wrist locks in koryu

[Hotsuma]

We've all heard the argument that wrist locks don't work in combat, and this has been one of the main arguments against koryu arts. However, I have heard that many styles of koryu actually don't have many wrist lock in their syllabus. Are wrist locks used extensively in koryu, or is it just arts like hakko ryu that use them a lot.

[Mekugi]

Hi Matt!

Originally posted by Hotsuma
We've all heard the argument that wrist locks don't work in combat, and this has been one of the main arguments against koryu arts.
I've never heard that, nor have I heard that as an argument "against koryu". It seems that if wrist locking and twisting won't work in combat, it wouldn't explain or lend a reason as to why they are banned in a lot of NHB events...different subject altogether though.

Originally posted by Hotsuma
However, I have heard that many styles of koryu actually don't have many wrist lock in their syllabus.
Some koryu don't have taijutsu, yawara, jujutsu (et al) in them. So that is a reasonable argument, with "none whatsoever" as a given.
Those that do, however, have some form of kansetsu in them in one way or another; whether it be the wrist or not I really couldn't say because I have not had a chance to see all of them.


Originally posted by Hotsuma
Are wrist locks used extensively in koryu, or is it just arts like hakko ryu that use them a lot.

Well, it appears that Aikido uses a lot of them. Hakko ryu, being a modern martial art like Aikido and not Koryu has them, as you say. Tenjin Shinyo ryu, Asayama Ichiden ryu, Fusen ryu, Daito ryu and a few others that escape me, all seem to have them in their syllabi. I don't think it's a matter of them being impractical, frankly.

Always,

-Russ

[Hotsuma]

First off let me say that I am not arguing against koryu arts. However, there are people who do argue against the effectiveness of the koryu arts and one of things they always bring up are wrist locks. Wrist locks are not banned from NHB competitions and you rarely see people use them. This fact is often brought up by detractors of koryu. However, I did not start this thread to debate the effectivness of koryu in combat. If thats what I sounded like, that was not my intention. What I wanted to know is if most koryu use wrist locks extensively in their syllabus. As I'm sure you know, wrist locks are not the easiest things to apply to an opponent, so I was wondering how often koryu, being battlefield arts, used them.

[Gene Williams]

Wrist locks work best when YOU are grabbed by the wrist, hand, or lapel and have the opportunity to trap and reverse the hold. They were also used by swordsmen when someone checked or grabbed thier hand to keep them from drawing. Wrist locks are not an offensive weapon. Even in the above situations, they work best if you kick or strike as you apply them. I have used them as "come along" holds on prisoners and combative party patrons...they do hurt and immobilize, but only if you do them RIGHT. They are probably useless in most of the spontaneous fight situations you would encounter.

[CEB]

Originally posted by Hotsuma
.... so I was wondering how often koryu, being battlefield arts, used them.

They used them because Koryu were not battlefield arts.

[renfield_kuroda]

In the five kodachi kumitachi we practice, four end with a wrist grab/lock (one goes for the elbow.)
All these techniques are katsujinken, so you're not killing your enemy, just countering his attack and then pacifying/immobilizing him.

Regards,

r e n

[Nsherrard]

Koryu were not battlefield arts.

Wow, the knowledge and erudition displayed by some of the folks here is really impressive, don't you think?

[CEB]

Koryu arts are civil defense arts not battlefield arts. The battlefield weapons were the spear and bow. Then later the rifle. The Japanese did not get artsy fartsy with their martial arts until after the Battle of Sekigahara. When Tokugawa established his Shogunate the peace was held in Japan for over 2 centuries. During the Edo period the Samurai adopted Chan (Zen) Buddhism and started practicing bugei for reasons other than battlefield preparedness. I would like to know when any Jujutsu army ever took to the battlefield. IMO the post Edo arts like the ones from Toyama Gakko are battlefield arts. Much more so than that fancy Koryu stuff. :laugh:

[George Kohler]

Originally posted by CEB
Koryu arts are civil defense arts not battlefield arts.

For the most part I agree, but not all were civil defense. Yagyu Shingan-ryu heiho Kacchu Yawara comes to mind. But, from my personal experience, I have not seen any wrist locks in this branch of Yagyu Shingan-ryu.

[Mekugi]

They usually call this "small joint manipulation."

http://www.ufc.tv/learnUFC/rulesUfc.asp

Rule number 8.

Most follow suit.


Originally posted by Hotsuma
Wrist locks are not banned from NHB competitions and you rarely see people use them.

[Mekugi]

Ummmmm...

www.koryu.com

Check out Take(no)uchi ryu - it was around during the Muromachi Jidai, it has kansetsu with and without weaponry.



Originally posted by CEB
Koryu arts are civil defense arts not battlefield arts. Much more so than that fancy Koryu stuff. :laugh:

[ChrisMoon]

Originally posted by CEB
Koryu arts are civil defense arts not battlefield arts.


What the what????

[Mekugi]

Originally posted by ChrisMoon
What the what????

Yeah that is what I was thinking. Huh?

(BTW... for the record and off this post I may be wrong on the "Small Joint Manipulation"- I guess it could mean fingers and toes.I always thought it meant wrists as well).

-R

[George Kohler]

Originally posted by ChrisMoon
What the what????

I believe he was referring to suhada bujutsu.

Quote from Koryu.com

Edo Jidai (Edo period, 1600-1868) suhada bujutsu (fighting while dressed in the normal street clothing of the period, kimono and hakama)

[TakadaDojoKeith]

Originally posted by Mekugi
(BTW... for the record and off this post I may be wrong on the "Small Joint Manipulation"- I guess it could mean fingers and toes.I always thought it meant wrists as well).

