PDA

View Full Version : Koryu - 400 years of hobbiests with no combative experience? Not really.



Ellis Amdur
24th April 2004, 00:57
Not infrequently, in the unending debates about the nature of koryu, and whether it is "for real," someone mentions that although the ryu may have once been valid training methods that had techniques effective in combat, they have lain in degenerate dormancy for over 400 years, with no reality testing whatsoever, and those who practice are, at best, collectors of antiquities.

This is, however, not really accurate. Without even making the effort to do any research, I can think of many ryu which had members who went to war, survived, and returned to practice, quite content with their chosen ryu, and quite possibly vivifying it with some of their combat experiences. For example, members of the Kashima Shin-ryu participated in various conflicts including the Satsuma rebellion. One member of the Araki-ryu was Jirocho, a Robin-Hood type Yakuza who had many episodes of hand-to-hand combat, another participated in the Seishin-gumi (an outfit like the Shinsengumi) and fought in the internicine wars that ushered in the Meiji period.

It is sure that many warriors from many ryu participated in these battles at the end of the Meiji period.

In addition, quite a few fighters had a lot of taryu-jiai experience, particularly jujutsu ryu. Shihan of the last generation of both Kiraku-ryu and Tatsumi-ryu were described to me as being very strong in shiai. One of the former won a three-way tournament between judoka, Araki-ryu members and Kiraku-ryu members.

Finally, many many of the elderly men of the last generation of koryu - either deceased or still aging gracefully, were fighters in WWII. Those that survived again returned to their ryu. (BTW - one of the major reasons, not often cited, for the decline of koyru is that the generation who were young in the 40's mostly were killed on the battlefield. There was a gap between the elder generation and current - what was missing was the middle. Thus, in many ryu, a few young men - often middle-class, studied from very old men who passed on what they could to the very small group of individuals who remained interested.)

I well agree that combative experience in WWII, for example, was far different from that of the 1600's. But the point I'm trying to make is that there were far more men than is usually imagined who were familiar with the rage, terror and chaos of war - still passing down koryu in modern times. And until this generation, there were also far more who chose to also find some way to compete, be it in taryu jiai, or simply in judo or kendo.

The phenomena of koryu antiseptically apart from anything but insular kata, practiced by individuals without experience in combat or competition, is perhaps a modern one - and is not common to all koryu schools either.

Best

Ellis Amdur
www.ellisamdur.com

Mekugi
24th April 2004, 01:56
Originally posted by Ellis Amdur
The phenomena of koryu antiseptically apart from anything but insular kata, practiced by individuals without experience in combat or competition, is perhaps a modern one - and is not common to all koryu schools either.

I was talking about something similar to this on another thread, specifically regarding the reconstruction of kata "lost" to a ryu.

Do you think that "hiring paramilitary and marines" to help reconstruct the kata would accurately effect the combativeness feeling of the kata?

Myself, I have known Marines and Soldiers with copious amount of combat experience (one was my room mate for about 3 years) and I wouldn't trust them to screw in a lightbulb.

-Russ

BTW...that was a tasty bit of writing up there. Thanks!

Joseph Svinth
24th April 2004, 03:04
Russ --

You must know folks from the kinder, gentler era, as back in the day (definitely into the 1970s), they used to train Marines to screw in whorehouses rather than lightbulbs. :p

Of course, that probably just proves Ellis's point. Back in the 1970s, John Keegan pointed out that the current generation was different, because there was no draft and there had been no major wars since 1953. For the US, this occurs slightly later, of course, but the principle still applies, if you move the end date to the early 1970s.

That said, if you really want to see what works in unarmed combatives, my recommendation is to quit looking at the soldiers, or even the LEO. Instead, look to the shift nurses and interns at hospitals for the criminally insane.

Mekugi
24th April 2004, 04:17
Originally posted by Joseph Svinth
That said, if you really want to see what works in unarmed combatives, my recommendation is to quit looking at the soldiers, or even the LEO. Instead, look to the shift nurses and interns at hospitals for the criminally insane.

Ya know, ya have a point here. Marines should screw in houses of ill repute....umm, what did I quote again...OHH yeah.
AHEM...
Paramedics would be one to talk to as well, I suppose. I spent countless hours talking to an ambulance driving friend of mine over coffee about car wrecks and the most common and fatal injuries they have seen (other than being thrown from the vehicle, head trauma and internal bleeding being on the top two) and it was an enlightener. I suppose that applies to this instance as well. Kind of morbid, but it makes for some very interesting stories and conversation.

Always,

Russ

Hissho
24th April 2004, 04:22
Russ-

You missed my point.

My comment was not that any marine or combat vet would be able to accurately reconstruct a kata due to their combat experience.

Consider Draeger, or as I noted, Bristol. Do you think that the fact that they had been/have been in harm's way on a regular basis may given them insight that someone without the same experience would not have? Do you think that, humans being humans, and battle being battle, that despite certain anachronisms, they might not be able to understand, as Ellis put it, the "rage, terror and chaos of war" in a way that allowed them deeper insight to critical aspects of psycho-physical organization that a traditional battlefield school teaches, when grounded properly in the foundations of the particular ryu, and when reliving aspects of their combat experience through their training?

Would that kind of insight not, in fact, be more useful and practical when it came to grasping the combative application of a particular teaching - and reconstructing it, or even passing it on?

If it would not be, I am curious as to an explanation why you think so?

As Ellis points out, the experience of combat in WWII, or to put a modern spin on it, Afghanistan or Iraq, is going to be completely different from that in 1600 - but there are plenty of men that had that experience and the benefits of what it taught them.

Personally, I think those are the guys who would understand far better critical components of martial arts originally created by combatants, for combatants, than someone who has only trained but never "been there," even their own students.

I think Ellis is stating the same thing. He is simply stating it is not completely absent in the koryu.

It is not completely absent in Judo, karate, aikido or any number of other disciplines either. A pure sport judoka just back from Iraq is going to know far better what "combative intent" is than will a college student in Japan practicing a battlefield ryu but never having been in a fight. My comment, as far as koryu is concerned, is that just because its koryu doesn't mean that it is therefore de facto combatively effective training - or that it will automatically produce combat ready students. That is really up to the student.

