Weapons free-exchanges in Japanese koryu? [Archive]

Nanban Bushi

29th July 2004, 11:42

Folks,

I'm talking about some sort of free-sparring, against a resisting opponent, as opposed to working a two-man form.

Free-play is a pretty standard method of training in Western fighting arts (fencing, boxing, wrestling, etc), as well as FMA. Mark mentioned randori--the randori in Judo is a good example too--look at how it gave the Kodokan an advantage over the classical jujutsu schools.

Most classical JSA people insist that kata was the only method used "back in the day", but I personally doubt this. Kata are useful for preserving a given set of techniques, as well as for correcting the finer points of body mechanics within those techniques, but if one is truly going to master timing and distance, I honestly don't see how it can be done without some form of free-sparring.

I originally became interested in this when a friend of mine showed me an old post from this very site, by Dr. William Bodiford:

" Adherence both to religious practices and to abstract metaphysics declined throughout the late eighteenth and, especially, nineteenth centuries due to the widespread adoption of competitive forms of martial training and to foreign threats (Emoto 1988). Significantly, competition developed first in rural areas outside of the urban mainstream. The spread of martial art training among peasants and other commoners has not been well-studied, partially from lack of scholarly interest but mainly because peasants did not write scholastic martial art treatises. Nonetheless it is clear that many rural households maintained or developed family traditions of martial art training and that as rural society became more stratified they began to practice them openly as a means of acquiring status. Lacking scholarly pretensions, rural martial artists emphasized mastery of technique and physical prowess, which they tested in competitive matches. In the early 1800s when rural-trained fencers finally appeared in Edo (modern Tokyo), they easily defeated men of samurai status who had been trained in Confucian theory (or Zen), ceremonial decorum, and prearranged pattern exercises (kata ). Thereafter established martial art lineages that had emphasized theory or mental training became subjects of ridicule, while new lineages that taught competition (uchikomi keiko) flourished. =========

The basic data on which this assertion rests, was first published by Prof. Watanabe Ichiro, in his book: Bakumatsu Kanto Kenjutsu Eimeiroku no Kenkyu (Investigations of Kenjutsu Rosters in Eastern Japan at the End of the Tokugawa Period, 1967). This book contains detailed lists of competitions: dates, names, schools, styles, who won, who lost, etc.

Watanabe's research was expanded by one of his students named Emoto Shoji. Emoto described the results of his research in the following essay: "Bakumatsu kendo ni okeru nijuteki seikaku no keisei katei" (The Formation of a Split Personality in Fencing at the End of the Tokugawa Period), in the volume titled: Nihon budogaku kenkyu: Watanabe Ichiro kyoju taikan kinen ronshu (Studies in Japanese Martial Arts: Research Commemorating the Retirement of Professor Watanabe Ichiro), edited by Irie Kohei and Sugie Masatoshi (1988). In his notes, Emoto cites the kenjutsu rosters that have come to light since Watanabe completed his groundbreaking research.

These rosters list too many competitions and too many names to list here. If you are interested in researching this topic, then the best advice I can give you is to read the above-mentioned works published by Watanabe and by Emoto.

William Bodiford Associate Professor Department of East Asian Languages UCLA "

This got me to thinking--the methods of the "rural-trained fencers" surely didn't appear out of thin air, and so I have since wondered as to whether or not some sort of free-sparring with mock weapons existed prior to the time described by Bodiford (early 19th century).

Thanks again,

David

cxt

29th July 2004, 14:55

Nanban

Actually "free play" was only part of a pretty good sized bag of training methods use by "western arts" or "western style fencers"

Much of the training consisted of specifc "drills" "two person exercises" and solo training with specific series of cuts, thrusts and parries with specific patterns of footwork (could be argued that would be a form of solo kata)

Most of the "fenceing" systems had a number of grappling techniques and training as well as training with more weapons than just the sword.

Not really accurate not to include the other training methods.

Makes it sound as if the western training model was just two guys hammering each other in "free sparring" sessions.

Chris Thomas

Nanban Bushi

30th July 2004, 01:37

Originally posted by cxt
Nanban

Actually "free play" was only part of a pretty good sized bag of training methods use by "western arts" or "western style fencers"

Much of the training consisted of specifc "drills" "two person exercises" and solo training with specific series of cuts, thrusts and parries with specific patterns of footwork (could be argued that would be a form of solo kata)

Most of the "fenceing" systems had a number of grappling techniques and training as well as training with more weapons than just the sword.

Not really accurate not to include the other training methods.

Makes it sound as if the western training model was just two guys hammering each other in "free sparring" sessions.

Chris Thomas

Chris,

I'm very familiar with Western fencing's other training methods, as I have been fencing since '94 (French school).

I am also aware of the "grappling techniques" (ringen, ringkampf, lotta, abrazzare, presas, et al) and other weapons-play that you spoke of, in regards to the Medieval & Renaissance European traditions.

I did not say (nor did I mean to imply) that free-sparring was the only method used in Western training--I simply meant that free-sparring is something that has always been emphasized, and it is one of Western fencing's strengths, just as randori is in judo.

Peace,

David

wmuromoto

30th July 2004, 04:06

All,

There may be a stereotype of what koryu training was/is, owing to how it is presently done. That is not a good indicator of what happened in the past. Combative methods in premodern Japan were studied in a variety of ways, like Western methods, as the Japanese martial artists seemed to be intent on dissecting and analyzing methods and putting them to the test even way "back then." Some ryu utilized controlled contests to test their methods more than others.

Kendo, for example, kept moving towards safer means of testing sword techniques against someone else outside of kata geiko, ending up with the Edo-period bamboo shinai and bogu, after quite a long period of evolution and experimentation. Contests between different dojo and ryuha, as noted, were quite extensive. Besides the stated sources for records of contests, there are also quite a number of documents full of anecdotes from the Edo Period about training in dojo that used both kata geiko and "free" exercises. I recall reading about one dojo from the Edo Period where the "free" training was particularly harsh...After a match, a visiting student took off his men and spat out blood from being hit so hard on the head with a shinai. Other dojo allowed students to go beyond the use of the shinai to trip, throw, and grapple with an opponent in full armor.

Similarly, from anecdotes within my own ryu, the Takeuchi-ryu, the Bitchuden line at least engaged in sportive grappling matches, leading to the formulation of new lines of kata to encapsualate techniques specifically for those kinds of contests, outside of self-defense or military combat. Again, this occurred during the Edo Period and up through the Bakumatsu, Meiji and Taisho Period, when Kodokan judo made its appearance.

Contrary to some statements, jujutsu schools of that time did NOT lose to Kodokan judo due only doing kata geiko. Jujutsu schools had their own "freestyle" training methods and participated in sportive matches long before the Kodokan made its mark. Kano Jigoro's innovation wasn't so much revolutionary as evolutionary; he took elements of jujutsu ryu he studied firsthand and did an interesting thing; he studied the mechanics of other ryu and Western wrestling and applied them altogether to his new Kodokan judo, opening up the school to any and all techniques if they worked well within the rubric of a sportive endeavor, not so much as a way to cause permanent and bodily harm to an opponent. And he put aside the whole nature of the old koryu system, such as the menkyo kaiden and family lineage lines of transmission, laying the groundwork for subsequent modern budo systems.