-R


I'm pretty sure they mean both wrists and digits. At least they didn't allow either kind of technique in the competitions I've done.
As for why NHB organizations don't allow them, it's not because they're such devastating techniques. I've finished both amateur NHB, submission wrestling, and judo matches with busted fingers and sprained wrists. I think they've banned small joint manipulations because they'd have to stop fights everytime someone got their finger bent at a 90 degree angle...and that's not a very satisfying end to a fight you've paid to see.
Beside, most techniques that are banned from any kind of competition are banned to extend the careers of the athletes. I've seen guys fight through busted fingers, wrists and ankles once in a while. But if you let fighters crank wrists and snap fingers/toes, they'll do it every chance they get. It may not end a single fight, but getting your wrist busted five times in five matches will probably end a fight career.

[Steve Delaney]

I know Chris, I couldn't help but roll my eyes to the heavens when I read that too.

Hmm would you call Saburi ryu Sojutsu a civil art? It's a koryu and it's also a spear art that practices techniques in both armour and in street clothes.

How about Takenouchi ryu? It's well known for it's grappling techniques, but it also has sword, spear, halberd, staff, sickle & chain and in one line, they even have yoroi kumi uchi. Civillians wearing full armour? And a great number of weapon techniques in this ryuha employ grappling in it's reperoire.

And it's not only Takenouchi ryu; Araki ryu employs quite a bit of grappling in it's weapons syllabus too. Oh and then there's Kukishin ryu too.

Close combat and hand to hand was a fact of life in those days and also in modern combat too. British troops using bayonets and clubbed rifle against Argentinian troops in close combat at goose green in the Falklands during 1982 doesn't sound very artsy fartsy to me. Sounds a bit like using a spear doesn't it?

The technical progression of certain koryu from armoured combat to fighting in street clothes is a natural one. Necessity is the mother of invention as the saying goes.

From armoured grappling to grappling with daggers to grappling unarmed in street clothes, No war to fight? OK then we're in street clothes, or ceremonial wear, not armour. Use of daggers and short swords in court outlawed by decree? Then we only have our grappling skills to rely on.


Originally posted by CEB
Koryu arts are civil defense arts not battlefield arts.

Riiiight :rolleyes:

[CEB]

Originally posted by TakadaDojoKeith
I'm pretty sure they mean both wrists and digits. At least they didn't allow either kind of technique in the competitions I've done.
As for why NHB organizations don't allow them, it's not because they're such devastating techniques. I've finished both amateur NHB, submission wrestling, and judo matches with busted fingers and sprained wrists. I think they've banned small joint manipulations because they'd have to stop fights everytime someone got their finger bent at a 90 degree angle...and that's not a very satisfying end to a fight you've paid to see.
Beside, most techniques that are banned from any kind of competition are banned to extend the careers of the athletes. I've seen guys fight through busted fingers, wrists and ankles once in a while. But if you let fighters crank wrists and snap fingers/toes, they'll do it every chance they get. It may not end a single fight, but getting your wrist busted five times in five matches will probably end a fight career.

The Greeks also learned that small joint manipulations ruined the fights. In early pankration boxing the rules were simple.
1) No eye-gouging.
2) No Biting.

Later rule was added mainly due to a fighter named Sostartos, no finger breaking. Sostartos would break the opponents fingers very early in the fight and use the broken finger to bring about a submission.

Make sure you have a really good grasp on your kensetsu waza the next time you fight against a phalanx of spears. :)

[MikeWilliams]

Off-topic, but interesting: One of the gold medals at the recent BJJ Pan-Am tournament was won with a standing wrist lock.

So they're not prohibited and can be made to work. They're just not considered terribly sporting.

[Nsherrard]

Mr Boyd, I haven't seen a response to the following:


Hmm would you call Saburi ryu Sojutsu a civil art? It's a koryu and it's also a spear art that practices techniques in both armour and in street clothes.

How about Takenouchi ryu? It's well known for it's grappling techniques, but it also has sword, spear, halberd, staff, sickle & chain and in one line, they even have yoroi kumi uchi. Civillians wearing full armour? And a great number of weapon techniques in this ryuha employ grappling in it's reperoire.

And it's not only Takenouchi ryu; Araki ryu employs quite a bit of grappling in it's weapons syllabus too. Oh and then there's Kukishin ryu too.
Not to mention Lord knows how many others that were founded well before the battle of Sekigahara.



The battlefield weapons were the spear and bow.
Are you saying there are no koryu that use the spear or the bow? Huh.



I would like to know when any Jujutsu army ever took to the battlefield.
So "Koryu" = "Jujutsu"? Hey, if that were true, you'd be right. But it ain't.

[chrismoses]

As much as my knee jerk reaction was to shout, "Give me a break!" to Chris' statements. In fairness, he does have a point. I think the "battlefield" aspect of koryu has been overstated in general. The vast majority of fighting on a battlefield was not done by soldiers using sophisticated ryu-specific techniques. I'm sure some were, and some units were probably better trained than others.

Here (http://ejmas.com/tin/tinart_friday_0903.html) is one excellent article by Karl Friday on the nature of combat on the Japanese battlefield.

Also from Karl Friday, from the Iaido-L archives (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=japanese+battlefield+statistics+karl+friday&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=fa.go2s1tv.1f4s5hq%40ifi.uio.no&rnum=2)

Also from Iaido-l, statistics of casualties and their cause between 1500 and 1560. (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=battlefield+group:fa.iaido&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&group=fa.iaido&selm=fa.g7rqvko.r3a6b4%40ifi.uio.no&rnum=3)

As someone pointed out on the list when these were going around, if koryu is based so heavily on proven battlefield techniques, where is the rock-tosser-ryu? While the practitioners of the classical arts may have been excellent warriors and fighters, I expect that their demographic was much more likely to be the elite than the front line grunts. Remember, most sailors in the navy are not SEALs...

I'm not trying to make a huge point with this, just throwing out some food for thought.