If I read Ellis right, I think we are in agreement. He noted men returning from combat and vivifying their ryu with their combat experience - kinda my point. He mentions koryu removed from anything but insular kata as a modern phenonmenon - NOT the case in the old days made plainly obvious in his descriptions of the combat and competitive experience they had over and above their dojo training. And not the case with all koryu today.

David Hall once wrote that he felt even in Japan only a handful of instructors really understood the combative application of what they teach - my own take on it would probably be similar to Ellis' - they were probably the guys that came back from WWII or otherwise gained real combative insight. Dr. Hall also wrote that these guys were hard to find, but that the search was definitely worth it.

The very fact that people advertise someone like Col. Bristol as being uniquely qualified to comment on the combative application of a ryu is because of his experience and insight into both. Not simply because of one or the other. His having the two together are what makes his perspective unique, and more useful to the fighting man wanting to know what koryu might offer him.

I was commenting on what some people seem to perceive as an if=then proposition. IF it's koryu, it MUST be battlefield tested, and therefore still a practical combative method. Not the case, and I can venture a guess from past experience that Ellis does not believe this either.

The same holds true for "battlefield" Chinese arts or for "Isreali Commando" methods today.

Mekugi
24th April 2004, 05:11
Kit,

My answer is no.

Reason? The principles are the same, however, being able to use a similar principle with a rifle doesn't mean one can use that same principle with a sword. For instance, just because I have a motorcycle license doesn't mean I know how to ride a Jetski.

Hope that made sense.

Always,

-Russ

Arman
24th April 2004, 06:30
Russ,

Well, actually, you may be right about the difference between a rifle and a sword from a technical/mechanical level, but perhaps not so right from a combative psychological level. Take a look at www.hoplology.com, and you might find a different perspective than the one you espouse.

Here is a part of what they say:

"The Goal - One Mind Any Weapon

Most modern training systems take a compartmentalized approach to training the individual in non-natural, fabricated fighting skills. Such training generally covers only very specific weapons and techniques related towards and driven by those weapons. Handgun use, for example, is typically considered a completely different set of skills from any other weapon, even other firearms. Instruction in handgun use rarely, if ever, is related to non-firearms combat, such as with blades, sticks (batons), or empty-hands. As a result, each of these areas tends to be taught (and learned) as separate and distinct skill sets. Unfortunately, this is a proverbial !!!-backwards perspective on human combative behavior and performance.

In any combative confrontation, the weapon does not do the fighting; the human wielding the weapon is the combatant. Any weapon can be nothing more than a tool to be used more or less efficiently in whatever situation the user applies its use. The tool does not need training, nor does each tool require a distinct set of behavior and performance skills for the user to engage in combat. Tools do need training in their efficient operation, however, that is not training in or for combat; that is merely training in the simple basics of operating that particular tool."

[EXCERPT FROM WWW.HOPLOLOGY.COM]

IOW, the combative principles inherent in koryu may very well be just as useful in modern combative situations. Which is the basic foundation, I believe, of the ICS training methodology discussed above.

Best regards,
Arman Partamian

Mekugi
24th April 2004, 06:47
Hi Arman,

In the past I was a member of the IHS, however, that faded as I stopped recieving newsletters. Now I am sure that my membership has expired.
I have read this before, and do believe it was in Hoplite. THe passage is well written and makes sense. That being said I would like to keep this away from kicking peoples butt and focus on reconstructing koryu kata. That is unless you think all koryu kata are "a fight" and every time you do them you don't need riai and you can just whallop the person until they stop moving. That's effective, right? Is it Koryu as well? Well, I don'T think so. That is a rather shallow view of the whole thing and not what I am trying to say. I we (I) are talking about is reconstructing koryu kata (this is continued from Chris' posts on antoher thread). It doesn't matter if John Doe has 200 confirmed sniper kills in the field, his practice of kata and his understanding of the kata has nothing to do with that. Period. He may gain insight from his training and vice-versa; not unlike a person can gain insite into calligraphy from practicing the sword. All skill levels are different, everyone is simply different and insights will vary for better or for worse, regardless of their insight into kicking the living hell out of someone or beiong able to rain hell on a platoon of foreign soldiers with an subgun.
I am not butying into the generic "everyone that has "combat" experience and studies koryu MUST have some kind of insight greater than the master who has been at it for 30 years" blanket. I am not buying into it because I simply believe it will not hold up or true for everyone.

always,

-Russ


Originally posted by Arman
Russ,

Well, actually, you may be right about the difference between a rifle and a sword from a technical/mechanical level, but perhaps not so right from a combative psychological level. Take a look at www.hoplology.com, and you might find a different perspective than the one you espouse.

Here is a part of what they say:

"The Goal - One Mind Any Weapon

Most modern training systems take a compartmentalized approach to training the individual in non-natural, fabricated fighting skills. Such training generally covers only very specific weapons and techniques related towards and driven by those weapons. Handgun use, for example, is typically considered a completely different set of skills from any other weapon, even other firearms. Instruction in handgun use rarely, if ever, is related to non-firearms combat, such as with blades, sticks (batons), or empty-hands. As a result, each of these areas tends to be taught (and learned) as separate and distinct skill sets. Unfortunately, this is a proverbial !!!-backwards perspective on human combative behavior and performance.

In any combative confrontation, the weapon does not do the fighting; the human wielding the weapon is the combatant. Any weapon can be nothing more than a tool to be used more or less efficiently in whatever situation the user applies its use. The tool does not need training, nor does each tool require a distinct set of behavior and performance skills for the user to engage in combat. Tools do need training in their efficient operation, however, that is not training in or for combat; that is merely training in the simple basics of operating that particular tool."

[EXCERPT FROM WWW.HOPLOLOGY.COM]

IOW, the combative principles inherent in koryu may very well be just as useful in modern combative situations. Which is the basic foundation, I believe, of the ICS training methodology discussed above.

Best regards,
Arman Partamian

Ellis Amdur
24th April 2004, 07:48
Couple points which possibly all or some of the writers might find themselves in agreement.