That most present day koryu jujutsu schools don't emphasize randori and contests is probably due to the success of Kodokan judo as a national sport. If it works, and works so well and broadly, why set up splinter groups? ...Just focus on kata geiko if you want to do koryu and if you really want to do randori and shiai, join a judo club. In fact, I visited the Hontai Yoshin-ryu jujutsu school once a long time ago. The younger Inoue sensei taught the system with his father, the soke, and on alternate days, as a judo godan he taught Kodokan judo. --No big deal to him. Each served a purpose.

Wayne Muromoto

cxt

30th July 2004, 15:19

Nanban

Not to be a nit-picking horses-arse here.

But your still useing terms and phrases like "free sparring...has always been emphasized."

That may be the current SPORTING trend, but given that classicial "western" training methodlogies embraced.

-Specifc two man drills

-Solo practice with specific cuts, thrusts, parries, footwork

-Work on various "dummies" or targets

-Free Practice

-Various drills and training methods to improve "wind" hand strength, speed etc.

And we have no way of really knowing just how much time was spent in training in two person specific exercises compared to "free practice" you can't really say that "free sparring has always been emhasized."

See we don't really know that.

We know it WAS done--we just don't know how MUCH.

Also probably differed considerably from school to school.

Also being familier with saber fenceing--I am of the opinion (shared by the way by a number of really expert folks) that "free practice" and actually fighting with intent to kill are worlds apart.

And the use of "safty equipment" not only fundamental changes the nature of the contest--but actually leads to habits that can get you killed.

In short, the introduction of specific rules as to target area leads to ONLY those targets being trained--sorry but its true.

This has been seen in both modern kendo and western sport fenceing.

The introduction of "mock" weapons-the shinai in kendo and the foil in fenceing means movements can be made with the "mock" weapons that just can't be done with "real" weapons.

This also has been commented on by folks alot more expert than me.

In classical saber, the techniques revolve around a full arm cut--since that is the only way to cut a man down-esp if wearing a heavy jacket or uniform--not to mention armor.

As saber became a sport--the cuts "moved" as it were to use of the elbow--then done futher to the wrist.

Becoming less and less effective.

My saber teacher in college used to amuse himself by passing around a "real" saber to his class then watch as the various student "experts" attemped to use it as a "free practice" saber.

Could not be done.

Again, it degrades the art--its works fine "on the strip" I question its use "for real."

Fact is, (esp!!) when dealing with weapons, most of the deadlist techniques just can't be "free practiced" with any degree of safty.

Also having witnessed first hand on the havoc the over-dependence on a "rules" bound "free-sparring" can wreck.

Not sure that I would be so quick to list free-sparring as a "strength."

No question it helps--equally sure it can create some really bad (read this as potential fatal habits)

It leads to ONLY the techniques used in tournament to being practiced, it leads to the wretched display of "sparring" seen in "open" karate tournaments.

Properly used, I think of "free practice" as an asset--I my view however, it is seldom properly used.

Chris Thomas

hyaku

30th July 2004, 16:37

Originally posted by cxt
Nanban
Also being familier with saber fenceing--I am of the opinion (shared by the way by a number of really expert folks) that "free practice" and actually fighting with intent to kill are worlds apart.

And the use of "safty equipment" not only fundamental changes the nature of the contest--but actually leads to habits that can get you killed.
Chris Thomas

Ah, now thats what got me confused with the original question as we dont use safety equipment or mock weapons and do attack with intent.

So to answer the question Nanban Bushi said: I'm talking about some sort of free-sparring, against a resisting opponent, as opposed to working a two-man form.....

Yes that what we do. Its called Kata/Waza. True kata does offer resistance. Its not a working two-man form such as, "I cut then you parry and cut me thing".

Its free enough for people to use a lot of intent that would cause hospitalization if its not dealt with correctly and precisley and gives little indication as to when an attack will be made.

cxt

30th July 2004, 19:26

Hyaku

Part of that is my fault.

When folks start talking about western sword play and free practice.

They are usually talking the use of heavily altered weapons.

Much lighter, differently shaped, and with very different handleing chacteristics than a "real" blade.

Even the classical weapons that we have record of seem to have been significantly altered for "safty."

Mainly thu the use of "blunts" or metal balls welded to the tips of the sword, or in more extreme cases-a sharp blade with a pair of longish screws threaded thu BOTH sides of the tip of the blade--designed to prevent a thrust from penetrating more than an 1/2 inch--sometimes more.

But the use of even these items are pretty much far in the past--no-one has really been training with "blunts", in the classical sense ie a "real" blade in terms of weight,, length, handeling chacateristics etc. with the edges ground off-or never put on, since the the late 1800's, possible earlier, depending on whom you ask

For the last 150 years or so, most "free sparring" in western fenceing has been conducted with extremely lightweight "mock" weapons.

So when people say, "free sparring" when they are talking about western sword traditions---I tend to be a little pedantic in the accuracy of the use of the term.

Not sure that it "really" means what folks think it does.

Not better or worse, just different.

Should have been clearer in my response.

Chris Thomas

Nanban Bushi

31st July 2004, 00:28

Chris,

Originally posted by cxt
Nanban

Please--feel free to call me David. :)

Not to be a nit-picking horses-arse here.

You are anything but that, good sir (though I may indulge in a bit of nitpicking myself ;))

But your still useing terms and phrases like "free sparring...has always been emphasized."

It has always been an important feature.

That may be the current SPORTING trend, but given that classicial "western" training methodlogies embraced.

-Specifc two man drills

Which is still done today...

-Solo practice with specific cuts, thrusts, parries, footwork

One still sees this with footwork, point control, etc...

-Work on various "dummies" or targets

Not as common these days, but lunge targets can still be found in various salles, and there's the ol' ball on a rope bit, for point control exercises.

-Free Practice

Yes...

-Various drills and training methods to improve "wind" hand strength, speed etc.

"Wind" hand strength?

And we have no way of really knowing just how much time was spent in training in two person specific exercises compared to "free practice" you can't really say that "free sparring has always been emhasized."

It was done since at least Roman times, as mentioned by Vegetius.

See we don't really know that.

We know it WAS done--we just don't know how MUCH.

Well, tests in German and English fencing guilds always included some form of free-play in their ranking contests, which argues that it actually played a crucial role. One had to prove oneself in bouts with various weapons.

Also probably differed considerably from school to school.

Perhaps.

Also being familier with saber fenceing--I am of the opinion (shared by the way by a number of really expert folks) that "free practice" and actually fighting with intent to kill are worlds apart.

I agree--but I also feel that the former is needed in order to be competent with the latter.

And the use of "safty equipment" not only fundamental changes the nature of the contest--but actually leads to habits that can get you killed.

The addition of various rules and/or equipment can certainly "change the game", and it can lead to problems--this was something that was debated hundreds of years ago. However, the necessity of various types of free-play was still recognized.

In short, the introduction of specific rules as to target area leads to ONLY those targets being trained--sorry but its true.

Even in those cases, sparring can be an extremely useful exercise in terms of developing time and measure.

This has been seen in both modern kendo and western sport fenceing.

Care to elaborate?

The introduction of "mock" weapons-the shinai in kendo and the foil in fenceing means movements can be made with the "mock" weapons that just can't be done with "real" weapons.

And yet, foil remained a prerequisite for moving on to saber, epee, and even quarterstaff in the English schools of the late 1800s.

This also has been commented on by folks alot more expert than me.

And it is something I am likewise aware of--but it doesn't change the importance of free-sparring.

In classical saber, the techniques revolve around a full arm cut--since that is the only way to cut a man down-esp if wearing a heavy jacket or uniform--not to mention armor.