[Nsherrard]

To push the analogy a bit further, would you call what special forces do "civil defense"? Of course not. They're military, plain and simple. No doubt the vast majority of an army was made up of grunts with limited training, but I'll bet dollars to donuts (heh, always wanted to use that phrase) that their generals, officers and most of their instructors were practitioners of a ryu. Saying that most front-line troops were not members of a ryu and saying that a koryu practitioner on the field is equivilent to a jujutsu practitioner on the field are very different arguments. Anyway, when someone presents a rather absurd blanket statement like "Koryu were not battlefield arts" one has to take advantage of the fact. It's been so dull around here lately, though the Hatsumi and Looking for a Dojo threads have been fun...

[chrismoses]

Originally posted by Nsherrard
Saying that most front-line troops were not members of a ryu and saying that a koryu practitioner on the field is equivilent to a jujutsu practitioner on the field are very different arguments. Anyway, when someone presents a rather absurd blanket statement like "Koryu were not battlefield arts" one has to take advantage of the fact. It's been so dull around here lately, though the Hatsumi and Looking for a Dojo threads have been fun...

Agree, agree, agree.

It can certainly be argued that while the myth of fabulously skilled swordsmen facing off across the battlefield is just that, myth, that arts stemming from these times would have been founded/practiced by people who had at least seen some kind of combat. That kind of experience would been invaluable in forming/refining a sylabus. Like basic training, there is only so much that can be taught in a controlled setting. The point is to create a worldview and some solid physical skills that will hopefully lead to sucess if and when the time comes. Stating things like koryu are totally impractical because they contain joint locks is patently absurd. The US army still teaches hand to hand combat although a soldier is unlikely to use it even during a deployment.

Like I said, just some food for thought.

Out of curiosity, who do you train with, have we met (I noticed you're in Seattle)?

[Hissho]

Originally posted by MikeWilliams
Off-topic, but interesting: One of the gold medals at the recent BJJ Pan-Am tournament was won with a standing wrist lock.

So they're not prohibited and can be made to work. They're just not considered terribly sporting.

LOL.

I remember watching a buddy of mine rolling with a BJJ brown belt. Starting from kneeling, upon coming into contact, the brown belt reached down, grabbed my friend's arm, and did a kote gaeshi to the ground and got the tap.

It reminded me of several koryu kata I have seen. My buddy was doubly ticked because his earlier training had been to near dan-level rank in aikido.

I think in "real world" terms wrist locks come into play more from come-along holds - you already have his arm under control before the festivities begin.

Good luck trying to grab an arm actively striking and retracting against you. On the other hand, from a clinch position (which are very common in actual struggles) there will be more opportunities, even moreso if the guy is holding onto a weapon and maintaining it. This applies even better on the ground - do groundwork with knives in hand and note how important controlling the arm and wrist becomes in a close in struggle.

Whether they are fight stoppers is another matter - depends on the bad guy you are dealing with and his level of aggression. Don't count on it if he is particularly motivated, especially if he has certain types of drugs on board.

[Nsherrard]

Chris--I sent a PM.

[CEB]

Originally posted by Nsherrard
Mr Boyd, I haven't seen a response to the following:


Not to mention Lord knows how many others that were founded well before the battle of Sekigahara.


Are you saying there are no koryu that use the spear or the bow? Huh.


So "Koryu" = "Jujutsu"? Hey, if that were true, you'd be right. But it ain't.

I don't come here all that much so forgive me for not replying. But I don't read this stuff very often.

Saburi Ryu - I am not familiar with it. The only 'Koryu' ( depending on what koryu cop is defining what koryu is) I am personally involved with it SMR and MJER. I don't consider those battlefield arts by any strectch of my imagination but I think there are many romantically minded individuals who do. :)

If your Saburi Ryu pratitioners practice in armor and with a phalanx group in ordered spear formations then maybe they are learning a battlefield art. Otherwise it would probably look like another armored dueling art to me. Certainly nothing wrong with that. Most old 'martial' traditions that survive to more modern ages seem to come from dueling or civil defense roots. In Europe it was the French, Italian and Spanish dueling schools which carried on what little was left of old Eurpean sword disciplines. There are a few old master texts but most WMA is reverse engineered based on best guestimates and are not 'battlefield' arts. Obsolete "Battlefield" traditions die when solidiers abandon their use.

Sure there are Koryu schools that practice the bow and the spear but I doubt any schools practice with battlefield intent. :) Most probaby practice koryu as a form of 1) moving zen, 2) to be in tune with their native culture, 3) because they wish they were Japanese, or 4) because its a whole lot of fun. The original issue that I responded to was:


...What I wanted to know is if most koryu use wrist locks extensively in their syllabus. As I'm sure you know, wrist locks are not the easiest things to apply to an opponent, so I was wondering how often koryu, being battlefield arts, used them.


Praticing wristlocks in a skirt is not a 'battlefield' art. Perhaps it is a self defense or arresting technique. But it won't work against cavalry even though the ponies the Japanese rode were on the small side.

Around two and a half centuries of peacetime followed by about one and a half centuries of rapid technological development has changed the intent of and reason for the practice. So no, I was a little on the fence but I've changed my mind. I do not believe Koryu schools teach battlefield arts.

But if it will make anyone reading this feel better to believe they are learning Samurai ways of war they by all means continue to believe and don't let my opinion rain on your parade.

Gambatte Kudasai

[CEB]

Originally posted by chrismoses
...The US army still teaches hand to hand combat although a soldier is unlikely to use it even during a deployment.
...

It is a great means of forging the attitude and spirit of a trainee. Also a good platform for dishing out more PT. :)

[Mekugi]

Which SMR group?
Which MJER?


What is your definition of "battlefield", and what makes you think all koryu are those two you mentioned?


Originally posted by CEB
I don't come here all that much so forgive me for not replying. But I don't read this stuff very often.

