons in order to deal with armed opponents and 2) the current U.S. Marine martial arts program which is concentrating on teaching Marines how to deal with an enemy in close in battlefield fighting.

The training method the Marines are using centers on using a rifle and bayonet to face a similarly armed opponent.

The actual techniques used not only train the exponent in the technical and spatial aspects of closing with and engaging an armed opponent, they also train the exponent in the mental aspects of combat...in many ways more important than manipulating one specific weapon. The aim, in fact, is "one mind, any weapon."

The Marine program was developed by Marines, police, and civilians experienced both in close combat (battlefield and civilian contexts) and several specific Japanese koryu. These hand-to-hand combat survivors/developers/instructors believe the ryu from which this program was developed have preserved combatively efficient training.

Dave Hall


Originally posted by Douglas Wylie


Could you define these phrases so it is clear precisely what you mean.

I know what they mean to me but we may differ in definition.

I define "practice combatively" as practice with a constant awareness of your enemy, as if you would have to use your knowledge to survive. Considering all aspects of his state.

i.e. His attack and its strengths and weaknesses, his position in relation to you, faults that can occur in your technique that he can take advantage of, awareness to unexpected openings for him to attack, variations that may be applicable, etc...

Combative reality, to me, carries a heaver burden because- what is the reality?

I have not seen it. I dont think many still alive have.

[pgsmith]

Dave wrote ...
If one is training for combative reality, one should be training to develope technique, timing, distance, targeting, and a "mind set" which can be then be applied to a combative situation. The exponent should be able to dominate and eliminate his enemy.
But using that as a definition, doesn't that exclude all of the extent sword arts except for Jigen Ryu? The Marines, as well as Rangers and SEALS, combative training centers on simplicity does it not? I was under the impression that a very few actual techniques are taught with variations. That way under the stress of actual combat, there is no need to think or sort through potential techniques. It has always been my understanding that all military runs on the KISS principle. :) At least this is what I understood from friends that went through the training. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
If we approach 'combat effectiveness' from that stand point, it eliminates the vast majority of sword schools. Most of the koryu had their number of techniques added to as the Edo period went on, since more time could be spent on perfecting technique rather than merely being 'combat effective'. It's also why so many variant schools were created since mastering the sword was able to become an end unto itself, rather than merely a means to an end.
Of course this is all just opinion, take it for what it's worth in this current inflationary period! :)

Cheers,

[Jonathan Tow]

Originally posted by pgsmith
Dave wrote ...
But using that as a definition, doesn't that exclude all of the extent sword arts except for Jigen Ryu? The Marines, as well as Rangers and SEALS, combative training centers on simplicity does it not? I was under the impression that a very few actual techniques are taught with variations. That way under the stress of actual combat, there is no need to think or sort through potential techniques. It has always been my understanding that all military runs on the KISS principle. :) At least this is what I understood from friends that went through the training. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The way I see it is that technique is simply a way of illustrating how to use the basics. I believe if you take any sword-school's curriculum and break it down to what the focus of each technique is, you will end up with a handful of fundamentals that are repeated throughout.

In addition, the training that Special Forces receive are geared to making them combat effective in as little time as possible. A year of hand to hand or specialist weaponry training is considered to be quite a lot. In the Koryu arts, a year is barely enough time to scratch the surface on what the system has to offer.

Finally, suburi and repetition of technique is what removes the "thought" out of a situation. As one of my instructors was fond of saying to me, "Just do it, don't think too much about it..". With time, one gains a sense of how best to respond. I hardly think that one would be scrolling through a list of techniques in their head, trying to find the best one for the situation they're in - ala Jackie Chan in "The Tuxedo". :)

Best,

Jonathan

[David A. Hall]

Paul,

I'd have to agree with you somewhat. It excludes a number of koryu as we find them today. However, it certainly doesn't limit things to Jigen Ryu. (In fact, one of my teachers, the Late Namiki Yasushi of the Jiki Shinkage Ryu, used to make the same complaint.) You have to remember that the training methodologies of many ryu, although containing many kata, reduce and simplify the kata until at the most intimate level (I.e. "oku"), the exponent is working with a few, simple actual techniques/attitudes. That is, the "essence" of the ryu.

As for why so many ryu split into habatsu during the Edo period, it appears to me that politics and personal rivalries over inheritance (and the money involved in teaching a particular ryu!) were as much a part of it as anything else.