As saber became a sport--the cuts "moved" as it were to use of the elbow--then done futher to the wrist.

OK, time for some "nitpicking" on my part...

First of all, it should be pointed out that, in the Western tradition, cuts are delivered from the wrist (fastest, but weakest), the shoulder (slowest, but most powerful), and the elbow (a happy compromise).

Wrist and elbow cuts were favored in Renaissance Italian swordplay, for quick (and disabling) blows to the hand, wrist, forearm, etc.

You should also know that it was in fact rather common for even Anglo-Scottish broadsword and backsword men to make use of cuts from the wrist only, in the 18th and 19th centuries--it's not a new development by any means.

The circular cut from the elbow (molinello; moulinet) was also used with military broadswords and sabers, and it of course became the signature cutting method with the lighter sciabola di terreno, which was developed by maestro Giuseppe Radaelli in the mid-19th century.

Becoming less and less effective.

To be frank, that is downright misleading.

You are inferring that cuts from the wrist and elbow are "less effective" than cuts from the shoulder, but this is not so. They have less power, but they are not necessarily "less effective".

But hey, let's see what Giacomo di Grassi said about it, in his treatise of 1570:

"The arm likewise is not in every part of equal force and swiftness, but differs in every bowing thereof, that is to say in the wrist, in the elbow, and in the shoulder: for the blows of the wrist as they are more swift, so they are less strong: And the other two, as they are more strong, so they are more slow, because they perform a greater compass. Therefore by my counsel, he that would deliver an edgeblow shall fetch no compass with his shoulder, because while he bears his sword far off, he gives time to the wary enemy to enter first: but he shall only used the compass of the elbow and wrist: which, as they be most swift, so are they strong enough, if they be orderly handled."

And so, cuts from the elbow and wrist were considered more than sufficient, which makes sense, considering the threat from the point-agile, cut-and-thrust spada used by the Italians.

My saber teacher in college used to amuse himself by passing around a "real" saber to his class then watch as the various student "experts" attemped to use it as a "free practice" saber.

Could not be done.

What kind of "real" saber was it?

19th century military fencers certainly made use of a comparatively heavy, blunted practice weapon--a weapon which required the use of heavily padded equipment to avoid broken bones. This weapon was certainly used for "free practice".

Again, it degrades the art--its works fine "on the strip" I question its use "for real."

All training methods have their pros and cons.

Fact is, (esp!!) when dealing with weapons, most of the deadlist techniques just can't be "free practiced" with any degree of safty.

Such as?

Also having witnessed first hand on the havoc the over-dependence on a "rules" bound "free-sparring" can wreck.

Not sure that I would be so quick to list free-sparring as a "strength."

When employed intelligently, it is most certainly a "strength".

No question it helps--equally sure it can create some really bad (read this as potential fatal habits)

I do not contest that.

It leads to ONLY the techniques used in tournament to being practiced, it leads to the wretched display of "sparring" seen in "open" karate tournaments.

Properly used, "free practice" is clearly an asset--arguably an essential one.

--I my view however, it is seldom properly used.

Then we must agree to disagree.

Peace,

David

Nanban Bushi

31st July 2004, 11:47

Originally posted by hyaku
Ah, now thats what got me confused with the original question as we dont use safety equipment or mock weapons and do attack with intent.

So to answer the question Nanban Bushi said: I'm talking about some sort of free-sparring, against a resisting opponent, as opposed to working a two-man form.....

Yes that what we do. Its called Kata/Waza. True kata does offer resistance. Its not a working two-man form such as, "I cut then you parry and cut me thing".

Its free enough for people to use a lot of intent that would cause hospitalization if its not dealt with correctly and precisley and gives little indication as to when an attack will be made.

Hyakutake,

But, in the kata/waza, do you have to be concerned about where the attack will be made? For example, are you allowed to feint high and strike low?

Thanks,

David

Nanban Bushi

31st July 2004, 12:07

Chris,

Originally posted by cxt
When folks start talking about western sword play and free practice.

They are usually talking the use of heavily altered weapons.

Much lighter, differently shaped, and with very different handleing chacteristics than a "real" blade.

Even the classical weapons that we have record of seem to have been significantly altered for "safty."

Mainly thu the use of "blunts" or metal balls welded to the tips of the sword, or in more extreme cases-a sharp blade with a pair of longish screws threaded thu BOTH sides of the tip of the blade--designed to prevent a thrust from penetrating more than an 1/2 inch--sometimes more.

Critics of free-sparring constantly bring up the compromises which have to be made for safety, in terms of the weapons used.

As for the "different handling characteristics" of mock weapons--again, those differences have been noted for a long time. Also, both Renaissance European swordsmen and modern-day Filipino eskrimadors stress the importance of a fighter being able to defend himself "with anything whatsoever" (to paraphrase di Grassi), whether it be a sword, a stick, an umbrella, or whatever--all of which have "different handling characteristics--so I think the problems concerning the differences between "real" and "mock" weapons is a bit played out.

But the use of even these items are pretty much far in the past--no-one has really been training with "blunts", in the classical sense ie a "real" blade in terms of weight,, length, handeling chacateristics etc. with the edges ground off-or never put on, since the the late 1800's, possible earlier, depending on whom you ask

Early 1900's to be more exact--since such weapons were still being used for teaching both heavy military saber, and the lighter Italian sciabola di terreno.

It should also be pointed out that, in the modern Italian school, edge awareness with the saber is still taught (and this is something that one has not seen in sports competition for a long time).

For the last 150 years or so, most "free sparring" in western fenceing has been conducted with extremely lightweight "mock" weapons.

Again, not true--close approximations of sabers of all types were in use right thru the beginning of the 20th century. Singlesticks were used too, though they were often criticized for being too light (Western fencers of that time often voiced the same complaints that one hears today from JSA exponents regarding the shinai).

In addition, the epee was still used for duels at this time, and the epee is realistically weighted for the kind of sword that it is (ie., an ultra-refined thrusting tool).

So when people say, "free sparring" when they are talking about western sword traditions---I tend to be a little pedantic in the accuracy of the use of the term.

I originally mentioned that it's common to FMA as well.

Not sure that it "really" means what folks think it does.

Not better or worse, just different.

I can't personally think of any "better" way to train time and measure, personally.

Peace,

David

Nanban Bushi

31st July 2004, 12:26

Chris & Everyone Else...

I want to make it clear that I agree with the whole "give and take" issue of sparring weapon designs, and sparring rules limitations. I also share your grievances regarding downright bastardized sparring formats, which have little combative application.

I mentioned the Italian school's comparative functionality, but the sad fact is that sports saber has lost the majority of its combative focus. Even "cuts" with the flat of the blade are counted!

The WEKAF-style full armored stickfighting tournaments are a joke too--contestants use the lightest possible sticks, and concentrate (due to the rules) only on offense. They try to land as many shots as possible, without any concern for taking hits themselves, that they would never take in a real stickfight.

That is why there are alternative formats, like the WEKAF minimal armor tournaments, as well as the Dog Brothers' approach.

Still, when done intelligently, free-sparring is, IMO, essential to the fighting man. Again, how else can you really develop a sense of time and measure? Engaging in the assault (to use the old term for free-play) is the best way to do this.

Peace,

David

hyaku

31st July 2004, 13:04

Originally posted by Nanban Bushi Hyakutake,

But, in the kata/waza, do you have to be concerned about where the attack will be made? For example, are you allowed to feint high and strike low?