1. I do not believe that combat experience in Afganistan would make one, de facto, qualified to "revive" a sword kata whatsoever. But - I do believe that one well-educated in the principles in a ryu who ALSO had combative experience may possibly have critical insight in how one reacts when terrified for one's life in combat, or swept by rage, or in that cool state beyond either which would be a contributing factor in how they practice AND how, if given such responsibility, they would craft a revived kata. Without going into details, I have seen two factions of the same ryu both attempt to revive kata from detailed notes. The members of faction A, who have, to my knowledge, no experience of shiai, much less combat, despite years of training in the kata, created/revived kata which were, from my knowledge of the principles of the same ryu, idiotic. The instructor from faction B, who had both shiai experience, and pretty extensive combat in melee situations with hand-held weapons, took the same kata and revived them in radically different fashion - they had integrity and they were much more congruent with the other extant kata of the ryu.

2) And yet, I was present when the remarkable and delightful old gentlemen of the Jukendo federation, who had seen hand-to-hand combat in WWII were reminiscing. One recalled a match he had with Sawada Sensei, (woman) instructor of Tendo-ryu naginata. He said, in far more graceful language, "Not only did she kick my a**, but she scared the heck out of me too." Sawada Sensei had done lots of shiai, and trained with remarkable intensity, but, to my knowledge, never experienced combat, yet she, per this old gentleman who had seen the real thing, was the "real thing."

In sum, I believe that the curriculum stands on its own, but if corrupted over time, a diligent trainee/teacher "of thirty years experience" who has had real-life experience as well, will likely know critical information about what the kata means (or has lost) that most 30 year trainees without such real life experience might not understand. I'm not saying this is an absolute - witness Sawada Sensei - but it's quite likely.

This aint rocket science. if I were examining or learning kata from a kata-based jujutsu ryu, I'd rather have a teacher who knew the kata AND had done judo/wrestling, etc., than one who only practiced the kata.

Final point - it is also true that the innate conservatism of Japanese (and actually many of all cultures who study a tradition) might make them blind to deficiencies within their school - even with combat experience.

In sum, I'm dealing with "might" "likely" "have a tendency to" "not surprising it", not absolutes.

Best

Ellis Amdur

mikeym
24th April 2004, 10:09
Ellis Amdur wrote:
This aint rocket science. if I were examining or learning kata from a kata-based jujutsu ryu, I'd rather have a teacher who knew the kata AND had done judo/wrestling, etc., than one who only practiced the kata.

Mr Amdur,

How much do you feel that this works in reverse? Would a student training in a kata-based art lose the benefit from cross-training in judo or wrestling if their instructor had no such experience?

Thanks,
- Mike

Mekugi
24th April 2004, 10:25
In an attempt not to step on my tongue, I would say that yes, 1 & 2 are relevant and valid arguments and that Chris' writings have valuable points as well.

However, there is the case where lets say ....Judo has too much of an influence on a ryu and it completely infiltrates it's heart and soul. Now the interpretation of the kata are altogether peppered with Judo waza here and there and more tidbits enter in every year. The combative person, understanding the feel they get from competition and "the real thing" realizes that it's closer to what they experience in "the field" and is now technically completely oblivious as to what the kata really are communicating. The result is merely no more than gokkyo henka. Attempts to reconstruct the kata, are then futile because a person that "has been there and done that" in the form of combatives will not be able to ascertain the inner principles and the core of the ryu they are studying.
Let me use an outrageous and fictitious example:

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that every practitioner of Shinto Muso Ryu jo is killed off by a freak virus that only attacks people using white oak jo. The only people remaining are the ZNKR practitioners who were using red oak jo and they decide to re-construct the ryu. Given that, do you think they could possibly do it? I mean, they have plenty of randori experience and a great amount of study in the seiteigata, right? Now all's they would need is a person who is versed in live stick fighting and killing people to add the proper flavor.

Regardless of it's outward silliness this is what I am getting at in my argument. It's a two way street, and what goes in may not always come out right.

Hope that made sense. I'm scratching my head wondering if I understood what I have just written.

Always,

-Russ ;)

Hissho
24th April 2004, 14:40
Russ-

I can see where you are coming from, actually. I think we have broadened the topic from simply re-creating kata with this thread, and I realized I was posting in more general terms on the Hatsumi thread as well.

I, too, have sometimes questioned the all too ready comparison of sword-to-gun, but I do recognize that people with far more experience than I in both do see connections. I think the key is having that dual experience rather than waxing philosophically about it when only really grounded in one. Musashi's writing often makes the rounds of the gun community, for example, with mixed results.


I am more in agreement with Ellis' last post. I think, too, that we are talking about serious students here. I am not trying to say that a guy with combat experience who studies XYZ-ryu will have a deeper understanding of it with two years in than a thirty year master.

I do believe that the same guy after five or ten years of serious study will have a deeper understanding of certain aspects - or maybe it is better said will have greater "psychological access" to those things, than the thirty year master without the experience. That will reflect in how he processes increasingly advanced teachings from the master who is passing them on, and may result in what is a nearly imperceptible difference in how he does things that in fact makes a huge difference in what comes across.

But back to Russ, of course there will always be individual differences and capacities that do make all the difference.

Ellis Amdur
24th April 2004, 16:13
Mike -

If I understand your question correctly, the student who has either had or is concurrently training in a "competitive" grappling system has an enormous advantage in learning a kata based art, and should be able, within the kata, to function that much better.

Where there would be a problem is if the teacher, without such training, does not either understand all the ramifications of the kata they teach, or does not know how to "fine tune" the kata, and the student, with the grappling experience is told to do things which defy real "body logic." Unlike sword or spear, one really can do a lot of reality testing on jujutsu kata - and therefore, I believe that if a system does not have a freestyle component of training within it, it is imperative - absolutely - to cross-train in anything from BJJ to collegiate wrestling.

AND - I'm in kind of a rush but, I'm obviously in agreement with Kit here - AND, Russ, your example of reconstruction is dead on AND I also agree with you, here, Russ, about the contamination by the modern arts damaging if not destroying the old. Example: kenjutsu footwork and body organization replaced by kendo in a koryu kata. Your example of koryu kata being "replaced" by judo in koryu clothes (which, to give one example, might result in a vitiation of blade awareness while doing the form.)

Best

Ellis Amdur

R_Garrelts
24th April 2004, 16:28
Fascinating thread!