Dave Hall


Originally posted by pgsmith
Dave wrote ...
But using that as a definition, doesn't that exclude all of the extent sword arts except for Jigen Ryu? The Marines, as well as Rangers and SEALS, combative training centers on simplicity does it not? I was under the impression that a very few actual techniques are taught with variations. That way under the stress of actual combat, there is no need to think or sort through potential techniques. It has always been my understanding that all military runs on the KISS principle. :) At least this is what I understood from friends that went through the training. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
If we approach 'combat effectiveness' from that stand point, it eliminates the vast majority of sword schools. Most of the koryu had their number of techniques added to as the Edo period went on, since more time could be spent on perfecting technique rather than merely being 'combat effective'. It's also why so many variant schools were created since mastering the sword was able to become an end unto itself, rather than merely a means to an end.
Of course this is all just opinion, take it for what it's worth in this current inflationary period! :)

Cheers,

[Douglas Wylie]

Originally posted by David A. Hall
Douglas,

If one is training for combative reality, one should be training to develope technique, timing, distance, targeting, and a "mind set" which can be then be applied to a combative situation.


I see what you mean. I do not know about any koryu except SMR jodo and MJER iaido, and both focus on the same precepts we have outlined.

It seems that a great deal of my training is focused on the difference between "martial arts and dancing". Dancing is ignoring the enemy and the true purpose of the kata, while the martial art includes all that we have discussed.

I suppose that since they stress this so much that it must be a common problem for people to "just do the movement". I think this is probably the fault of the teacher and not the ryu in general.

[pgsmith]

David wrote ...
You have to remember that the training methodologies of many ryu, although containing many kata, reduce and simplify the kata until at the most intimate level (I.e. "oku"), the exponent is working with a few, simple actual techniques/attitudes. That is, the "essence" of the ryu.
That is one that I'll take your word on as I haven't been at this long enough to get to that point yet. :) But going on that premise, I have seen several MJER practitioners namely Scott Irey, Masayuke Shimabukuro, and John Ray that seemed to be fulfilling your definition of 'combat effectiveness'. And yet, MJER Iaido is one of the schools that many people tend to point to when they speak of no longer 'combat effective' arts.

My contention is that if practiced with sincerity and effort at learning the nuances of maai, targeting, and movement, any art (OK, not the kurotty sword katas to music! :)) could be considered 'combat effective'.

Jonothan wrote ...

Finally, suburi and repetition of technique is what removes the "thought" out of a situation. As one of my instructors was fond of saying to me, "Just do it, don't think too much about it..". With time, one gains a sense of how best to respond. I hardly think that one would be scrolling through a list of techniques in their head, trying to find the best one for the situation they're in - ala Jackie Chan in "The Tuxedo".
Prove it. :D Prove that even with all that repetition, when faced with someone doing their best to kill you, you wouldn't just freeze. Actually, that's the same thing I was taught and personally I believe it to be true. The problem is that I don't know it to be true, I just believe it to be true. What I'm trying to say is that without there being any sword combat, it's really impossible to say conclusively what would be 'combat effective' and what wouldn't. There is no longer any way to test the theory, but everyone still likes to say it. :)

(editted twice for stupidity!)

Cheers,

[hyaku]

Just as a matter of interest. One often hears the comment when doing Iaido that its no dance. When I asking what is meant they of course say Kenbu.

Two of our Kenjutsu seniors had initially started to practice to try and improve their form. I have now seen then do a number of demostrations and was frankly shocked.

They put a lot of Iai people I know to shame, particularly with their Metsuke and posture.

Hyakutake Colin

[Jonathan Tow]

Originally posted by pgsmith
David wrote ...
Prove it. :D Prove that even with all that repetition, when faced with someone doing their best to kill you, you wouldn't just freeze. Actually, that's the same thing I was taught and personally I believe it to be true. The problem is that I don't know it to be true, I just believe it to be true. What I'm trying to say is that without there being any sword combat, it's really impossible to say conclusively what would be 'combat effective' and what wouldn't. There is no longer any way to test the theory, but everyone still likes to say it. :)

Well, to adopt a Japanese mentality, and it applies very much to me too - we haven't trained long enough :D :D It's the only way to commit something to instinct rather than thought.

I wonder how different we'd be if we weren't that afraid of dying - to take on the mentality of assuming death could be around the corner and yet accepting the possibility rather than trying to avoid it. I would say that it's that fear that causes us to look for something that minimises the risk of it happening. If you want something really combat-effective, firearms are much more useful than swords these days.

Best,

Jonathan

[Douglas Wylie]

Originally posted by Jonathan Tow


I wonder how different we'd be if we weren't that afraid of dying - to take on the mentality of assuming death could be around the corner and yet accepting the possibility rather than trying to avoid it.

Death IS just around the corner. I could choke to death on my Cheerios as I type this. Well, that bite didn't get me, I wonder if the next one will. Do I stop eating and go pee down my leg, or do I nut up and finish my cereal. Almost out of milk, time for a trip to the store, infinite chances for me to die.

You accept death all the time, you just dont realize it. Once you realize it, there is no "fear" just caution.

So says Lao Doug :D

[kabutoki]

hello,
what exactly du you understand under "japanese mentality" ? let this thread not turn into a "why the japanese are so special (implemented: and other people aren´t) thread. i think swordarts is the focus here.

karsten

[Douglas Wylie]

Originally posted by Bobar57
Please, refrain of stupid comments.