Thanks,

David

If someone did a feint and it did not work we would be calling an ambulance. Some of our cuts strike down overhead in a wide movement and end up a centimetre from the floor.

We try to work on total commital, otherwise we cant bring in any realism. The difference is we work with fundamentals that have been worked on for years so there is of natural reaction to a given situation. Actually talking about that last night someone came on a bit physicaly strong and I found myself starting to react. Seems to me one needs to be a bit carefull if things are too free and a situation has to be controlled and predetermined a bit to make it safe, especially with weapons.

Then again we dont use feints anyway. Its not like Kendo. We try to work on honestly killing people that have attacked us. We deal decisively with an intiated attack with a precise counter that includes both avoidance and attack. If there is not attack from the initiator, there is no conflict. The honesty is twofold. The lesson is it should help in everyday life in dealing with things in a straightforward honest manner.

The fact that we know what they are going to do allows us to deal with it and not injure them. But moves are so quick its difficult to add a high percentage to an attack one sometimes concentrate more on avoiding.

Protective equipment and mock weapons or both allow us a sense of freedom that can without doubt become too free if taken lightly. That's when we can afford to feint whatever and try things out. But do tryouts dont help us win the day? Isnt its the techniques we have commited to memory, the ones we can do subconciously that usually win.

cxt

31st July 2004, 19:41

Nanban/David

With all respect.

Having trained in western saber.

I can personally tell you that in current "free play" ie. flicking a ultra-light length of wire about, ONLY targeting specific areas, wearing a heavily padded jacket and mask, on a "strip" of specifc dimension and length--that you can't step off of.

Only allows the development of "timing and measure" as you put it for the SPORT described above.

Does almost nothing for the use of a "real" weapon.

In fact the "timing and measure" developed by the above "free play" is seriously flawed for combative purpose.

Don't belive me??

Fair enough--just try it yourself.

Introduce a blunted "real" weapaon into your practice-or a heavier wooden one.

Take of the jacket and mask then have a go.

I have done and seen it done.

The results are NOT pretty--but they ARE informative.

In the case of the saber, even manuvering the weapon becomes a struggle for those used to flicking about a length of wire with there "wrists"

The carfefully crafted sense of "timeing and measure" falls apart--now the daring lunges, assults and attacks become "too dangerous" to try. And the rapid "flicks" are almost impossibe.

The fundamental nature of the match is changed to the extent that 1000s of hours of "free play" becomes pretty much useless.

The "timeing and measure" are now so different as to be a beast of another sort entirly.

Current "free play" is only good for playing.

Fighting is a whole other animal.

As Hank Reinhardt,Amberger, Naldi and a number of other have mentioned.

Chris Thomas

Nanban Bushi

1st August 2004, 01:24

Chris,

Originally posted by cxt
Nanban/David

With all respect.

Having trained in western saber.

I can personally tell you that in current "free play" ie. flicking a ultra-light length of wire about, ONLY targeting specific areas, wearing a heavily padded jacket and mask, on a "strip" of specifc dimension and length--that you can't step off of.

Actually, unless the rules have been changed recently, one can step off the piste with one foot (eg., for an inquartata).

Only allows the development of "timing and measure" as you put it for the SPORT described above.

Does almost nothing for the use of a "real" weapon.

Then I can only surmise that your fencing and MA experience has been rather different from mine, as I have found my fencing training to crossover to FMA very well--and I am not alone in this.

In fact the "timing and measure" developed by the above "free play" is seriously flawed for combative purpose.

For the umpteenth time, I'm very familiar with modern fencing's diluted nature, and the problems that it can cause--but that does NOT mean that it is useless for other applications.

Don't belive me??

Fair enough--just try it yourself.

Introduce a blunted "real" weapaon into your practice-or a heavier wooden one.

I already have.

Take of the jacket and mask then have a go.

No protection at all? Not even the Dog Brothers do that.

In the Philippines, certain groups train in that manner, but it's admittedly not for me.

I have done and seen it done.

The results are NOT pretty--but they ARE informative.

In the case of the saber, even manuvering the weapon becomes a struggle for those used to flicking about a length of wire with there "wrists"

For clarification, what kind of "real" weapon(s) are you talking about? I ask this because your description sounds like what happens when someone tries to take an overly heavy and ill-balanced replica and "fence" with it.

As I already mentioned, there are plenty of "real" swords that can be manipulated from the wrist--backswords, spadroons, sabers, etc. I have also quoted from period manuals, that bear this out.

So, perhaps you were using inferior (ie., overly heavy and ill-balanced) replicas for your experiment?

I have been fortunate in my days to have handled many original pieces, including:

English and Scottish basket-hilted broadswords and backswords.

European military sabers.

European swept-hilt rapiers.

European smallswords.

Filipino bolos and talibongs.

I can say that originals are invariably lighter and better balanced the most replicas--in fact, there are still far too many replica swords which are downright clunkers.

My own maestro noted this too, when he went to the Tower of London, and handled many originals. His previous experience with "period pieces" had been limited to mediocre replicas. In reference to both rapiers and basket-hilts that he had handled, he told me, "Dave, you could actually fence with these things."

The carfefully crafted sense of "timeing and measure" falls apart--now the daring lunges, assults and attacks become "too dangerous" to try.

Without headgear, it's going to obviously be much riskier, and influence what one does.

But, then again, there are few (if any) genuine "swordsmen" these days, so what's your point? Are you claiming that kata will prepare you better for the same experiment?

And the rapid "flicks" are almost impossibe.

By "flicks", do you mean the modern saber "cuts" from the fingers and wrist? Of course they're impossible (and why would you want to use them with a "real" sword anyway?), but all one needs to do is adjust one's grip and cut from the wrist and/or elbow--I've done it, and it's not a big deal at all. I've seen plenty of other fencers do it too.

The fundamental nature of the match is changed to the extent that 1000s of hours of "free play" becomes pretty much useless.

The "timeing and measure" are now so different as to be a beast of another sort entirly.

Current "free play" is only good for playing.

I heartily disagree--my fencing background has only helped my FMA stick and knife work, as well as my experiments with English singlestick-play (and I've made a variety of singlesticks, from light Victorian-style 3/4" ones, to heavier 7/8" and 1" models, closer to those used in the 1700s--but even the lightest ones are heavier and handle differently than a modern sports saber).

Fighting is a whole other animal.

So are you saying that kata is closer to that "animal"? Please explain...

Peace,

David

Ye Olde Lunatic

2nd August 2004, 04:22

cxt,

Also being familier with saber fenceing--I am of the opinion (shared by the way by a number of really expert folks) that "free practice" and actually fighting with intent to kill are worlds apart.

There will always be a difference. But if one wants to train realisticly, the goal is to make their free-play (sparring) as close to the real thing as possible without causing serious injury.

Modern fencing is very removed from real combat, yet even with it's specialized rules, it still prepares one well for many types of free-sparring with many types of bladed weapons (knives and other single handed swords). The modern sports fencer would need some time to adjust to the weight or handling characteristics of the new weapon, but the skills of measuring distance and trained reaction are still there. The essential muscle memory and "preparedness" that one has against unpredictable attacks becomes second nature. This is an essential element in any martial art that intends to train the student realistically.

And the use of "safty equipment" not only fundamental changes the nature of the contest--but actually leads to habits that can get you killed.

The student must be aware of this if he is training for realism, and thus avoid unrealistic actions that are afforded by the either the difference in his training weapon or his protection. The idea here would be to spar with a training weapon that is weighted and balanced similarly to the real thing, and remove the rules that would mask the reality of actual (live blade) combat.