Saburi Ryu - I am not familiar with it. The only 'Koryu' ( depending on what koryu cop is defining what koryu is) I am personally involved with it SMR and MJER. I don't consider those battlefield arts by any strectch of my imagination but I think there are many romantically minded individuals who do. :)

If your Saburi Ryu pratitioners practice in armor and with a phalanx group in ordered spear formations then maybe they are learning a battlefield art. Otherwise it would probably look like another armored dueling art to me. Certainly nothing wrong with that. Most old 'martial' traditions that survive to more modern ages seem to come from dueling or civil defense roots. In Europe it was the French, Italian and Spanish dueling schools which carried on what little was left of old Eurpean sword disciplines. There are a few old master texts but most WMA is reverse engineered based on best guestimates and are not 'battlefield' arts. Obsolete "Battlefield" traditions die when solidiers abandon their use.

Sure there are Koryu schools that practice the bow and the spear but I doubt any schools practice with battlefield intent. :) Most probaby practice koryu as a form of 1) moving zen, 2) to be in tune with their native culture, 3) because they wish they were Japanese, or 4) because its a whole lot of fun. The original issue that I responded to was:


Praticing wristlocks in a skirt is not a 'battlefield' art. Perhaps it is a self defense or arresting technique. But it won't work against cavalry even though the ponies the Japanese rode were on the small side.

Around two and a half centuries of peacetime followed by about one and a half centuries of rapid technological development has changed the intent of and reason for the practice. So no, I was a little on the fence but I've changed my mind. I do not believe Koryu schools teach battlefield arts.

But if it will make anyone reading this feel better to believe they are learning Samurai ways of war they by all means continue to believe and don't let my opinion rain on your parade.

Gambatte Kudasai

[Steve Delaney]

Sounds like prejudice and misconception to me.

[Dave Lowry]

Boy, do I feel cheated.
I spend all those years learning how to wear armour so the knots don’t bind or come loose in battle, how to keep it pest-free during long campaigns, how to manipulate a sword to get at weak spots in the enemy’s armour close up. I learn how to prepare a sword for battle. I get taught how to handle it when it gets deflected by an opponent’s armour. I labouriously copy our ryu’s densho for moving troops in bad weather and methods for predicting weather when planning battles.
And now I learn it is all for naught since I’m just doing a “civil defence art.”
Suppose I can get my money back?

Dejectedly,

[Shison]

The only 'Koryu' ( depending on what koryu cop is defining what koryu is) I am personally involved with it SMR and MJER.

Last I heard (I could be wrong...), but MJER and SMR doesn't have any form of Tai-jutsu/Yawara/Whatever in their curriculum.


If your Saburi Ryu pratitioners practice in armor and with a phalanx group in ordered spear formations then maybe they are learning a battlefield art. Otherwise it would probably look like another armored dueling art to me.

I'm not familier with Saburi-Ryu, but I'm fairly certain that there are Koryu out there that teach Heiho (Or whatever that particular Ryu called battlefield strategies).


It is a great means of forging the attitude and spirit of a trainee. Also a good platform for dishing out more PT.

That's about all that BT-HTH is good for... ;)

[Ron Tisdale]

I'm not familier with Saburi-Ryu, but I'm fairly certain that there are Koryu out there that teach Heiho (Or whatever that particular Ryu called battlefield strategies).

Yagyu Shinkage ryu Heiho ...

A good description of the Heiho is given by Mr. Lowry, just above your post... :)

Ron

[Shison]

Must've been posting at the same time; either that or he takes shinobi-jutsu WAAYYY too seriously ;)

I was being facetious with my post. There are Ryu that teach Heiho in their curriculum, as Mr. Lowry has pointed out.
:)

[wmuromoto]

Mainly in reply, respectfully, to Mr. Boyd:

I'm not sure why there's so much argument over this or that is/isn't this a "battlefield" art. Some koryu are, some aren't. Some evolved to include both "civic" police techniques and "military" techniques, some changed entirely, etc. SMR could be classified as a civil koryu; used more for police tactics. Is it less "practical" or less "koryu"? No. Just focused on a different end result. Ditto MJER. Koryu nomenclature involves a wide range of methodologies, IMHO.

snip: "I don't consider those battlefield arts by any strectch of my imagination but I think there are many romantically minded individuals who do. "

Guess you can count me in as one of those. Gee. My sensei once showed me how to final polish a sword before you went off to battle, among other kuden in my ryu directly related to surviving ancient combat. Guess that kuden wasn't "battlefield art." Like, learning how to field strip a weapon and prep it for combat isn't modern combative technique, perhaps, because you're not learning how to form a line? Not true, I think.

snip: "If your Saburi Ryu pratitioners practice in armor and with a phalanx group in ordered spear formations then maybe they are learning a battlefield art."

Well, perhaps. But are you then saying that anything other than close quarter group drills are not combative? Learning how to shoot a weapon is not combative because it's not drill formation or close quarter group drilling? As Mr. Lowry noted, I was also taught various kuden on how to hitch up my armor and clothing for what could only be considered ancient combat, not street fighting. Clothing, armor, technical training with and without weapons, strategy (including troop formation, troop morale, leadership skills, using geography and natural surroundings), castle building and siting...these AREN'T "battlefield arts"? These are what are parts of my koryu.

snip: "...Most old 'martial' traditions that survive to more modern ages seem to come from dueling or civil defense roots...(condensed) There are a few old master texts but most WMA is reverse engineered based on best guestimates and are not 'battlefield' arts. Obsolete "Battlefield" traditions die when solidiers abandon their use.

I think the Takeuchi-ryu and related koryu such as the Araki-ryu, etc. aren't "reverse engineered." They were formulated before the Edo Period. The Takeuchi-ryu founder was involved in documented battles, the last of which was the famous stalemate between the Mori and the Oda-Hashiba forces, just before Nobunaga was assasinated.

snip: "Sure there are Koryu schools that practice the bow and the spear but I doubt any schools practice with battlefield intent. Most probaby practice koryu as a form of 1) moving zen, 2) to be in tune with their native culture, 3) because they wish they were Japanese, or 4) because its a whole lot of fun."