Ironic.

Eloquent, baby. I think this is SO intelligent that I will put it as my signature for all to share in your wisdom, giving you full credit of course.


Originally posted by Bobar57
You have not faced death, you don't know the feeling.

Well, you seem to know all about me. Please, share some of my experiences with me, I would really like to hear them.

I'll never figure out, for the life of me, why the mod deleted all of your posts.

[dbeaird]

Originally posted by David A. Hall
Dan,

Depends on the school you are training in (whether classical or modern) and the methodology used by the particular group. Several of the groups I've observed and/or trained with over the past 30 years are very combat oriented and the training they use is "exactly" on target. Depending on the weapon/mock weapon used, full force strikes can be practiced.

Additionally, there are many schools that do not do this and subgroups within a particular ryu that no longer practice combatively.

I believe you are using the term "fantasy" too liberally. Some ryu stand very close to combative reality (as far as distance, timing, closure, etc.), some stand quite far away from combative reality.

Training with an imaginary opponent does not cultivate these aspects well.

Dave Hall





I see that you are evidently acquainted with the teachings of a great number of schools of swordsmanship and are prepared to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of each. Obviously you are more experienced than I am, yet continue to be rather vague on particulars that address the points I have made, other than your sweeping declaration that training with imaginary opponents does not cultivate aspects (distance, timing etc. ) well.

I have already conceded that these things may be learned from two person drills, but contend that they are also learned from single person kata as well. I do not understand your reasoning for this opinion other than you say it is so. If this is so, why do so many schools of swordsmanship persist in teaching single person forms to their students?

I see that I've been probably a bit more argumentative here than I should have been, but I'll leave the above to stand and submit my appology for the tone if not the content here. I'm truly puzzled here you see. I have seen a number of very good swordsmen in my time, I admit though that I do not have the skill to tell what is combat effective and what is not. What exactly is your combat experience that allows you to make these observations so authoratively?

I maintain that intent is in the mind of the practitioner, and that there are many ways of becoming a swordsman (swordperson if you prefer). Yes, I have seen things that I feel is just "dancing with swords" but I don't ever recall seeing such a performance from any practitioner of a recognized koryu.

As a final thought, since no one practicing sword arts today can truly have the intention of using a sword in combat, is it possible for a person to train with true combative intent?

My experience has been that Iaido (which I study) has been mostly practice in making and correcting mistakes. As Charles has said before (to paraphrase) as soon as I've corrected one mistake I can go on to making new and better mistakes.

Anyway, I'm several days behind in these messages. I'll have to catch up and see what else has been said since my last post.

[dbeaird]

Originally posted by pgsmith
Hi Guys,
Perhaps it's just a matter semantics, but I still keep seeing words like 'combat oriented' and 'effectiveness'. Gotta ask yourselves just what that means. We all have some idea of what 'combat effective' would means to us, but in the end it's only our opinion. While I would grant more weight to the opinion of someone that has been studying this art for several decades, in the end it is still just their opinion and so could be totally wrong. Since no one engages in combat with swords, or is ever likely to again, that makes it just a matter of opinions.
David said ...

Of course, this is just my opinion! :)

Cheers,

Thank you Paul.

I write such long rambling posts sometimes that I wonder if the message gets lost. Remind me to buy you whatever you're drinking when we ever get a chance to meet. There are just so many sword folks in the DFW area, maybe we need to have some more social contact between the groups.

Thank you again.

[dbeaird]

Originally posted by David A. Hall
Douglas,

If one is training for combative reality, one should be training to develope technique, timing, distance, targeting, and a "mind set" which can be then be applied to a combative situation. The exponent should be able to dominate and eliminate his enemy. Obviously, a specific sword vs sword technique from "X Ryu" may not find expression today in the exact same context as the kata presents...however, even in classical times kata were not meant to be that restrictive.

Modern examples would be 1) the way in which Japanese riot police train with various weapons in order to deal with armed opponents and 2) the current U.S. Marine martial arts program which is concentrating on teaching Marines how to deal with an enemy in close in battlefield fighting.

The training method the Marines are using centers on using a rifle and bayonet to face a similarly armed opponent.

The actual techniques used not only train the exponent in the technical and spatial aspects of closing with and engaging an armed opponent, they also train the exponent in the mental aspects of combat...in many ways more important than manipulating one specific weapon. The aim, in fact, is "one mind, any weapon."

The Marine program was developed by Marines, police, and civilians experienced both in close combat (battlefield and civilian contexts) and several specific Japanese koryu. These hand-to-hand combat survivors/developers/instructors believe the ryu from which this program was developed have preserved combatively efficient training.

Dave Hall



The difference I see in the training curriculum you've used as examples and swordsmanship, is that the Japanese Police training and the Marine training are part of what I would call "living" systems. Much like the difference between a living language and a dead language. A living language is used in practical situations which one still encounters and must be able to change to meet new needs, while a dead language is no longer used outside study of it within it's historical context. While every living language must owe it's very existence to one or more dead languages, it still has become something different from the original.