I personally think that one has the most chance of being killed if they trained solely in kata and two man drills in order to prepare themselves for a real fight. I feel that both drilling and free sparring are ESSENTIAL. One must learn how to defend themselves against a skilled, fully resisiting opponent who has the same intent on winning.

In my personal experience, the most efficient and effective opponents I have sparred with were fencers. This includes a variety of weapons such as like knives (mock), English style single-stick swords (1 inch diameter basket-hilted dowels weighted like a sword) and other mock wooden blades. The high level sport fencers were all able to make the transition to the new weapon faily easily and quickly. Their sense of timing and distance remained once they got used to the new weapon.

In short, the introduction of specific rules as to target area leads to ONLY those targets being trained--sorry but its true.

Once again, this is why one must make the free-sparring as close to the real thing as possible. But, even so, as I pointed out before, the degree to which most sport fencers are able to succesfully make the transition to other, heavier weapons, with unlimited target areas and fewer rules, demonstrates the effectiveness of some of the essential skills learned in thier sport bouting.

Free-movement of some sort, against a fully resisting opponent is essential if one wants to become realistically proficient at a combat art.

cxt

2nd August 2004, 13:53

Nanban

See, now your just being foolish.

You can't get combative useful "timing and measure" by free-play with fake (read fake as ultra light) weapons.

So the whole rational of your "free-play" argument providing good training IN "timing and measure" falls apart.

Your also being foolish on your response ie.

I say you have to stay on the strip--your response "One can step one foot off"

Whoa! one whole foot? Wow! that certainly proves me wrong does it not?
I mean you can step one whole foot off the the strip--Yeah THAT is the very picture of "real" combative training!

Please, at least try!

Again, just because a saber CAN be used with the wrist and finger does not mean that IT SHOULD BE--again, any number of period saber manuals STRONGLY FOCUS on the use of full arm cuts--specifically because cuts with the wrist simply are not going to "cut it" (yes thats a pun) in battlefield combat.

The use of wrist and finger is a SPORTING appliaction usefully only with heavily altered "sport sabers." Not the real thing.

More to the point

Your wanting to turn this into some kind of kata vs free-play debate--one which you will lose.

Chris Thomas

cxt

2nd August 2004, 14:02

Ye Olde

You are missing the point of kata training.

More to the point--please name for me a couple of schools of classicial rapier.

I mean a real school--one that has carried on an unbroken line of training from its heyday until today.

Oh, wait, they don't exsist!

The use of the rapier went out of style so long ago and the weapons went from rapier to smallsword to "olympic" style.

(yeah know I am jumping several 100 years here)

There is no-one alive that can say with certainty exactly how to to use a rapier.

Oh, we can guess, we can speculate, we can re-construct. But we don't really KNOW-not in the emperical sense.

That is the main strength of the Japanese methods--the techniques and specifc training methods WERE preserverd.

Thats better than guesswork.

Again, just in case you missed it, there is FAR MORE to the western method than "free play."

Its only PART of the training.

No-way to tell if it was the main focus or not.

Chris Thomas

cxt

2nd August 2004, 15:20

Nanban

Ye Olde

Gotta ask guys what is the purpose of your coming here?

This is entire website is for Asian arts.

This forum is CALLED "Koryu" for petes sake.

And yet here you come to have a "whose art is better" debate.

(and in case you are curious--what your doing is NOT new, seems like every 6 months or so someone shows up to push their own training agenda and methods--to show how the koryu are somehow "wrong" and their method is some how "right." and they miss the point of koryu utterly)

Do you have anyone here logging on to the many western arts forums and give you crap about how western arts have degenerated into useless sport?

No you don't. I don't know if its better manners or what, but we don't do things like that.

Yet here you are wanting to show us all the error of our ways--ie what "I" do is better THAN WHAT YOU DO.

And yes thats exactly how your coming across.

Kinda why the folks here have pretty much ignored you.

Most folks were polite enough to responde until they realized that what you "really" wanted was to have what my grandfather would call a "pecker contest."

And that just is not very interesting to most of folks here.

Me, I 'll argue with an echo just for the practice. And I'll shred you, I know as much about western arts, the strength and weakness, as you do.

But I still have to question the apperent need for you guys to show how what YOU do is good and what WE do is bad.

Sounds kinda weak to me.

Most folks secure in what they do simply don't need to engage in such childish behavior.

Chris Thomas

charlesl

2nd August 2004, 22:11

I found the thread to be kind of interesting.

Chris, it seems to me that you kind of pushed the thread towards a discussion of Western martial arts, and chose to make it an argument about the training methodologies (which might not be a word, looks wierd to me now) used in classical Western swordsmanship. I didn't notice David making any such comparisons with regards to JSA, but then maybe I missed it. I also didn't notice some of the other stuff that you accuse David of, but then maybe I read it differently. But that's the impression I got from following the thread.

As for "Ye Olde", best ignored. C'mon, the guy creates a new username and makes one post, doesn't provide a name, etc. Not worth responding to.

David, in regards to your original question:

I read this book by this Dave Lowry guy (no, not the hockey guy who plays for the Calgary Flames, though that would be kind of interesting), called "Autumn Lightning" or something like that. In it he kind of talks story about (if I remember right, probably I don't) the start of the Shin Kage school of kenjutsu, and I kind of remember there being some references to freeplay, and I think maybe even the creation of the shinai. It was kind of written as historical fiction or something, but it did sort of imply there was some sort of "freeplay." I don't know if how historically accurate it was, or was even inteded to be. But it may have relevance to what you were asking.

Probably if you were to ship him a fresh poke sampler set, he'd be willing to discuss the subject with you.

-Charles

Nanban Bushi

2nd August 2004, 22:54

cxt,

Originally posted by cxt
Nanban

See, now your just being foolish.

How so?

You can't get combative useful "timing and measure" by free-play with fake (read fake as ultra light) weapons.

Sure you can.

And, as I already stated, I am not the only person who feels that way.

So the whole rational of your "free-play" argument providing good training IN "timing and measure" falls apart.

LOL--tell that to Kalis Ilustrisimo/Floro Fighting Systems instructor Ray Floro, who also happens to be a fencer.

I can only surmise that you suffer from some sort of "Combat Sport Myopia"--ie., you cannot see the practical application of combat sports.

Your also being foolish on your response ie.

I say you have to stay on the strip--your response "One can step one foot off"

Whoa! one whole foot? Wow! that certainly proves me wrong does it not?
I mean you can step one whole foot off the the strip--Yeah THAT is the very picture of "real" combative training!

I was simply correcting your inaccurate generalization (one of several, in your case) about what can and cannot be done in sport fencing--nothing more, nothing less.

Please, at least try!

I have done far more than that--I have countered every claim you have made thus far. You inferred that cuts from the elbow and wrist were ineffective, and I provided PERIOD SOURCES and EXAMPLES that indicate otherwise (and I find it vaguely amusing how you have ignored all of that).

Again, just because a saber CAN be used with the wrist and finger does not mean that IT SHOULD BE--again, any number of period saber manuals STRONGLY FOCUS on the use of full arm cuts--specifically because cuts with the wrist simply are not going to "cut it" (yes thats a pun) in battlefield combat.

I never said that cuts from the shoulder weren't used, but the fact remains that cuts from the elbow and wrist were liberally employed as well.