Originally posted by Ellis Amdur
Final point - it is also true that the innate conservatism of Japanese (and actually many of all cultures who study a tradition) might make them blind to deficiencies within their school - even with combat experience.

How true. It is exactly for this reason that instructors without “real world” experience are sometimes able to convince those who really should know better that even the most ridiculous techniques are tactically sound. It is truly surprising how just a little tradition can go such a long way in “selling” a technique. Sadly, it seems that all an instructor has to do is make a technique halfway believable and the majority of students will believe it regardless of how silly it might be.

All of this is just to say that, unless those with combat experience are willing to let their experiences shape their performance and understanding of an art, their hard won knowledge is useless. If they are simply people who have seen combat but (for whatever reason) lack the willingness to let their experiences have any influence on their techniques, they might as well be without such experience. (Incidentally, the same could be said of those with extensive shiai experience; if they aren’t willing to let what they learned in shiai affect their kata, shiai didn’t do them much good.)

Being an unabashedly gendai kinda guy, I don’t really have any experience with koryu kata or their recreation, but I thought I’d throw this in anyway. All too often I've seen people with extensive experience (whether shiai or combat) swallow almost total garbage "hook, line, and sinker" simply because they were unwilling to admit to themselves that what they were being shown was garbage.

Regards,

Richard

Hissho
24th April 2004, 20:25
Richard-

I think the reverse may also be true in some cases: people see something "combative" but if it does not fit their view of proper form, or kata, they dismiss it.

I did a little koryu with, as chance would have it, Ellis Amdur!

One of the things that Ellis did several times when I trained with him was somewhat annoying - which was I think his intention.

We would be working on a set of forms fairly extensively, and he would then teach some new forms. Coincidentally a few weeks out from a planned demonstration.

Then, ten minutes before the demo started, he would say "Changed my mind, we are doing XYZ kata instead." Now, these might be the brand new kata we just learned, or they might be some kata we had not done together in a long while (maybe he was just testing to see if we were working on the other stuff!) So while we knew he was probably going to do this to us, we didn't know what he was going to have us do.

Then of course, he would turn up the heat during the actual demo, and come at you fast and hard, using more advanced movement and more power (still within our functional range, however).

Needless to say, stress level went up, performance suffered, and things sometimes looked choppy. (Although sometimes they were better than our typical performance...)

Talking with him later, this is what he apparently wanted - he has written before on what he believes embu represents, and this kind of training fit into that overall scheme of things, I am sure.

However, I heard from several individuals at different times (including demos I did not attend) that some of those watching were surprised. This was related by people also in attendance that were acquainted with Ellis and the ryu. Comments were heard that it was "not koryu," it was "not real kata," and was not the way things should be done.

While I don't personally believe that any training, much less any kata, is an accurate replication of combat or can manifest actual "combative intent," I have experienced a good deal of modern combat simulation training on a professional level (with firearms and other training and scenario simulations).

These demonstrations I have described were closest to the combative simulations I have done. Those simulations, while still short of reality, are the closest to the stress, chaos, confusion and "choppiness" that I have experienced.

I have heard that this is not an uncommon thing for koryu teachers to do, but I haven't seen a demo where that kind of thing was in evidence. I haven't seen a lot of demos, though, so maybe its out there.

So I thought it interesting that experienced people would look at what I thought were good combative simulations - even though they may not have looked polished, or seemed like other koryu - they took issue with the fact that it was koryu at all, or that it was proper kata. Clearly there were two different ideas about training going on there.

Arman
24th April 2004, 21:08
Russ,

I would argue that in fact, if the whole point of koryu kata is to prepare an individual for combat in which there is a high probability of losing one's life, any attempt to reconstruct an old kata that does not have some understanding of this experience would be lacking something "vital."

As we all know, the reason koryu kata are supposedly effective vehicles for teaching combative arts is because they are the results of continuous feedback from actual combat. Now I just don't understand how anybody who has never seen any form of combat could conceivably RECREATE/and or reconstruct lost kata? Grappling forms might be slightly easier because you can actually test these, maintain feedback, etc. But a sword kata? Has anyone here ever been in a real sword fight? So how are you possibly going to re-create an old form that was originally designed, presumably, by someone who engaged in not just one, but many sword fights? I suppose you could try simply based on the principles of the previous forms. But that would still lack, I presume, the true vitality of the original form.

This is where some form, ANY form, of real combative experience would at least provide guidance to someone trying to recreate lost kata, since they would at least have an understanding of the neuro-psychological stress reactions, the stress on motor activity, and some understanding of combative bio-mechanics. This would be valuable even if they only understood this on some intuitive level, e.g., this posture doesn't feel right, etc.


That being said, the entire translation from combat experience, to kata, and back to combat experience is so intuitively remarkable that I constantly find myself amazed by the warriors who created this stuff.

Best regards,
Arman Partamian

Nathan Scott
25th April 2004, 09:49
Hi Kit,


Then, ten minutes before the demo started, he would say "Changed my mind, we are doing XYZ kata instead." Now, these might be the brand new kata we just learned, or they might be some kata we had not done together in a long while (maybe he was just testing to see if we were working on the other stuff!) So while we knew he was probably going to do this to us, we didn't know what he was going to have us do.

-snip-

However, I heard from several individuals at different times (including demos I did not attend) that some of those watching were surprised. This was related by people also in attendance that were acquainted with Ellis and the ryu. Comments were heard that it was "not koryu," it was "not real kata," and was not the way things should be done.

What you described is exactly what Obata Sensei used to do to us back in the old days. It was frustrating and stressful for all of us, but looking back now, I see it as valuable experience. It's all about performing under stress, and enbu (for most people) is one of only two opportunities to do this.

I haven't tortured.. I mean, trained my students in this way during enbu yet, but have intended to begin this with some of my intermediate students. Beginners (from my way of thinking) would go over the edge if I added that component to their enbu.

In addition to just making last minute changes and doing other things to ensure that we were all stressed out, Obata Sensei would often just pair up with you, bow, draw his bokken and being striking and/or thrusting at you during a demo. We of course never knew what it was we were supposed to be performing with him, but knew without fail that if we didn't do *something* (ie: don't get hit or stuck in place), we would be in DEEP ca-ca.