Now there are quite a number of people in the world today who continue to develop new sword methods. Every time I see them, I ask myself how and why, since there can be no practical use of them, how can a new system evolve, or how can an existing system be evaluated for weaknesses and then improved?

I remember that I was in the Army back when Bayonet training was reestablished (at first just for combat arms branches). Prior to this I believe the only place in the Army that had a bayonet course was the Ranger school at Ft. Benning. In practical terms, the bayonet is not a good weapon on an assault rifle. The M-16 is just not structurally meant to take the strain. We must have ruined 10 rifles in my company alone before they started using dummy rifles. So we were really learning how to use an inneffective weapon while risking damage to an effective one.

What they were trying to create though was...well...call it combat spirit, aggressiveness, will to fight,...whatever. That they chose to do it by providing us with training in a weapon that is ultimately only usefull as a last resort kind of speaks to my point that training for combat is in the mind of the trainee and not in the method used.

So my point here, is that you are drawing a false analogy between training methods used for current and practical reasons and those that are used for (techically) impractical reasons (sword combat). The two methods may be identical in form and substance, but are so far apart from each other in foundation as to be incompatible. We do not, any of us, study JSA in order to become better at sword fighting.

I believe our basic difference in this matter is that I view my study of swordsmanship as a path of self improvement and a means of preserving what I believe to be historically valuable knowledge and traditions. Not saying that your study does not have these goals as well of course, but I tend to believe you concentrate on other aspects of the art that can only be considered "alive" by denying reality.

I train with intent, I think pretty much everyone does, regardless of the methods used to train. Since we're studying martial arts, that only makes sense. Denying that other schools and forms do so frankly sounds elitist and I have yet to see anything from you that supports that position.

[Scott Irey]

Originally posted by Bobar57
Please, refrain of stupid comments. You have not faced death, you don't know the feeling. Maybe when you do it either you will overcome the fear or become a coward for life.

Sorry Bobby, but I am going to have to back up Doug here and ask the same of you. Please fill us in on a few choice details of Doug's life. You should have no problem performing this task since you apparently know so much about him that you can state that he has never faced death. Now if you can't...I would suggest you retract your statement and follow your own advice "please refrain of stupid comments".

Regards,

[dbeaird]

Originally posted by hyaku
Just as a matter of interest. One often hears the comment when doing Iaido that its no dance. When I asking what is meant they of course say Kenbu.

Two of our Kenjutsu seniors had initially started to practice to try and improve their form. I have now seen then do a number of demostrations and was frankly shocked.

They put a lot of Iai people I know to shame, particularly with their Metsuke and posture.

Hyakutake Colin

It sounds like they put a lot of kenjutsu people to shame as well. It's not a question of kenjutsu vs iai as much as it's about a couple people who put an exceptional amount of work into their art and reaped the rewards.

I really wish there were a way to make this whole false kenjutsu > iai and visa versa thing go away. We're not at war and never have been, we all study JSA. Is there any practical reason that we have prove the superiority of one over the other, especially since most people seem to agree that the two are complimentary rather than exclusionary.

Wouldn't it be fair to admit that someone who studies both is probably a better rounded swordsman than one who studies just one?

[Douglas Wylie]

I apologize for him and his illiteracy, sensei.

He is sore at me for winning an argument defending Nosyu.

I guess there's one in every crowd.

[Jonathan Tow]

Originally posted by kabutoki
hello,
what exactly du you understand under "japanese mentality" ? let this thread not turn into a "why the japanese are so special (implemented: and other people aren´t) thread. i think swordarts is the focus here.

karsten

I should have included a disclaimer. It's my own term to distinguish between a Western mindset eg to over-analyse everything compared to the mindset that the Japanese used to train with. I couldn't use the term, "Asian mentality" because it's not all one and the same ie Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese, Malaysian etc etc. Obviously now, the term Japanese mentality is now heavily influenced by that of the West, so the old ways are dying out.

For example, in the West I don't think many would be happy to turn up to training and simply be told to do a technique a hundred times without explanation. And when you do ask, you may get a cryptic explanation that runs along the lines of, "Do it enough and with time you will understand...". :D

Ok, so that may be a little stereotyped but as I understand it, one used to train without asking too many questions. I don't know if this is the right way to go about training, but I feel if you really want to come to grips with the style or system etc then putting yourself in their shoes and trying to think like them would go quite a way to helping you understand.

Just my thoughts.


Best,

Jonathan

[Scott Irey]

Originally posted by Bobar57


Sorry Scotty, but may i suggest you to remain out of something that obviously have turned out to be personal, either by choice or not. And as I posted before ENOUGH SAID

Well then Bobby, I would suggest if it is of a personal nature that you keep it off of a public forum. Furthermore I would strongly suggest you refrain from telling members of a public forum to "remain out" when they post on a public forum.