The use of wrist and finger is a SPORTING appliaction usefully only with heavily altered "sport sabers." Not the real thing.

Dude, why can't you even accurately quote and/or paraphrase me?

I never said the a saber (or any other sword) meant for actual combat should be used with the "wrist and finger".

What I said was that such swords can be wielded effectively from the wrist and elbow--and, unlike you, I cited period treatises to back my case.

More to the point

Your wanting to turn this into some kind of kata vs free-play debate--one which you will lose.

Ooooh! Brrrr!

I'm really shaking, Chris.

I never intended for this to be a "kata vs. free-play debate"--I'm simply trying to find evidence for free-play being used in the Japanese arts prior to the 19th century. If you can help me with that, great. If you cannot, no big deal either.

Peace,

David

Nanban Bushi

2nd August 2004, 23:01

cxt,

Originally posted by cxt
Ye Olde

You are missing the point of kata training.

More to the point--please name for me a couple of schools of classicial rapier.

I mean a real school--one that has carried on an unbroken line of training from its heyday until today.

Oh, wait, they don't exsist!

The use of the rapier went out of style so long ago and the weapons went from rapier to smallsword to "olympic" style.

(yeah know I am jumping several 100 years here)

There is no-one alive that can say with certainty exactly how to to use a rapier.

Oh, we can guess, we can speculate, we can re-construct. But we don't really KNOW-not in the emperical sense.

That is the main strength of the Japanese methods--the techniques and specifc training methods WERE preserverd.

And I think it's pretty naive on your part to assume that the Japanese arts haven't changed over time. Just look at the ostensibly vast gulf in actual ability between the 19th century "rural fencers" and their more kata-based cosmopolitan counterparts, as mentioned by Dr. Bodiford.

Again, just in case you missed it, there is FAR MORE to the western method than "free play."

Its only PART of the training.

No-way to tell if it was the main focus or not.

Nobody here has stated that free-play was the "main focus" of the Western arts--all that has been said is that free-play has always been a viewed as a crucial element in those arts.

Peace,

David

Nanban Bushi

2nd August 2004, 23:33

cxt,

Originally posted by cxt
Nanban

Ye Olde

Gotta ask guys what is the purpose of your coming here?

This is entire website is for Asian arts.

This forum is CALLED "Koryu" for petes sake.

And yet here you come to have a "whose art is better" debate.

Re-read the beginning of this thread (in fact, I'll make it easy for you, since you seem to have such a hard time in the accuracy department):

Originally posted by Nanban Bushi
Weapons free-play in classical JMA?
Did it exist in any form, prior to the 18th or 19th century?

My original "purpose" in coming here was to inquire about some bogus claims regarding Kodokan judo's history (and you can do a search for that, if you don't believe me).

After checking out the site (which I personally think is very cool), I decided to ask the question above, regarding free-play in JSA.

(and in case you are curious--what your doing is NOT new, seems like every 6 months or so someone shows up to push their own training agenda and methods--to show how the koryu are somehow "wrong" and their method is some how "right." and they miss the point of koryu utterly)

Do you have anyone here logging on to the many western arts forums and give you crap about how western arts have degenerated into useless sport?

No you don't. I don't know if its better manners or what, but we don't do things like that.

LOL @ you chastising me about manners...

Yet here you are wanting to show us all the error of our ways--ie what "I" do is better THAN WHAT YOU DO.

And yes thats exactly how your coming across.

Well let me tell you how YOU have come across, Chris.

You started out calm enough, although you didn't tell me anything in your first post that I didn't already know.

After that, you became increasingly CONDESCENDING, DISMISSIVE, and now, downright COCKY.

Why?

Kinda why the folks here have pretty much ignored you.

Most folks were polite enough to responde until they realized that what you "really" wanted was to have what my grandfather would call a "pecker contest."

And that just is not very interesting to most of folks here.

Though, apparently, it's interesting to you.

I don't feel that this thread has been "ignored"--on the contrary, there have been some thoughtful responses so far.

Me, I 'll argue with an echo just for the practice.

Obviously.

And I'll shred you, I know as much about western arts, the strength and weakness, as you do.

Shred away, then.

I have yet to see your supposedly vast knowledge of the Western arts.

You have mostly just made a slew of inaccurate generalizations, though you do get credit for at least mentioning folks like Reinhardt, Amberger, and Nadi.

But I still have to question the apperent need for you guys to show how what YOU do is good and what WE do is bad.

Show me in this thread where I said what you do is "bad".

I ASKED A QUESTION pertaining to Japanese weapons arts.

YOU were the one who then went off on the tangent of trying to prove how supposedly useless sport fencing is.

Obviously, sparring on its own is useless--there has to be instruction in technique, as well as a monitoring and correction of form, etc.

However, a lack of free-play is problematic too.

Both bouting AND drilling are necessary.

Sounds kinda weak to me.

Most folks secure in what they do simply don't need to engage in such childish behavior.

Practice what you preach, bro.

YOU are the one who has attempted to drag this thread down, and that's pretty clear for everyone to see.

Peace,

David

Nanban Bushi

2nd August 2004, 23:37

Hello Charles,

Originally posted by charlesl
I found the thread to be kind of interesting...

David, in regards to your original question:

I read this book by this Dave Lowry guy (no, not the hockey guy who plays for the Calgary Flames, though that would be kind of interesting), called "Autumn Lightning" or something like that. In it he kind of talks story about (if I remember right, probably I don't) the start of the Shin Kage school of kenjutsu, and I kind of remember there being some references to freeplay, and I think maybe even the creation of the shinai. It was kind of written as historical fiction or something, but it did sort of imply there was some sort of "freeplay." I don't know if how historically accurate it was, or was even inteded to be. But it may have relevance to what you were asking.

Probably if you were to ship him a fresh poke sampler set, he'd be willing to discuss the subject with you.

-Charles

Thanks for the tip, and thanks for your efforts in trying to keep this discussion civilized.

Best Regards,

David

cxt

3rd August 2004, 00:38

Nanban

Seriously sorry that your taking it this way.

Was not intentional--just trying to give you some idea about my feelings as to having yet ANOTHER "kata vs free sparring" tail chase of a debate.

Esp since you really did not see fit to respond to a couple of the guys whom also took the time to answer your posts.

But your angery response should give you some insight as to how I see you at this point---a guy trying to prove what HE DOES IS GOOD AND WHAT WE DO IS BAD.

If your trying to "gain insight" about judo--why ask about weapons?

And why not spcifically ASK ABOUT JUDO IN YOUR POST?-funny I prett much read you asking questions about koryu weapons.

In fact the very thread you started has no mention of judo.

Question still stands though--why on earth did you bring your whole "I'm bigger than you" debate to a web-site devoted to Japanese arts, specficlly Koryu?

Addtitional--already answered you--I'll argue with an echo.

More to the point, do you understand the differnce between "substantive" and "non-subtantive-????

See, my saying you have to "stay on the strip" as an example of non-reality in matching---your response of "You can step one foot off!"

Although accurate its just not substantive-- does NOT alter the basically "non-real" nature of the current match structure.

ie its a non-point.

Might I also suggest thay very few folks on this forum require YOUR help in understanding western forms of combat--many of us also study western fenceing.

Its also worth pointing out that I did NOT try to prove that fenceing was "worthless" just makeing it clear that the current method of "free play" was NOT all "moonlight and roses" when it comes to reality training.

Any reasonably accurate history of the sword will teel you that "free play" WITH OTHER training methods was done.