No to #1. A lot of koryu guys laugh at the notion that they're doing "moving Zen." That came only with Hakuin and Takuan and didn't really gain widespread influence until after the Edo Period. Of course, if you personally wanted to do koryu as "moving Zen," be my guest. TR itself was influenced by mikkyo, the founder's brother was I believe Hongwanji, and its guardian deities include mikkyo and Shinto deities. No Zen there. But I know of people in the ryu who are Christians, Zennies, Shingon Buddhists, etc. No big deal.

#2: Well, you got me there.

#3: Nope. Being "in tune with my native culture" doesn't correspond to me wanting to be Japanese. I wouldn't want to have an ulcer and die from overwork, overdrinking and overstressing at an early age. ;-)

#4: Yes, so what's wrong with having a whole lot of fun?

I think, too, Mr. Boyd, if you continue in a koryu for several more years, you may find that there are other reasons to do it, such as a possible #5: being part of a tradition that inculcates certain technical, mental and philosophical ideas in you that you feel comfortable with; being part of a tradition that is like an extended ie, or cooperative. Other reasons may be forthcoming as you continue to train. And please do. And question. I'm not trying to bat you down, just to suggest other possibilities than your conclusions.

snip: "Praticing wristlocks in a skirt is not a 'battlefield' art. Perhaps it is a self defense or arresting technique. But it won't work against cavalry even though the ponies the Japanese rode were on the small side."

Granted. But as Friday and other researchers will attest, by the 1600s, there were thousands of commandeered footsoldiers fighting in groups, armed with guns, bow and spear, unmounted. As in the history of many civilizations' warfare, Japanese warfare evolved from horse mounted warriors followed by attendants to that of massed footsoldiers who used projectile weapons, in the main, followed by spearsmen. So the odds were that if you weren't shot by arrows or bullets, you'd be fighting someone on foot. Cavalry, if used in any massed order, were relegated to shock troops, messengers, or mobile, rapid deployment forces. As the research on injuries and deaths in medieval combat show, most of the wounds were the result of projectile weapons, be it arrows or bullets. However, the upper class warriors studied auxiliary arts as well simply because there was always a chance that a battle could deconstruct to armed combat, hence the training in close quarter weaponry, just as modern soldiers are trained in the use of sidearms and hand to hand combatives besides the use of their primary weapon.

Also, koryu were not taught en masse to large groups of conscripted or ashigaru footsoldiers. Koryu were taught mainly to middle level to higher samurai, who had the time and wherewithal to train. As such, the koryu had to assume a particular form similar to the iemoto system in order to appeal to their clientele. That's why they survived and more purely utilitarian things such as close quarter classical group drilling didn't (although you can still dig through and find them in books on classical heiho and gungaku, or if you were in some ryu, they are still there).

I'm not sure about other koryu grappling, but the TR is not as you described. In a lot of cases when doing some kogusoku methods, attacking a wrist often occurs at the same time with also attempting a dislocation of another joint, such as the elbow and/or shoulder, along with pressure points (and/or the violent attack on muscles or ligaments), disbalancing and throwing. Not consecutively, mind you. At the same time. That may signify a more pragmatic approach to combat that attempts to cover more than one base. Not to say wrist "locks" will or won't work; just to note that at least in the TR, IF they don't work against a particular opponent, you're not just depending on that to defeat the person.

As an aside, hakama really aren't skirts. They are more like very wide pantaloons. Going into battle, their ends were tied up so they looked more like wide breeches stuck into combat boots. In the case of hakama, they were tied up and over them were placed shin guards.

snip: "...Around two and a half centuries of peacetime followed by about one and a half centuries of rapid technological development has changed the intent of and reason for the practice. "

Yes. I'll agree to that.

snip: "...So no, I was a little on the fence but I've changed my mind. I do not believe Koryu schools teach battlefield arts."

Here is where, in conclusion, I will however respectfully disagree based on my own experiences.

snip: "...But if it will make anyone reading this feel better to believe they are learning Samurai ways of war they by all means continue to believe and don't let my opinion rain on your parade."

It won't. But I would really like you to consider the possibility that you may be a teensy bit wrong in your overgeneralization. If not, no skin off of my a. Again, respectfully.

Wayne Muromoto

[Rei Ho]

Dave Lowry, that was funny as He-double L. :laugh: Why did you go through it? I believe I am nuts also. Were you ever injured doing your non-battlefield arts? Just curious.
Tracy Crocker

[CEB]

Originally posted by wmuromoto
Mainly in reply, respectfully, to Mr. Boyd:

I'm not sure why there's so much argument over this or that is/isn't this a "battlefield" art. Some koryu are, some aren't. Some evolved to include both "civic" police techniques and "military" techniques, some changed entirely, etc. SMR could be classified as a civil koryu; used more for police tactics. Is it less "practical" or less "koryu"? No. Just focused on a different end result. Ditto MJER. Koryu nomenclature involves a wide range of methodologies, IMHO.

....

It won't. But I would really like you to consider the possibility that you may be a teensy bit wrong in your overgeneralization. If not, no skin off of my a. Again, respectfully.

Wayne Muromoto

Thank you for putting in the effort to write what you did. I mean that sincerely. Yes I over generalize, (a lot) I pretty much am agreement with everything you had too say.

Being a simple farm boy from Illinois my only real hang up was over the concepts "Battlefield Art" and "Combat arts" that were being thrown around at the top of the thread.

Kind of surprised that the off-hand comments from an old Judo player would stir such response.

Take Care

[CEB]

Originally posted by Rei Ho
Dave Lowry, that was funny as He-double L. :laugh: Why did you go through it? I believe I am nuts also. Were you ever injured doing your non-battlefield arts? Just curious.
Tracy Crocker

I don't know about any of that, but I've seen alot higher injury rates occur in Judo and Karate keiko than I ever saw in my 5 years of Jujutsu and in my MJER and SMR studies. :laugh:

Smashed fingers is about the worst thing I ever got in the weapons training. I've been knocked out in Judo and cut open in Karate, broken ankle, compression fraction on the old collar bone, dislocated toes, broken fingers, etc........ you name it. It is a pretty long list from the gendai side. (Also 30 years vs. 10 years of practice probably makes a difference)

I would be curious also how the Mr. Lowry's experience with koryu training related injuries would compare with say what he may have experienced in Mr. Hassle's Karate class. For example.