You took the thread way off topic with your comments to Doug, and I made it my business as a member of this public forum to point it out to you (albeit in a characteristically flipant manner). You should have gotten the hint.

I am done with the matter and will refrain from further public commentary on the it. If you feel more needs to be said take it off the public forum and private message me.

Regards,

[Chidokan]

lets get back to the original question....


What I'd really like to know is, does MJER teach at least *some* styles and techniques that were used 400 years ago,
Yes, all the techniques were condensed from earlier versions, some of the variants you may know as kae waza.


on the whole does the curriculum consist of effective techniques?
If they didnt work the guy who thought of a new(uneffective) technique would be dead and not able to pass it on...
Try running through, say, the Chuden waza with a partner and bokken (carefully..:D ) and see if you can spot any weaknesses both from the attackers and enemy viewpoints. Just to make sure, check with your instructor in case you are making mistakes. ;)
Let us know how you get on...

Tim Hamilton

[Charles Mahan]

Actually if you look at the kata from the perspective of the kihon embedded within them, then I suspect we do most of the kihon in much the same way as it was done in the past. I'm sure that kata have changed over the years, but the principles that they teach you are probably pretty darn similar to what was practiced in the past.

After all, the kata are not the techniques. They are training exercises meant to impart the style to you. They aren't a playbook.

[David A. Hall]

Dan,


Originally posted by dbeaird


If this is so, why do so many schools of swordsmanship persist in teaching single person forms to their students?

Yes, a number of ryu do this and there is a place for it even in some of the more "positive" schools. (There are other Edo Period schools, however, which have reversed this and concentrate on iai/batto with little or no emphasis on two-man kata.) Many of the early koryu (warring states period) had no iai/batto at all in their early years! Nen Ryu, Shinkage Ryu, even Shinto Ryu to name a few. (Katori Shinto Ryu added batto later on.) A number of the early to mid-Edo period ryu also had no batto...and still contain no iai; I.e. Jigen Ryu, Jikishinkage Ryu, etc. Many of these ryu do train with shinken...but with a partner. Other schools, such as Tatsumi Ryu, have a good mix of both.

As I mentioned, some battlefield-derived ryu have found a place for solo training...but usually as a supplement, not the main curriculum.



As a final thought, since no one practicing sword arts today can truly have the intention of using a sword in combat, is it possible for a person to train with true combative intent?

Many classical ryu in Japan (I.e. Shinto Ryu, Nen Ryu, Jigen Ryu, Araki Ryu, Shinkage Ryu, Jikishinkage Ryu, etc.) train "as if" they were preparing for battle. They feel that if you don't train with that in mind, you are wasting you time. No, they don't plan to find themselves in another Sekigahara next week, but they train to be prepared for it. That's how they train their "spirit". In many of those koryu--not all of course, but many--a member of the ryu has to be mentally and technically ready to both face and deal out death.

That's not the end all of the training by any means, however, in many of those ryu it is the underlying theme. The first kata taught in Jikishinkage Ryu, for example, is aimed at aiuchikatsu "winning the engagement with a mutual striking down of your opponent and you"!

During my years in Japan I both trained in batto and observed countless others in seemingly endless iai demonstrations. In the 1970s I was, along with some of my koryu colleagues, disdainful of seiteigata iai. Then, one afternoon, I observed Donn Draeger testing a sword for someone by going through the seitei iai kata. Never before or since have I seen it look so deadly....but then, Donn always trained as if he was ready to slice you up!

Dave Hall

[Charles Mahan]

Originally posted by David A. Hall
Dan,

Many classical ryu in Japan (I.e. Shinto Ryu, Nen Ryu, Jigen Ryu, Araki Ryu, Shinkage Ryu, Jikishinkage Ryu, etc.) train "as if" they were preparing for battle. They feel that if you don't train with that in mind, you are wasting you time. No, they don't plan to find themselves in another Sekigahara next week, but they train to be prepared for it. That's how they train their "spirit". In many of those koryu--not all of course, but many--a member of the ryu has to be mentally and technically ready to both face and deal out death.

Dave Hall

Sounds exactly like you're describing MJER to me, and that is how Dan is instructed. I suspect this attitude is prevalent throughout most all Japanese koryu.

Personaly Dave, I think I'm with you on this one. You can never let a single grain of doubt enter your mind while you are training or you run the risk of your Iai being tainted. You must at all times acknowledge that you are training for real. That you are always training with combative intent(or whatever you want to call it). That you are always training for the inevitability of combat.

I think what Dan is trying to get at is that none of us ever will go into combat, and that no matter how hard we try there is a psychological disconnect between creating this intent through force of will rather than having this intent created by the inevitable circumstances of someone who lived prior to the Meiji Restoration. Wow that sentence just runs on and on.

But like I said. I'm with Dave. The attitude of training for actual combat must be maintained firmly and with no room for doubt.