How big a part did was "free play" we really don't know form an empicial standpoint.

If you took it as a personal assult on your art--put yourself in the place of pretty much EVERYONE here that practices a kata bases art--what do YOU think your message is seen as when you start questioning an essential part of our art?

And from my perspective you did so with much more desingeniousness (sp) than I did.

Again seriously sorry that have offended you.

You have my sincere apologies.

Chris Thomas

cxt

3rd August 2004, 01:04

Nanban

Just curious, in reading over the above, are you answering a queston I directly asked Olde?

Cause that how it looks.

I asked HIM a question, and YOU gave me a point by point response.

All except the actual name of a couple of classicial rapier schools.

Which you and I both know don't exsist.

Instead of just "manning up" admitting that they don't you spin the response into a question as to weither or not Koryu kata have changed.

Again, not really thinking this thu are you?

Even if they have--which I admit is possible--they STILL HAVE NOT UTTERLY DISAPEARED as have their western counterparts.

Any way you cut it, we have much more, much better, and more accurate infomation on the Japanese koryu arts than we have on western ones.

Can you even think of a Medeviael (sp) broadsword school? A real one I mean

Course you can't but then again I didn't start this debate either.

Again, I REALLY AM sorry that I have offended you.

I will make whatever public apology you feel needed.

Chris Thomas

Liam Cognet

3rd August 2004, 04:46

Hi, Liam here. I chime in every so often.

Speaking of sparing with 'friendly' weapons, I saw Zatoishi on the weekend. In this movie they spar with boken and deliver full hits to eachother, in fact I've seen this often in Samurai films.

Does anyone know if people realy did this? It dosen't look safe. In any case this kind of sparing would address some of the problems caused by free sparing with friendly weapons and pading.

Sorry to interupt.

renfield_kuroda

3rd August 2004, 07:39

There seems to be this perpetual misunderstanding of what kata are and how practicing kata is done in an increasing difficult and free way.
The basic moves of a kata, say a two-man pattern, are pretty much set. He cuts, I counter, he counters, I counter and win or something like that.
And it's practiced like that for a long, long time.
And then it gets harder: the timing changes, the targets change, the 'victim' aggresively tries to control the centerline, cuts are no longer stopped just before contact, but are carried through with full intent, and sometimes the kata changes in the middle...
And sometimes you end up like this:
http://renfield.net/blogged/2004/08/ouch.html
A fairly minor bonk on the head, actually. That was when I was shidachi -- I was supposed to win -- but uchidachi came in faster than I could counter, I backed off more than is usual but still couldn't clear, and he connected nicely with my temple.

So when I hear "free play" or "sparring" or "that stuff they do with wooden swords in The Last Samurai" the answer is yes: kata.
Do not let the fact that it is a series of set moves fool you into thinking there is no freedom to play.
It has been stated before, but I believe the concept of "kata" as it exists in koryu does not really make any sense to anyone not actively involved in a koryu. Sorry if that sounds like a cop-out on my part in attempting to explain, but all the words in the world still wouldn't give you a working definition. You have train it and live it to understand, so please take my word for it; there is plenty of free-play in koryu, and it works just fine for training, thanks.

Regards,

r e n

Nanban Bushi

3rd August 2004, 11:11

cxt,

Originally posted by cxt
Nanban

Seriously sorry that your taking it this way.

Was not intentional--just trying to give you some idea about my feelings as to having yet ANOTHER "kata vs free sparring" tail chase of a debate.

I did not cause that debate.

I posted a question regarding the earliest known time that free-play was used in Japanese weapon arts. I posted my feelings on the necessity of free-play. That doesn't mean that there was going to be a "kata vs free sparring" debate--but YOU chose to pursue that route.

Esp since you really did not see fit to respond to a couple of the guys whom also took the time to answer your posts.

Oh, excuse me--I didn't know that there was a friggin' time limit on when I could reply to people. I have admittedly dealt mainly with you, but that is only because you have been the most aggressive poster on this thread. I have replied to others here as well, and I'm not done with my responses yet.

But your angery response should give you some insight as to how I see you at this point---a guy trying to prove what HE DOES IS GOOD AND WHAT WE DO IS BAD.

Acutally, Chris, my "angry response" was a direct result of your immature posts.

Nor am I the only person on this thread to feel that it was YOU who caused this thread to deviate:

Originally posted by charlesl
I found the thread to be kind of interesting.

Chris, it seems to me that you kind of pushed the thread towards a discussion of Western martial arts, and chose to make it an argument about the training methodologies (which might not be a word, looks wierd to me now) used in classical Western swordsmanship. I didn't notice David making any such comparisons with regards to JSA, but then maybe I missed it. I also didn't notice some of the other stuff that you accuse David of, but then maybe I read it differently. But that's the impression I got from following the thread.

-Charles

Just thought I'd post that, since your own views on what has taken place on this thread seem so skewed...

If your trying to "gain insight" about judo--why ask about weapons?

And why not spcifically ASK ABOUT JUDO IN YOUR POST?-funny I prett much read you asking questions about koryu weapons.

In fact the very thread you started has no mention of judo.

LOL--once again, you seem downright incapable of recalling what I actually posted! Allow me to refresh your truly flawed memory:

Originally posted by Nanban Bushi

My original "purpose" in coming here was to inquire about some bogus claims regarding Kodokan judo's history (and you can do a search for that, if you don't believe me).

Note that I simply said "coming here"--I was referring to the E-Budo SITE, not this forum.

Here's the link to the thread I posted:

http://www.e-budo.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27139

I then went on to explain:

After checking out the site (which I personally think is very cool), I decided to ask the question above, regarding free-play in JSA.

FWIW, though, there is a "mention" of judo on the first page of this thread (the randori bit, remember?).

Question still stands though--why on earth did you bring your whole "I'm bigger than you" debate to a web-site devoted to Japanese arts, specficlly Koryu?

That's a question I cannot answer, as I did no such thing.

I did state my feelings on the necessity of free-play, but nothing more. Am I not allowed to have an opinion on that?

Addtitional--already answered you--I'll argue with an echo.

Yeah, you told me that already.

More to the point, do you understand the differnce between "substantive" and "non-subtantive-????

See, my saying you have to "stay on the strip" as an example of non-reality in matching---your response of "You can step one foot off!"

Although accurate its just not substantive-- does NOT alter the basically "non-real" nature of the current match structure.

ie its a non-point.

I think it's funny how you cannot seem to let this particular issue go, and yet I'm still waiting for an answer from you in regards to how kata is supposedly better for preparing a fighter for your armor-less sparring experiment.

Anyway, considering your track record on this thread in the accuracy department, I'd say that even my correction of your claim regarding fencing's rules is pertinent on some level, since it's just one more example (albeit a minor one) of how wrong you've been thus far.

Might I also suggest thay very few folks on this forum require YOUR help in understanding western forms of combat--many of us also study western fenceing.

You've already harped quite enough on that subject, in regards to your own training. So, do you train in the French or Italian school?

Its also worth pointing out that I did NOT try to prove that fenceing was "worthless" just makeing it clear that the current method of "free play" was NOT all "moonlight and roses" when it comes to reality training.

Sure dude--whatever you say.

Any reasonably accurate history of the sword will teel you that "free play" WITH OTHER training methods was done.

I've never contested that.

How big a part did was "free play" we really don't know form an empicial standpoint.

It's pretty clear that it was always considered essential.