Why do people do this. Because its fun, its enjoyable and we like it and it makes for good conversation.

Gambatte

[ChrisMoon]

I have heard of or seen some pretty nasty injuries in koryu including one death. Broken noses, concussions, a severed thumb, some bloody gashes on the extremities from mishandled shinken, and many more.

I do not know if this counts did but did a small child die at a demonstration in Japan a few years back when some guy lost control of his sword? That does not change my belief that all serious students of koryu should only use shinken.

[Steve Delaney]

Last Summer in Tenjin Shinyo ryu keiko I had my 6th & 7th vertebrae slightly dislocated. I was out for three months with rehab. Is that not a serious injury?

[chrismoses]

Injury rates are not directly corrolational to martial effectiveness. We have had far fewer injuries in my sword school than my Aikido dojo. Given the opportunity, I would be much more likely to defend myself using my sword techniques and tools than bare handed.

[ChrisMoon]

Originally posted by chrismoses
Injury rates are not directly corrolational to martial effectiveness. We have had far fewer injuries in my sword school than my Aikido dojo. Given the opportunity, I would be much more likely to defend myself using my sword techniques and tools than bare handed.

I would never imply that it is. I just think anyone that does not believe there is a certain amount of risk associated with koryu training is not thinking straight.

[Steve Delaney]

Last Summer at Tenjin Shinyo ryu jujutsu keiko, I slightly dislocated two vertebrae at the base of the neck (More like dislodged from the spinal column.) and was out for about three months with rehab. Is this not a serious injury?

CEB,

Forgive me, but it sounds like the koryu you were studying was not being trained with intent. With some of the people I do Jo with, if you don't do kuritsuke or Tai atari just right, you're going to get a concussion from being smacked on the head with a bokuto. I believe every dojo has a different way of doing things, albeit doing the same ryu.

I think that maybe you are just basing your opinions on the exposure you have had to koryu via one or two groups. Is this the case or have you had a bit more experience?

(Sorry about the repost. The computer at my workplace is acting a bit on the funny side. *Reaches for ballpein hammer* :) )

[wmuromoto]

Hey CE, As an old and former judo and karate player myself, I can attest to various injuries I incurred from those budo and from football and high school wrestling that, compiled, are more than any I got doing koryu, although it may be because I was younger then and a lot dumber and more full of hormones.

While being hurt in practice may not necessarily attest to the viability of a specific set of martial techniques, it does show that if you don' wanna go where the thrower wans' you to go, something's gotta give. Or, if you use your face to stop a punch, it's gotta hurt something somewhere.

It also shows that sometimes some techniques in kata form won't work, even if the person isn't really expecting it. That's one advantage competitive sportive martial arts have over kata-based training, and something I (and others more lucid and insightful than me) have said in former threads. Older aikido and koryu guys maybe knew this inherently, so a lot of their training was more reality based, IMHO. Many of them had previous training in a competitive sport budo. Nearly all the aikido old timers in Hawaii did judo, kendo or some such sport (although there are wonderful exceptions). If it didn't work, it was b.s. to them, never mind all the hocus pocus mumbo jumbo. Aikido, as it was originally taught, worked. So does a lot of koryu, IMHO, in its context and form, if trained in properly.

And people who train in aikido and koryu with a certain mind set are also rather pragmatic about the workability of their various techniques. You gotta be. To think that a...say, going back to the original thread...a wrist dislocation will always work no matter what is a bit too idealistic. Look at the elbow joint kansetsuwaza from judo and GJJ. In theory and kata, they look pretty darn mean. And a lot of times, applied by a good technician in a contest, they do in fact work. And a lot of times, they don't. If it doesn't work, I'd go back to the drawing board and try to figure out of I applied it wrong, if the opponent was some strange biological oddity who had rubber wrists, or if the kata itself simply didn't work. Usually, the first option is the correct deduction in my case.

Still, given my age, my out-of-shapeness and my own personal priorities, I enjoy doing koryu stuff because it allows me to continue training, without the need for competition. That becomes kind of important for me, nearing the big five-oh. I used to still help out with a kids' judo class, but pounding mats full out with young turks doesn't hold much allure for me, even though I did enjoy the grappling and free-for-all cardio exercise that randori and karate kumite offered. I'm an old fart with too little brain cells left to lose from being hit in the head, and I leave the days of trophies and glory to the young guns nowadays.

Wayne Muromoto

[Rei Ho]

I had a friend of mine that I spoke with years ago that obtained an injury training in a Koryu that uses swordsmanship. He told me that his Sensei and him were walking in Japan one day and his Sensei told him that he had done very well up to this point in his training, but that the next stages of training would be very dangerous. His teacher said that if he wanted to quit training, it would be O.K., but he wanted him to know the possibility of death was high. My friend said if it were today, he would have quit, but he was young and crazy then. He decided to do it. He now has a scar above his left eye where it was severed. Koryu dangerous? It can be very dangerous. I just depends on the situation. I feel when people go through something like this, it changes them in more ways than one. Can anyone relate to my friend?
Tracy Crocker

[David Maynard]

Hello,

Mr Boyd. I have spent 25+ years trying to make a similar point to yours but with one significant difference. I did not use broad strokes. For years I have tried to squelch the overly romantic impression promoted by many that all koryu arts necessarily equate to battlefield arts. This is obviously flawed reasoning and is usually employed by those with no real idea of what they speak. However, making a similar broad stroke in the opposite direction is equally flawed.