Oh and as for battlefield derived. Think Tosa.

[Gabriel L]

Woah! I leave for a week, and come back to a much larger can of worms than I really expected. Ha ha, no problem, this has given me all the info and opinions I could have asked for, I suppose. Several things:

"We do not, any of us, study JSA in order to become better at sword fighting." - Mr. Dan Beaird
No? Nobody? Not even indirectly? I understand that those who truly dedicate themselves to the art for a long time will do so out of a variety of reasons, including self-improvement / exercise / historical preservation / etc, but isn't "becoming better at sword fighting" at least one of those goals? I know that (one of) my personal hopes is that learning JSA will help me to better understand and appreciate nihonto, and the functional requirements of the Japanese sword. That requires learning proper technique, which suggests that one goal for JSA should be becoming a "better swordsman" technically, no?

Mr. Hyakutake Colin, I'm sorry, maybe I'm not reading your post closely enough, but I'd appreciate some slight clarification. Are you saying that learning kenjutsu helped some iai practitioners become much better at iaido, or that learning iaido was a great supplement to kenjutsu, or both, or neither? LOL. Either way, it sounds like both styles are pretty complementary.

Mr. Tim Hamilton, thanks for cutting right to the question, ha ha. Those are, I suppose, the answers I was looking for anyway, which should have been logical (koryu = authentic) but I still wanted someone else to say it.

That being said, everyone's help - and debate - has been very helpful to me in getting a generalized, outsider's sense of JSA/MJER... here's what I took from the discussion, IF you care:
1. MJER = koryu = authentic/real. Find a good MJER dojo, and the techniques will be close to, if not identical to, what was practiced by actual samurai a couple of centuries ago.
2. JSA is certainly not battle training, nor samurai training, nor learning to become a "sword master." But it is a cultural and historic asset, one that has been pretty well preserved, and worthy of dedicated study and practice. Who knows if modern American-taught MJER would be "effective" in ancient Japan - the point is that that isn't the point, so to speak. ;)
3. Iaido/jutsu vs. kenjutsu - there isn't really a "vs." They're two complementary and overlapping studies, each of which is strong enough to stand on its own, but which together help to create a more balanced martial artist.
4. "Real" JSA, which includes MJER of course, is not "sword dancing." This is actually a very good point, since I came online with the intention of asking if some American-based JSA was just "learning how to dance with swords." Lol...

These are just some quick points that I gleaned/interpreted from the previous posts, based on zero personal experience and almost zero knowledge. Feel free to correct/discuss. I probably just invited another 50 posts of controversy, haha. Well, bring it on! :D ;)

[dbeaird]

Originally posted by David A. Hall
Dan,

Yes, a number of ryu do this and there is a place for it even in some of the more "positive" schools. (There are other Edo Period schools, however, which have reversed this and concentrate on iai/batto with little or no emphasis on two-man kata.) Many of the early koryu (warring states period) had no iai/batto at all in their early years! Nen Ryu, Shinkage Ryu, even Shinto Ryu to name a few. (Katori Shinto Ryu added batto later on.) A number of the early to mid-Edo period ryu also had no batto...and still contain no iai; I.e. Jigen Ryu, Jikishinkage Ryu, etc. Many of these ryu do train with shinken...but with a partner. Other schools, such as Tatsumi Ryu, have a good mix of both.


That is interesting David, but it didn't answer the question, I asked why and you told me who instead.



As I mentioned, some battlefield-derived ryu have found a place for solo training...but usually as a supplement, not the main curriculum.
Many classical ryu in Japan (I.e. Shinto Ryu, Nen Ryu, Jigen Ryu, Araki Ryu, Shinkage Ryu, Jikishinkage Ryu, etc.) train "as if" they were preparing for battle. They feel that if you don't train with that in mind, you are wasting you time. No, they don't plan to find themselves in another Sekigahara next week, but they train to be prepared for it. That's how they train their "spirit". In many of those koryu--not all of course, but many--a member of the ryu has to be mentally and technically ready to both face and deal out death.

That's not the end all of the training by any means, however, in many of those ryu it is the underlying theme. The first kata taught in Jikishinkage Ryu, for example, is aimed at aiuchikatsu "winning the engagement with a mutual striking down of your opponent and you"!

During my years in Japan I both trained in batto and observed countless others in seemingly endless iai demonstrations. In the 1970s I was, along with some of my koryu colleagues, disdainful of seiteigata iai. Then, one afternoon, I observed Donn Draeger testing a sword for someone by going through the seitei iai kata. Never before or since have I seen it look so deadly....but then, Donn always trained as if he was ready to slice you up!