Very useful experience in retrospect. I don't know what "koryu" exponents do, but I've seen a lot of koryu that - in my opinion, isn't "koryu" as well. But for different reasons! ;)

nicojo
25th April 2004, 16:32
Just a quick request from the peanut gallery...I think someone said that this was a continuation of a thread from somewhere else. Can someone provide the link so I can get a bit of the background? Thank you. If this was incorrect, nevermind. Very interesting discussion to read, thanks all.

Mekugi
25th April 2004, 18:22
Originally posted by nicojo
Just a quick request from the peanut gallery...I think someone said that this was a continuation of a thread from somewhere else. Can someone provide the link so I can get a bit of the background? Thank you. If this was incorrect, nevermind. Very interesting discussion to read, thanks all.

http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25766&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

Kit & I were talking.

nicojo
25th April 2004, 19:27
Thanks Russ, I was reading that one, but didn't know the connection/spin-off. Makes more sense now.

It's an interesting discussion. Begs the question of why people want to revive a lost part of curriculum. What should be developed and why. Careful consideration is needed, I would think....Anybody need a cowboy to help revive koryu bajutsu? (sp? you can tell my noviceness. I am referring to the horsemanship of samurai. And it's a joke btw!) Enough out of me!

FastEd
26th April 2004, 00:26
Originally posted by Mekugi

Let me use an outrageous and fictitious example:

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that every practitioner of Shinto Muso Ryu jo is killed off by a freak virus that only attacks people using white oak jo. The only people remaining are the ZNKR practitioners who were using red oak jo and they decide to re-construct the ryu. Given that, do you think they could possibly do it? I mean, they have plenty of randori experience and a great amount of study in the seiteigata, right? Now all's they would need is a person who is versed in live stick fighting and killing people to add the proper flavor.

-Russ ;)

Bad analogy,

Pre-supposes that ZNKR jo people don't practice koryu, and/or can't keep the koryu seperate from the seitei.

Aaron T
26th April 2004, 02:55
Many good points are being made in this thread.

I would like to add my two, well maybe only one, cent. I believe in this context “combat,” is loosely defined.

I would argue that perhaps it is not what a person does, but instead just being faced with the situation that has potential for life-loss. Being forced to act in an environment in which the stakes are high and the stress levels exceed that found in most normal activities creates the "edge" that is being debated. In other words, though the paraphrase is a rough one, being forced to operate in “life-&-death” types of situations on a regular basis achieves the mental conditioning required for success.

In addition, I know that training and repetition within these types of environments breeds competency. I also know, via three generations, that being involved in such activities changes one’s perspective.

Here is what I am saying, albeit not well, that high stress potentially lethal activities, when preformed repetitively, and with training, create results within individuals. These changes are subtle and are adaptations of stress management and subsequent skill performance, and personal perspective. Though police-work and going to war (i.e. military service) are two ways to achieve results, there are other just as effective occupations.

Finally, one of my pet peeves is the ongoing questions over “street effectiveness.” Despite the many debates in many locations, the real reason to study a combative is for personal enjoyment. The truth of the matter is hand to hand combat is a loosing proposition. Yes, there are always exceptions, but being in shape and use to competition alone will take you a long ways towards self-defense. Before I get angry responses from all the “combat trained martial arts folks,” training in a combative, or combative sport will not hurt you, but it is not a huge advantage either. In addition, when a person works with violence on a regular basis, it quickly looses its fascination and mystique, if it ever had it.

I was once asked by a fellow pajama wrestler guy, why I chose the profession I chose, rather than pursue police work. He asked me "how I could train for all these years and never get to really do it?" Though the number of reasons for my choice in occupation is numerous, I responded to this person by saying; " I do get to do it...I do it 5 days a week here in the dojo, and this is where I enjoy it."

Best regards,
Aaron Fields

Hissho
26th April 2004, 15:23
Aaron

Wassup, buddy!

Be honest, you really don't do police work because you prefer to lounge in a recliner at the station, eating homemafe breakfast that the newbies cook for you right there, and would rather the cops get all the hate and discontent so that when you show up with your caring attitude and the morphine everybody loves you...:D


I would agree with you but with a caveat - its not just dealing with danger/possibility of death - otherwise extreme sports guys are getting the same conditioning and will have that same edge.

The difference is violent interpersonal human aggression and its effects. It is dealing with this kinda thing that provides the mental conditioning you are talking about, I think.

It is never pleasant to see someone whose been made a mess of in any incident. I think the psychological aspect is much different when someone was "done ugly" through the intentional malicious act of another person than if in an accident, or just some intentional stunt.

Ron Tisdale
26th April 2004, 16:11
Hi Nathan,

You said:


What you described is exactly what Obata Sensei used to do to us back in the old days. It was frustrating and stressful for all of us, but looking back now, I see it as valuable experience. It's all about performing under stress, and enbu (for most people) is one of only two opportunities to do this.

Is the other situation shiai, actual conflict, or testing? I have one instructor who has the habit of waiting to the final week before the test, then switching your partners around, changing the techniques (including rather sophisticated multiple evasion techniqes) and other things of this nature. I must admit, it certainly upped the level of anxiety for me...and that was just an aikido test.

Ron

Aaron T
26th April 2004, 17:58
Kit,

How are things? Yes that is it..."rookiee I like rye toast..," Give me a call some time, had a Kosen guy come through the dojo for a while, good fun. Oh...well I gotta go cause the rookiee hasn't set up my bunker gear like I like it... "hey rook......."


See ya
Aaron FIelds

Aaron T
26th April 2004, 18:19
Sorry was going to say something actual.

I agree Kit the specifics may be slightly different, but the effects are the same.

For example I have worked with new firefighters who had been cops or military (saw combat in Somalia) prior to the fire service. There conditioning in dealing with stress management was a huge advantage. Yes their initial training and experience were not those found in firefighting, but the coping skills etc crossed over. Most folks there first time in a burning building freeze up, these guys did not, they were a bit frantic yes, but not worthless.

My whole point is that the specifics of the jobs may vary, but on the big picture the end result is the same.

Our line of work does not bring us in interpersonal violent encounters often, I have and will again been forced to deal with patients that were not willing. Or the shooting and knifing wasn't finished yet but we had to get to the patient(s.) Are we specifically trained for this, nope, but we are trained to act.