Specific ryuha must be evaluated on an individual basis. They just all don't follow a specific formula concerning organizational structure, philosophy, history or purpose. That is why I don't buy into the 1868 date as the magical definition of what does or does not constitute koryu. Such a definition is way too simplistic to be taken seriously. The topic of what constitutes a koryu is far deeper than a date, the frequency of injuries, the type of injuries, or any other such irrelevant data. Defining koryu has to do with much more subtle influences and perhaps obscure characteristics beyond the access of those without years of deep exposure to such topics. Battlefield, yea or nay may be part of the equation depending on the arts historic origins but making a case weighted heavily on this criteria alone is fraught with error. Like the 1868 date, it is overly simplistic.

I am perhaps more aquainted and baffled with the samurai fantasies of those who promote by ostentatious declaration the term "battlefield art" as if it brings with it some magical effectiveness beyond those not similarly monikered. History is history and fact are facts. Some koryu are ancestors of the fuedal Japanese battlefield while others are not. Some with battlefield origins retain much of that influence while others long ago cast aside such influences in favor of adapting their core principles to the non-battlefield environment standing plainly in their future.

Such are the facts whether you agree with them or not.

I personally find dedication to antiquated methods of thought, philosophy, loyalty and responsibility much more helpful in defining koryu. But there must also be cultural, technical and spiritual perspectives in consideration to more accurately prescribe what excactly is or is not koryu. To get into the specifics of these topics is simply beyond my ability to convey. On something so involved as this I defer to those whose skills in conveyence exceed mine. Persons such as Chip Armstrong, Karl Friday, William Bodiford or Phil Relnick,

Respectfully,

David Maynard / Takamura ha Shindo Yoshin ryu

[cxt]

David

I think if you go back and look at Mr. Boyds argument you will find that he is not saying "not all koryu are battlefield arts."

His statement seems closer to "koryu are not battlefield arts."

Not "some" not a "few" not "many" but that for various resons NO koryu is "really" a battlefield art.

Not quite the same thing.

Of course I could be wrong.


Chris Thomas

[Gene Williams]

I think you can go through the motions of "battlefield" preparation, but if there is no socio-cultural basis for it and no likelihood of going into actual battle, something is lost. The firing range on Saturday in middle America is not Viet Nam or Iraq. Still, I would argue that there is some value in it because it does, in theory, attempt to develop a warrior spirit, and it does hone theoretical skills.

[renfield_kuroda]

There have not been samurai for almost 2 centuries. Violence, be it personal or military, has not been waged using traditional Japanese martial tactics in about as long as well.
So I think that
the absence of the likelihood of going to battle =
not 'real' battlefield preparation
is false.
We don't fight with swords anymore. Everyone who practices any martial art knows this. The issue in 'defining' something as koryu depends on, as mentioned above, a complex set of socio-cultural traditions and the transmission thereof. A large part of that is 'intent.'

Niina-gosoke explains it this way:
One the one extreme, there are yakuza; murderers. They kill.
One the other extreme, there are zen monks; they meditate.
'Jutsu' falls on that scale farther from monks, 'michi' closer to monks.
You want to develop yourself spiritually? Meditate all day, no need to swing a sword. You want to learn how to kill effectively, then learn violence; no need to worry about morality and whatnot.

For exmaple the ZNKR with its seitei kata is much closer to monks than murderers. I've heard ZNKR instructors say 'The sword is not for killing.' (This is not a ZNKR attack, just an example of the intent of training.)
Most koryu are actually much closer to the killing end, for the simple fact that the techniques are taught to be effective FIRST; the loftier goals of personal/spiritual development only achievable by developing 'real/effective' techniques.

Now of course the problem with this linear scale analogy is that the rebuttal is 'but my XYZ koryu IS more effective then seitei kata, but not LESS spiritual.'
And I agree. My own art teaches us 'jutsu-no-naka-ni michi-o miidasu': "Finding the spiritual path within effective techinque."

Some styles don't actually care whether or not the angle of the cut is the best angle to incapacitate the enemy's arm; what's more important is the self-reflective activity of repeating and mastering a certain movement as a means of developing one's self.

So, are koryu battlefield arts? Did they used to be, but aren't now because we don't fight battles like that any more? Or are koryu still 'koryu' because we train with the intention necessary to go to battle?
The only thing I know for sure is, there is no right answer, there is only what you believe and what you intend.
Some folks DO train in koryu battlefield arts, whether you believe it or not.

Regards,

r e n

[CEB]

Originally posted by Gene Williams
I think you can go through the motions of "battlefield" preparation, but if there is no socio-cultural basis for it and no likelihood of going into actual battle, something is lost. The firing range on Saturday in middle America is not Viet Nam or Iraq. Still, I would argue that there is some value in it because it does, in theory, attempt to develop a warrior spirit, and it does hone theoretical skills.

Bingo! Personally I believe the last time I had any form of training in a "battlefield art" was the last FTX I was on. My God that was over 20 years ago. :(

Williams Shihan pretty much summed up my feelings on the subject. It has nothing to do with the way I or anyone defines Koryu. It has to do with how I define a field of battle that's all. Sorry to let this farm boy sideline your discussion of battlefield wristlocks so badly.

[Nsherrard]

Hey, that's not at all what you said to begin with! You didn't say "Koryu as they are practiced today aren't battlefield arts because their exponents will never use them in a battle", you said "They used [wrist locks] because Koryu were not battlefield arts." Note the past tense. You claimed that Koryu were civil defense arts. When that was refuted many times over, THEN you switched to the above explanation. So, would you now admit that many Koryu when they were originally founded and practiced were, in fact, battlefield arts?

[Mekugi]

Originally posted by David Maynard
Hello,
Specific ryuha must be evaluated on an individual basis. They just all don't follow a specific formula concerning organizational structure, philosophy, history or purpose.

Amen to that!



Originally posted by David Maynard
That is why I don't buy into the 1868 date as the magical definition of what does or does not constitute koryu.