Dave Hall

David,

I hope nowhere in my text I challenged your experience, or even suggested that because it was different from how I trained that your experience was somehow less "correct" than mine. I've been working with swords now for quite a long time, but only come to JSA relatively recently. In my experience, the reason that solo work is emphasized early on in most (okay, I have no basis for using the word most other than I've seen it in just about every manual I've ever read) systems of sword fighting is that before any sort of two person exercise is attempted, the student must learn to control the sword for the sake of safety if nothing else. A person who cannot put the sword where they want it is a danger to himself and his partner. Essentially I see this as the foundation for the lack of two person exercises in some systems. I still maintain that distance and timing can be learned in solo form, as a matter of fact I believe it is essential that they be learned alone before attempting to work with another.

The term battlefield-derived leads us to another discussion that has been worked to death here. I've never suggested that Iai was something that would be used on the battlefield. Not that it doesn't make a better swordsman all around, but it's utility I think was more concerned with civilian combat than with battlefield encounters. Much like European rapier systems in fact.

Iai traces it's history not to the battlefield but to personal combat. Hyashizaki Shigenobu developed (or was given the gift from the Gods) Iai for the purpose of revenge in personal combat, not for use on a battlefield. Considering the time and place, Iai is a valid combat system regardless of it's extremely limited utility on a battlefield. Personally I believe that swords were at best a secondary weapon on the battlefield anyway, and any system that was indeed battlefied-derived would probably concentrate on pole arms and archery instead of swordsmanship, but that's just my opinion.

As far as facing death is concerned, well we've all read Five Rings and the Hagakure and can probably quote them to each other, so I don't think we can go into this topic in great detail from a historical aspect. Factually, people today are much more removed from death than the samurai of old, and so it is reasonable to assume that it is harder to be prepared for death, especially through what is essentially a hobby rather than techniques for personal survival that swordsmanship once was. This mindset is again something that is part of the individual student, and not, I think, something that can be said "some ryuha do, some don't".

We kind of come to my point about here: All of these things may be taught poorly or well, there may be poor students or good students. We've all seen examples of poor schools and poor students, but when it's a good school with good students, all these things come together to make a swordsman regardless of when or if two man forms are introduced.

As an old rapier guy and fencer, I have a tendency to make my distances too long. I'm used to working with the point not the monouchi and to use larger extensions. I believe that the techniques I'm using now which do not include two man kata yet, are sufficient for me to learn correctly but don't doubt that I will learn more when I am introduced to two man forms.

[dbeaird]

Originally posted by Charles Mahan


Sounds exactly like you're describing MJER to me, and that is how Dan is instructed. I suspect this attitude is prevalent throughout most all Japanese koryu.

Personaly Dave, I think I'm with you on this one. You can never let a single grain of doubt enter your mind while you are training or you run the risk of your Iai being tainted. You must at all times acknowledge that you are training for real. That you are always training with combative intent(or whatever you want to call it). That you are always training for the inevitability of combat.

I think what Dan is trying to get at is that none of us ever will go into combat, and that no matter how hard we try there is a psychological disconnect between creating this intent through force of will rather than having this intent created by the inevitable circumstances of someone who lived prior to the Meiji Restoration. Wow that sentence just runs on and on.

But like I said. I'm with Dave. The attitude of training for actual combat must be maintained firmly and with no room for doubt.

Oh and as for battlefield derived. Think Tosa.

Way back in the past Charles, as I'm sure you know, I was a professional soldier. A light weapons infantryman and not a bad one I think. When I trained, I trained with the understanding that these are the tools that I will take with me to the battlefield and use against a real enemy. I was much younger then, and probably didn't think as philosophically about it as I do now, but when I enter the dojo I try to think the same way, but there is the realistic understanding that in fact I will not be using what I'm learning against an enemy.

We've both seen the people with camoflage ninja suits and weapons of archaic destruction who have convinced themselves that they are learning the skills they will need when the CIA calls upon them to go assassinate Osama Bin Laden with a sword and bring back his head. My years as a professional soldier have taught me nothing but disdain for people with these dreams, they are NOT preparing for combat, they do NOT live in the "real" world and they do NOT have the faintest clue about the reality of battle. I also believe that if they were transported somehow back to old Japan, the professional soldiers there would see them as clowns just like I do.

There's a fine philosophical line to be drawn between the people who think they are training for combat and those training as if they were going into combat. I know that I fall into the latter category because I know what combat training is and I live in a time and a place that doesn't require me to carry a sword in order to insure my safety. (hmmm perhaps the line should be doesn't ALLOW me to carry a sword instead, ah well...personal defense is another issue...and my thought along those lines has been along the lines of "never take a knife to a gunfight")

I don't believe that this adversely affects my training. I still try to train with intent (intent is actually the second part...first part is trying to train with my feet in the right place) but I don't believe that is inconsistant with the understanding that I am not learning skills for my day to day combat needs.