As to the combat sport guys getting the same advantage, I would say they are moving towards the same place yes. The stakes are bigger outside the ring for sure, but, sport of any sort, if a huge step towards the same capacities.

It is nothing special, simply stress management and real-time application of skills under duress. Yes the specifics may be a bit different, but the meat of the matter is really the same thing.


Aaron Fields

Mekugi
26th April 2004, 20:07
Didya miss the outrageous and fictitious part?

Anyway, I could care less if they practice koryu (wait...do you mean Shinto Muso Ryu?), that doesn't mean they could reconstruct the SMR kata doing only seitei along with kendo randori/shiai and some crazy SOB that kills people with sticks; this was the point I was edging along at.


Originally posted by FastEd
Bad analogy,

Pre-supposes that ZNKR jo people don't practice koryu, and/or can't keep the koryu seperate from the seitei.

Mekugi
26th April 2004, 20:09
Originally posted by Aaron T
Kosen guy come through the dojo for a while, good fun.See ya
Aaron FIelds

Really? From the Tokyo Newaza group of from Kyoto?

Aaron T
26th April 2004, 20:25
I do not recall, he was a University student that was doing a year at the University of Washington. He was a player on his University's team and he said that school was one of about 6 doing Kosen. The name of his university slips me, it was a little while back. He has since gone back to Japan to resume his MD studies.

Nice guy and fun to work with.

Aaron Fields

Earl Hartman
26th April 2004, 20:59
When Ellis, Kit, and Nathan are on a thread, I can't resist jumping in even if I have little or nothing to offer, but since this thread seems to be about a perennial favorite subject on e-budo that gets disinterred pretty regularly, and seems to have something to do with cross fertilization/contamination (depending on one's point of view), I thought I would say something.

First of all, aside from getting victimized by thuggish jocks on an intermittent basis in high school and spending a year and a half in a state of barely-controlled panic while training in kendo with the riot squad police in Japan, I have never really been in "real fight", so I want it to be clear that I am making no claims of any sort here.

Anyway, to get to the point, I finally figured out how to half-way decently perform a vital part of a Nagao Ryu kata that I had never been able to do worth beans in the two years that I trained in Nagao Ryu during my time in Japan. I managed to do this while training with a senpai of mine in SMR jo who has extensive hand-to-hand grappling expeience.

The reason I was able to figure it out is because I realized that the key movement in this kata bears an uncanny resemblance to a certain tai-sabakai movement in a particular kata in SMR jo. The specific technical application in Nagao Ryu is different, obviously, since sticks are not involved, but after SMR practice one day we were throwing each other around, and I realized, suddenly, what was going on in the kata and why I had never been able to do it. This time, the Nagao Ryu kata worked like a charm, absolutely the first time I had ever been able to do it worth a damn.

To make the situation even more intetesting, part of the reason I had been able to figure it out is because even though the key movement of the kata is expressed as a kind of footwork, it really doesn't work because of the feet, it works because of the rotational action of the middle-waist (koshi) which in turn acts as the motive force behind the execution of footwork.

Why is this intetesting? This sort of thing should be obvious to anyone who does Japanese budo, where the teachers are always emphasizing the action of the waist and hips. To me it is interesting because I really learned that footwork is not in the feet but in the middle waist through practicing and (especially) teaching kyudo, of all things. To walk proplery in kyudo you must learn how to propel your body by walking from the hips. This is especially important in turning during walking. The waist turns and then the feet follow. I found that if I applied this principle to the movements of SMR jo I was able (or so it seemed to me) to perform the movements much better, and in this particular kata it worked like a bloody charm. I then found that it was the key to the Nagao Ryu kata as well. One of budo's little epiphanies, with which I am sure you are all familiar.

Now, having said that, does that mean I know how to fight?

Damned if I know. I will start hanging around in seedy dives and biker bars at 3:00 in the morning and then get back to you if all goes as as planned.

Mekugi
26th April 2004, 21:29
Maybe here?
http://www.kusu.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~judo/history-e.htm


Originally posted by Aaron T
I do not recall, he was a University student that was doing a year at the University of Washington. He was a player on his University's team and he said that school was one of about 6 doing Kosen. The name of his university slips me, it was a little while back. He has since gone back to Japan to resume his MD studies.

Nice guy and fun to work with.

Aaron Fields

Harlan
26th April 2004, 22:22
1. Combative experience/trauma of any sort informing a kata reconstruction: assumes that if someone stands up and says "I did it" that there is some way to verify it. Records...pictures...what? Seems like a moot point...kata not provable?

2. Anyone with any sort of hand to hand experience, in a life or death situation in this discussion, please stand up.

Okay....I will. I think that the comments that touch on the value of personal experience informing a chosen MA are the most interesting. There are no more real samurai to samurai to the death sword fights...but there is plenty of violence happening every day with very nasty sharp things! I suggest that all you sword collectors lock them up every night. Facing down your own sword at 2 in the morning with nothing with your bare hands....sucks. However, ever afterwards you have an incredible understanding of timing, spatial distance, line, arc, etc.

Mekugi
26th April 2004, 23:20
What's this prove?


Originally posted by Harlan
2. Anyone with any sort of hand to hand experience, in a life or death situation in this discussion, please stand up.

cxt
26th April 2004, 23:24
For whatever my two cents are worth--and that kinda depends on the day.

You can parse this question all you want.

Drag in that the current crop of koryu guys (most of them) have never been in "real" combat.

Talk all you want to about technique "drift." A supposed occurence between the guys that "really" used the techniques and the guys that are currently teaching.

Bottom line is that the koryu are the nearest thing we have to what and how the folks that "really" used the arts trained.

Are they perfect? Probably not.

Have many koryu lost some things over the years? Probably so.

Are the guys that train in them the equal of the folks training in say 1720-maybe, maybe not.

Then again no-one I know is strapping on the daisho to meet a guy at sunrise for a death match.

Its arguable that what is lacking is not the technique or training but the mindset that actual life and death combat is just around the corner.

I also think the initial question is flawed for two reasons.

1-Since the day of the sword is over, the person saying the koryu are "no longer valid"--outmoded training, sterile training etc.
If thats the argument then they have already lost--combat effectiveness pretty much goes to the shotgun.
Its ALL less then effective when compared to firearms.