That's the date the "Bushi" class officially became null and void. "Official" means recognized as dead, IMHO. So, that is what technically and scholastically separates "old school" from "new way" in a technical sense. This does not mean to imply that a school that developed post 1860 was not "new way", nor does it imply that the school created after 1868 was using the "new way". It simply places it on a time frame and does nothing else but imply it's period of development. That should be included in the individual study of the ryu and it's history. Blankets statements are always a bad thing, but I think that timelines that act as a guide for the researcher, especially firms ones, simply because there are seemingly endless errata in Japanese dates because of the nature of their dating systems (if that is what you want to call it...a "system"), so firming it down helps. However I agree on the notion that "koryu" isn't always "koryu". Eshh, hope that makes sense.

-R

[nicojo]

Well...

Everybody knows that there were only uneducated germanic hill-folk in Britain before 1066 and then there were civilized chivalric conquerors. None of the latter before 1066 and none of the former after. And really, as long as you remember 1066, you know all you need to.


Seriously, I am enjoying this thread.

[Dan Harden]

Dave M. Writes
>snip<
".........Specific ryuha must be evaluated on an individual basis. They just all don't follow a specific formula concerning organizational structure, philosophy, history or purpose. That is why I don't buy into the 1868 date as the magical definition of what does or does not constitute koryu. Such a definition is way too simplistic to be taken seriously. The topic of what constitutes a koryu is far deeper than a date, the frequency of injuries, the type of injuries, or any other such irrelevant data.
>snip<

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

I disagree with this point Dave.
Your opinion and mine are not required. We are discussing the indigenous arts of a fixed culture and THIER classification of them. Here, people are really stretching this beyond the historical definitions and intent of differentiating "old schools" to post Meiji "new schools."
We cannot assign our own views to their history. Your statement.......

*************
"Defining koryu has to do with much more subtle influences and perhaps obscure characteristics beyond the access of those without years of deep exposure to such topics. Battlefield, yea or nay may be part of the equation depending on the arts historic origins but making a case weighted heavily on this criteria alone is fraught with error. Like the 1868 date, it is overly simplistic........."
**************************************


Has no cultural meaning or grounding to the subject-as such- they attempt to re-define a simple topic from an outside view.

a. "Effectiveness"- has nothing to do with it. What about their non-combative-other-koryu? Want to discuss "effective" tea serving?

b. "Battlefield" veracity- what about Koryu Iai? Koryu jujutsu?

There is no discussion to be had about any other relevant activity or flavour or intent or any such thoughts. If it is new but "looks" like the old-or whether it is practiced in that "old style flavor" means nothing by way of definition. It may be great stuff-even BETTER stuff- but it aint a Koryu art. Nothing OTHER than age makes an art a Koryu.

It matters not whether the nineteenth Soke who is a salary man can't fight his way out of paper sack with his family art anymore. Or whether this guy in 1945 developed the best fighting style ever made that would take all other preceding arts and chew them up.

There are arts that existed pre Meiji (Koryu) and others that did not (Gendai).
Simple.
All other points are moot.

And mind you....on another level I agree with everything you have to say about it. But it isn't our call to make.

I love my car- it runs great-that does not make it an antique.

Cheers
Dan

[David Maynard]

Dan,

I understand your point but you may be misunderstanding mine.

Posted by Dan H :

"We are discussing the indigenous arts of a fixed culture and THIER classification of them."

Who is "their"?

Whether one Japanese body or another prefers to put a line in the sand at a said date does not necessarily reflect what is truly old school or new school. I know many high ranking Japanese instructors and budo historians (Fujiwara, Iso, Tanaka ) that agree with me on this point and strongly disagee with the 1864 or 1868 date. These men are the ones who made the point to me that the actual definition of what is old school is not so cut and dried. That it is mainly westerners who draw such concrete distinctions. These men I am talking about are part of your "their".

You see my definition of koryu is probably much more conservative than most due in great part to these gentlemens influence. In discussion with many instructors of ( I prefer "classical" ) nihon bujutsu there is general agreement that bujutsu founded in the earlier Edo period was drastically different from bujutsu founded towards the end of the Edo period. That this difference is as dramatic as the changes occuring between 1868 and the present.

So... my point is that there are actually three distinctly different periods of nihon budo/bujutsu existence. The middle period demonstrates a significant and uneven change from what is truly "old school" and that this goes ignored by the strict 1868 definition of koryu.

Again, I understand and appreciate your point. And I acknowledge that some academics and organizations in Japan have resorted to using the 1868 date but this is out of simplicity. There are many experts in Japan that stress that this date is just an oversimplification and that the actual definition of what constitutes koryu must take into account much more than a just a timeline. Heck, go over to Meik Skoss's koryu.com website and look up his list of koryu ryuha. There you will find Toyama ryu battojutsu founded in 1925.

There goes 1868 out the window by one of the west's most authoritaive sources.

Nice to hear from you.

Respectfully,

[cxt]

David

Seems clear though, "dates" aside, that some koryu were derived from and designed for use in battlefield combat.

Some were not.


Chris Thomas

[matt rogers]

Originally posted by Hotsuma
We've all heard the argument that wrist locks don't work in combat, and this has been one of the main arguments against koryu arts. However, I have heard that many styles of koryu actually don't have many wrist lock in their syllabus. Are wrist locks used extensively in koryu, or is it just arts like hakko ryu that use them a lot.
I thought that there was still room for comment on the original question concerning the efficacy of wristlocks.

I think that it is clear that koryu did include such techniques. I have pictures of Otake Risuke of the Katori Shinto ryu utilizing yaware-ge techniques which exploit the weakness of the wrist in response to clothing/armour grasps. This is presumably because the armour did not serve to protect one from these manipulations and grabbing the armour, wrists, sword hilt, the haft of a spear did afford one some degree of control over how an opponent might move.

I think an interesting note to ponder might be "What were the objectives of such manipulations?" In many cases perhaps they were not meant to be "fight enders" but only to afford oneself momentary control of the opponent's balance and body position while one sought the opportunity to deliver the coup de grace with the appropriate weapon.