[dbeaird]

Originally posted by Gabriel Lebec

...snip...
"We do not, any of us, study JSA in order to become better at sword fighting." - Mr. Dan Beaird
No? Nobody? Not even indirectly? I understand that those who truly dedicate themselves to the art for a long time will do so out of a variety of reasons, including self-improvement / exercise / historical preservation / etc, but isn't "becoming better at sword fighting" at least one of those goals? I know that (one of) my personal hopes is that learning JSA will help me to better understand and appreciate nihonto, and the functional requirements of the Japanese sword. That requires learning proper technique, which suggests that one goal for JSA should be becoming a "better swordsman" technically, no?

...snip some more



Nope, nobody, not even indirectly, EXCEPT people who sit around polishing their swords, hoping someone will try to break into their house so they can show their skills. Which frankly, isn't really a sword fight either since only one person has a sword. Assuming the person entering isn't one of those camoflaged ninja I spoke about earlier.

Becoming a better swordsman is quite a different matter from training to win that next sword fight, not on the grounds of the mechanics of training, but on the mindset of the trainee. The actual effects as far as technical proficiency might be the same, yet focus on an event that will not happen (except of course in some sort of astronomical kind of odds, I hope that people who are hedging their bets here also have insurance against alien abduction and robot attacks).

There may be as many different reasons for studying JSA as there are students, but those that have taken it up for actual combat application are living in a fantasy world. In the Army, we'd call these people Rambo, or John Wayne. They'd have tiger-stripe camoflage paint on their face, wear belts of machine gun ammo, fire guns from the hip, and try to pull grenade pins with their teeth. Such people do not last long around professional soldiers, and likewise, the JSA equivelant should not be tolerated by the serious practitioner.

Training "as if" is not the same as training "for".

There are aspects of what I study that go beyond physical proficiency with a sword. My swordsmanship is actually a secondary result of what I'm trying to achieve, but I can only achieve my goal if I give it first priority and try to forget the other things I'd like to gain. That's my understanding of how this all works. I'm studying JSA to be a healthier, better person, not to be able to defeat the legion of Musashi clones that fiendish Japanese scientists are preparing even now for their next attempt at world domination.

Don't get me wrong, I wish to be a good swordsman as well. Which is why I didn't take up chado or TM instead of Iai. That's because I enjoy working with swords for all sorts of reasons, and not because I see it as a vital tool to protect democracy from the international communist conspiracy.

[pgsmith]

Dan Wrote ...
not to be able to defeat the legion of Musashi clones that fiendish Japanese scientists are preparing even now for their next attempt at world domination.
Then you will be easy for us to defeat when we extend our domination northward! :D

I think you have hit the crux of what I consider possibly just a problem of semantics. That is the difference between 'training for' as opposed to 'training as if'. It has always been my contention that since there no longer is sword combat, there can no longer be anyone training for sword combat. Training as if you were going to engage in sword combat is essential to the art, in my opinion. Anything else would be Saturday Night Fever with props.

The problem that keeps recurring in my head is what exactly qualifies as "training as if going to combat"? Dave's breadth of experience gives him a great deal of insight into this question. I've only been at this for seven years, and can claim no such insight. Therefore I try and quantify it as much as I can, and that's where I have problems. As Dave pointed out, even the seitei kata can look deadly when performed by someone with the proper ability and spirit. This leads to my contention that it's not so much the individual methods of the school, as it is the individual spirit of the school.

If the instructor, and thus the students, are weak in force of spirit and intent it doesn't matter how well they perform the techniques it still wouldn't be "combat effective". Likewise if the techniques of a school don't seem very sophisticated or well rounded, if those practicing them work diligently with full intent and spirit I believe that it would qualify as "combat effective".

Of course, this does assume that the techniques being practiced make sense from a 'combat' point of view. It wouldn't matter how diligently you practiced twisting triple backflips, they still wouldn't be anything other than goofy! :)

There you go, more opinions from the peanut gallery!

Cheers,

[Charles Mahan]

Now I'm agreeing with Paul. It does seem to be mostly a question of semantics between "Training for Combat" and "Training as if for Combat". Nobody trains for combat as there is no combat anymore, but the most affective "Training as if for Combat" will be a complete acceptance on the part of the student that he is actually "Training for Combat". It is important to stick to that belief because if you don't you start down the slippery slope towards kenbu, or what Tanida-sensei referrs to as "Suicide Iaido" :D

[Gabriel L]

Oh, okay, I see what you're saying now. I misinterpreted your remark to mean that attaining technical proficiency wasn't anyone's highest priority, which of course didn't make sense. Yes, everything else you've said now makes sense to me, lol. Hmm, training "as if" by deliberately maintaining the belief that one is training "for..." So basically take it seriously, right? ;)

PS: what is "kenbu?"

[Gabriel L]

Of course, if you look at this objectively, it's really rather funny, since we're all exhibiting that "western" tendency to analyze things to death. Even funnier since I'm sitting here making "observations" and generalizations about something I've never seen in my life.

:o :p :D :rolleyes: :)

[Charles Mahan]

Yeah. What it all boils down to is take it seriously.

:D

And yes we are all spending too much time thinking about it, and not enough time sweating on the mat.