2- If you are interested in the fighting tactics and weapons of feudal Japan--well then you have a pretty good window in the koryu and their respective methods.


Chris Thomas

Nathan Scott
27th April 2004, 01:15
Is the other situation shiai, actual conflict, or testing?

Testing. Of course you can always introduce limited shiai/jiyuwaza in the dojo, but testing and demos tend to happen on a semi-regular basis, and present great opportunities for spiritual forging (in my opinion).

The way I see it, as an instructor, conducting a test for rank is technically unnecessary (though mandated by our organization), since you already know what the level of your students is - unless you have a huge commercial dojo and don't know the names of most your students - no offense intended.

Also, demos rarely, if ever, bring you new students, so choreographing a brilliant demo - while entertaining to the audience, is also a bit of a waste of potential student development (unless you are doing a really important demo of course).

Thus, I see testing and demos as an excellent opportunity to place the student under pressure while giving them a better excuse to train the general curriculum on their own. What good is knowing techniques if your spirit fails under stress? Stress training in fact prevents injuries in the dojo, since the student's focus is enhanced and their friggin brain is bypassed.

Earl, happy to have you on board! If I may say so, VERY insightful observation on ashisabaki! This is something I've been researching for a few years now, and has greatly enhanced my own movement. You might also think about how your shoulder movement corresponds to your hip movement. I've really changed the way I generate power and movement in the Japanese arts I study in the last few years. Very interesting stuff.

Anyway, sorry if this is pulling the thread OT...

I tend to agree with the shiai vs. kata points being made here. I do have an idealistic view of learning by correct instruction in kata, but on the other hand, I am starting to believe that it is necessary for at least the teacher to have significant shiai or combative experience in order to properly guide the students towards real ability.

Regards,

Ellis Amdur
27th April 2004, 02:32
I certainly wasn't thinking deeply at the time I posted this new thread - simply commenting on something I've noticed in discussions regarding koryu. Now, to give it a little thought:

1) The oldest ryu were basic training. Or - like a fencing school, teaching methods of one-to-one fighting. As Dave Lowry wrote in another thread, they were also, from the beginning, political entities.
2) As time passed, the politics continued in importance, but the reasons to train in a ryu changed, as battles were no longer in the immediate future.
3) These ryu still survive today, and given this anomaly, people mull over what it must mean to practice a remnant of a passed age, what utility they might have, etc.

SO: If I were drafted or volunteered for the military, I'd go through training that would make me, in theory, combat ready. (But if I signed up for an absolutely realistic camp for middle class wannabes that replicates, exactly, boot camp, I'd be a hobbiest - and ridiculous in addition. Perhaps a fine line, that is sometimes crossed by some students of koryu - otherwise known as koryu wankers). Anyway, as a graduate of boot camp, I would know about combat in the abstract, and only know the reality were I unfortunate enough to have to go through it. This last statement should be obvious, but in the armchair, it can be lost. Combat means horror - disemboweled, dismembered, shattered corpses, who may be your best friend, may be a woman or child scythed either deliberately or inadvertently. Combat also arouses such basic instinctual emotions that rape and murder can easily be an outcome, either because one has license - (for example, the Russian army raped over a million German females - I use that word, because they raped small children and old women and all in between indiscriminately) - or one's civilized values are overwhelmed by the hatred and fear that naturally arise in one - (like the good American kids at My Lai). Although one may, within warfare reveal a splendid heroism and humanity, war, itself, is vile.

Koryu, then, as I have written elsewhere, is not only a training for combat, but was an attempt by survivors to put some moral parameters around the natural (mostly) male desire to train in combat.

So I (among others, but I speak for myself) train in koryu. As far as I'm concerned, it is my hobby. Why do I use that word? Because it is not basic training, and I do not fight with a sword, and I've been fortunate in my life to never be on a battlefield or in a situation where I had to kill anyone. A hobby is something that enhances your life, but is not required to maintain your life, nor is it your profession. Yes, what I have learned has helped me, at times, to function on the edge, with very dangerous people, in dangerous situations. But really, this is not different, for me, than my work-out at the gym, or gardening. Each enhances my character, psychology and body in ways that, incidentally, happen to help me in the work I do, but essentially are worthwhile in and of themselves. I'm no more or less a bushi than I am an exercise physiologist or a gardener.

It must be said, however, that I am a member of several ryu, and just as Lowry writes, there are demands on my loyalty that make participation far different from other hobbies in my life. But just like I could stop playing music, I could stop training koryu - and yes, it would be sort of like a divorce, meaning it's a far more complex issue than other individual hobbies, but I'd still argue that it if it is not my profession or social caste, it is an avocation only.

No matter how good I might get in my art(s), I know absolutely nothing about a forced march in armour in monsoon season, surviving on meager rations, wearing the same clothes of a month or more, rotting fungoid flesh chafing on my clothes, skin infections, and sprained aching limbs and THEN, trying to use my kenjutsu or sojutsu to survive - only to march another month somewhere else to so the same!

But, because the koryu arts I train are supposedly a training systems for the battlefield, (which still might have value, in some respects, today) , then I want to learn as much as possible about how to do it well. Just as, when playing classic music, if someone shows me a better method of fingering to play a trill or a run, then I want to know it - simply to be better at what I do. And don't tell me that koryu is like classic music because there is no room for improvisation. When classic music was alive, not classic (koryu), there were always improvisational passages.

And if, in koryu, I've trained long enough and studied hard enough, I will, naturally, question the techniques I've been taught, and because I really value this hobby, my critical examination will lead ME, if no one else, to test what's been handed down. Just like, today, I was shown a way to do full-arm extension squats that keeps me from swaying my back. My core strength will improve, I'll be healthier, but someday I'll still die, and all my training did was make my time on earth more enjoyable. A hobby.

The insight that someone who has had the misfortune to fight on a battlefield, or as a law enforcement officer, be one-on-one in anything from a gunfight to a DT tussle to the impeccable coordination and split-second decision making required by a team of firefighters plunging into a burning building, or in my case, the requirement to remain calm, peaceful yet ready for any level of threat when confronted by a psychopathic intimidator child -abuser who sees me as the one who is keeping him from access to his kid - all of this:
a - informs one - possibly - on what the kata is getting at
b - enables one to taste, just a little - of what is required to execute what the kata teaches.
c- it could also lead one to have the confidence to make some utterly faulty assumptions seeing parallels between one's experience and the kata that don't really exist (hence the requirement for complete transmission before innovation - or at least, while under the supervision of one with complete transmission).

So, in its way, might shiai, or other competition - as long as the form one trains in doesn't teach one to act in a way that is, to use Draeger's phrase, "combatively inane." Which, I would add, is only relevant if your hobby is focused on understanding how one functioned with these weapons in medieval combat.

As I said before, all of this is "possibly." Many people go to a martial arts school and treat it like a religion - even to the degree of abandoning what they know to adopt the basic assumptions - psychological and technical of the school.

Which loops back to what Aaron Fields wrote:
He asked me "how I could train for all these years and never get to really do it?" Though the number of reasons for my choice in occupation is numerous, I responded to this person by saying; " I do get to do it...I do it 5 days a week here in the dojo, and this is where I enjoy it."

And that, in essence, is where it comes down to me. One of my students and I were talking, only a year or so, into his practice, and I asked him why he wanted to do Araki-ryu. With some irritation, he looked at me and said, "Cause I like it."

Me too. Nothing more.

Ellis Amdur

www.ellisamdur.com

Mekugi
27th April 2004, 04:52
Originally posted by Ellis Amdur
[B Perhaps a fine line, that is sometimes crossed by some students of koryu - otherwise known as koryu wankers.[/B]



YEhhaaassssss...KORYU WANKERS. GENIUS.
BTW that was a kick arse post there. Kudos!

Always,

-Russ

Stéphan Thériault
27th April 2004, 07:01
In terms of the influence of gendai on koryu, I have question. Could it be a case of a gendai practioner doing a bit of koryu on the side, versus a koryu practioner doing koryu with a bit of gendai on the side? For exemple doing judo 3 or 4 times a week and Araki-ryu twice. Versus doing Araki-ryu 3 times a week and judo twice a week.

Mr.Amdur, regarding forced marches, you could always try finding an adventure race that would finish the day before a judo or kendo tournament. :D

Nathan Scott
27th April 2004, 21:39
I tend to agree with Ellis' last post, but perhaps see the subject of hobbiest vs. professional a bit differently.

First off, it might be worth qualifying what the context of the ryu-ha is/was historically. Not all koryu, to my knowledge, were developed for battlefield application - or, have since been adapted for civil applications. Arts that are not still focused specifically on the battlefield context would tend to be more relevant for modern exponents. Many koryu changed the focus of their art during the Edo period and again during/after the Meiji period to be more in keeping with the needs of the times. Same principles, but different focus of application. I reckon this point is worth considering.

Secondly, we may or may not all agree that the "weapons" we are all training - regardless of the art or whether it is koryu or gendai - is our minds, spirits and bodies. If this is the case, then modern military, LEO, and security/personal protection specialists are being given the opportunity to learn extremely valuable tactics, pro-active measures, body/mind/spirit control and judgement. The flaw to me is not so much in the focus or historical context of the given arts being taught, but in the inability of students to correctly understand and adapt what they are learning. Sometimes this is the students fault, and sometimes the instructor is not adequately competent or experienced. But in my opinion, the potential is there. Myself and many others I know have benefitted greatly from the various aspects of "obsolete" fighting systems when involved in protection/military duties.

I have a feeling Ellis would tend to agree with what I'm saying though, so maybe it is more a matter of what you think is being taught and learned by modern exponents of martial arts. I would agree that most modern exponents do not train deeply enough or seriously enough to get much real practical benefit from the training. Especially in regards to koryu arts.

At the risk of sounding (more) hoaky, I'd also propose that all martial arts provide the opportunity for the serious proponent to use these arts as a tool to improve various aspects of their lives (regardless of whether the art is called "budo" or not). These improvements present themselves through a variety of teachings and circumstances typical to training in traditional martial arts to the student who is interested in absorbing and applying them. For myself, I've relied on budo as my vehicle for self-improvement so much that discontinuing training would adversely affect my quest for development.

Sure, there may be other ways to encourage development, but I've chosen budo, and as such, for both personal and professional reasons I wouldn't view the study of any of these arts as a hobby (for myself).

On the other hand, I do think we all need to be careful about feeding more into our training than is really there. It is easy to get caught up in fantasy and role-playing, especially in the earlier stages of training. In this regard, I think it is important for those prone to such misconceptions to re-read Ellis' post to maintain perspective.

Just thought I'd offer an (slightly) alternate point of view for consideration,

nicojo
28th April 2004, 03:15
It is easy to get caught up in fantasy and role-playing, especially in the earlier stages of training.

Personally any picture of me in hakama with a sword quickly dissipates any notion of role-playing. Haven't got used to it. I am more likely to underestimate myself than fantasize about any ability.

Well, I suppose it depends on what aspect of martial arts one chooses to focus on. It is all there, in a way I think. Self-defense was one reason for me beginning MA, another was developing body mechanics (whatever that means). Still another reason was connecting to a different culture and outlook. Philosophy, developing spirit wasn't really something I did MA for until I saw aikido. Funny, because I am the pondering, academic sort. The focus, especially when I met people like Jesse Glover, shifted a bit, became more intense and I remembered the other things. I was more aware of self-defense, culture, spirit. I don't have the fastest or hardest punch, much discipline, much knowledge of culture or spirit, but these are still parts of it for me. It's more organic than I thought.

When I first read about koryu about four years ago I was hardly in the place to look for a teacher, but I thought, "now this is interesting. I will have to be patient.." These things you people are able to talk about, becoming part of a stream, budo spirit, self-improvement, incorporating any sort of martial/philosophical attitude into daily life (life-giving sword, strategy, "art of peace/art of war" etc)...I look at myself and remember patience. Four years has gone by quickly.

Now I enjoy a new reason, a deeper connection to a culture and perhaps looking at a stream if not dipping toes into it. But the most central reason is that I wouldn't like NOT doing MA. I am patient with the rest, focusing on one thing or another as I can along the way. The main problem with my training is having to leave good teachers behind to pursue a profession; still, I have found good teachers in the oddest of places. TY