If you took it as a personal assult on your art--put yourself in the place of pretty much EVERYONE here that practices a kata bases art--what do YOU think your message is seen as when you start questioning an essential part of our art?

I didn't go out of my way to tear down Koryu arts, as you did with Western fencing--on the contrary, I even posted (on page 2) about major problems with the sparring formats of both modern Western fencing and FMA.

And from my perspective you did so with much more desingeniousness (sp) than I did.

LOL again--you have indulged in obnoxiousness, and you have acted like a pompous !!! throughout most of this thread--but I'm the bad guy?

Again seriously sorry that have offended you.

You have my sincere apologies.

Ah, and now we all see the REAL source of "disingenuousness" here!

Peace,

David

Nanban Bushi

3rd August 2004, 12:06

cxt,

Originally posted by cxt
Nanban

Just curious, in reading over the above, are you answering a queston I directly asked Olde?

Cause that how it looks.

I asked HIM a question, and YOU gave me a point by point response.

Just throwing in my 2 cents--is that a crime?

Man, you seem so big on... drama.

All except the actual name of a couple of classicial rapier schools.

Which you and I both know don't exsist.

There are no "classical rapier schools" that currently exist, but there were certainly quite a few at one time.

There was the North Italian "Bolognese school" of Marozzo, which made use of the cut-and-thrust spada suitable for both military and civilian application (and eventually, the rapier proper was developed). The Southern Italians also had a distinct school, based in the "Kingdom of the Two Sicilies" (ie., Sicily & Naples). There was the "Spanish school" of Carranza, which taught the destreza method. The "German school" was represented by fencing guilds like the Marxbruder and the Luxbruder, and combined the use of native weapons like the bidenhander and the dussack, with the spada of the Italians (which the Germans referred to as a rappier or rappir). The English London Masters of Defence mirrored the Germans, in that they ultimately also adopted the rapier, but nevertheless retained their indigenous weapons too (basket-hilts, quarterstaves, bills, etc).

And FWIW, the Southern Italian (Neopolitan) school still exists, though they of course teach the three modern weapons.

Instead of just "manning up" admitting that they don't you spin the response into a question as to weither or not Koryu kata have changed.

We all know that they no longer exist, Chris. It's not a matter of "manning up", since it's common knowledge.

Again, not really thinking this thu are you?

I think I'm doing just fine, actually.

However, the chronic bluster you have indulged in does nothing to further your cause.

Even if they have--which I admit is possible--they STILL HAVE NOT UTTERLY DISAPEARED as have their western counterparts.

Any way you cut it, we have much more, much better, and more accurate infomation on the Japanese koryu arts than we have on western ones.

I agree.

On some level, the Japanese schools have been preserved.

As to how close the current incarnations of those schools are to the way things were done 400 years ago, however, is open to a great amount of debate.

Certainly, you made it sound as if what is being done in the Koryu schools today is the same as what was being taught to the bushi at the time of the Imjin War.

You claimed:

Originally posted by cxt

That is the main strength of the Japanese methods--the techniques and specifc training methods WERE preserverd.

I'd say that the techniques, and some of the "specific training methods" were preserved.

Certainly, you cannot deny that things are totally different now, in terms of the circumstances surrounding JSA. There's no need for functional sword arts these days.

And that should be clear, even to you.

There's no rival clans to fight.

There's no Mongol Horde to drive off (via the weather or otherwise).

There's no Ming Dynasty China or Joseon Dynasty Korea to attack.

There's no turtleships to attempt to board and/or sink.

There's no Okinawan peasants to keep in line.

Get my drift?

Can you even think of a Medeviael (sp) broadsword school? A real one I mean

Course you can't but then again I didn't start this debate either.

There were a couple of Medieval schools, actually.

The Germans had a distinct school, which scholars usually refer to today as the "Liechtenauer school". The Italians were well represented too, by folks like the formidable teacher from Friuli, Fiore de Liberi.

Again, I REALLY AM sorry that I have offended you.

Yeah, you're just dripping with sincerity at this point... :rolleyes:

I will make whatever public apology you feel needed.

Just stop misquoting me.

And answer the kata question.

Peace,

David

Ron Tisdale

3rd August 2004, 12:53

Well, that was interesting for a while...why don't you guys take it to private email.

Ren, that was a great post, thanks!

Ron

cxt

3rd August 2004, 14:56

Naban

Ok, actually said I was sorry, several times.

Actually said I would make whatever public apology you deem needed.

Seems that was not good enough for you.

That being the case why don't you untwist your little pink panties and deal with the situation as is.

You came here to pontificate as to the superority of "free play" over kata.

You ignored several folks that took the time answer your questions. Namely your misperception as to kata.

I took the time to respond, even you said I did so "calmly" at first.

I answered your questioning of kata practice with questions relating to CURRENT mathods of practice in western arts--you, who came here with questions, was unable answer questions and observations when they were applied to YOUR pet art.

See, thats just wrong.

You can dish it out but you just can't take it?

For the umptheenth time what may or may not have been done historically in sword is pretty much irrelvent to our little debate.

A-We have NO PROOF in the emperical sense, of your claims.

B-What was done "back in the day" has no bearing on CURRENT practice--except to show how current practice has degenerated.

Which for certain does not help your argument.

As far as I am concerned you started this, you ignored folks that took the time to answer your questions, your responses to me--as far as I am concerned--were nothing more than your attempts to steer this into a "kata vs free practice" debate.

One I am tired of.

In addition you have quite a bit more venom than I.

Again, seems to me you were all set to question what WE do, yet you get all bent out of shape when confronted with the shortcomings of the current western models.

Kinda looks to me like the "emporer (sp) has no cloths."

And that is certianly not my fault.

Chris Thomas

cxt

3rd August 2004, 15:03

Ron

Thats good advice.

And I am going to follow it.

He leaves me alone, I'll leave him alone.

I tried to to do the whole apology thing.

Said I was sorry multiple times.

I had my say, he had his, willing to drop this.

Chris Thomas

cxt

3rd August 2004, 15:43

Charles

You have a point.

However, still take exception to the nature of the questions.

As far as I am concerned he did exactly what I mentioned. Both in tone, the questions themselves etc.

Certainly not trying to speak for eveyone here--just explaining how I took it.

His entire line of questioning and argumentive points are solidly grounded in western models of swordplay.

All I did was point out the flaws in his baseline of reasoning.

ie. the current nature of "free play" as it now exsists.

ie. kinda along the lines of "people in glass houses should not be throwing stones."

In additon I made several attempts to say I was sorry for offending him.

An offer he did not extend to me.

But if I did mis-understand--happy to offer yet another "I'm sorry"

Chris Thomas

George Kohler

3rd August 2004, 16:18

Let's get back on topic!

Ye Olde Lunatic

4th August 2004, 00:30

Wow. What a mess.

Guys, I am sorry if I did not have my name at the bottom of my post. I thought it would automatically have been included at the end, since I gave my real name when I registered. Hopefully I have corrected that.

Now, some issues:

cxt,

You are missing the point of kata training.

I don't believe so. I think that you are missing the point of free-sparring.

As for kata, I think that the way it is done in kenjutsu is useful, but I still personally believe that some sort of free-sparring against an unpredictable, fully resisting opponent is necessary in order to become fully and realistically proficient. This is why I speculate (as I am sure Nanban may) that free-sparring of some sort was employed in the Japanese sword arts prior to the Edo period.

I do find it odd though, that you became utterly defensive and downright inflammatory just because someone stated their opinion and simply asked if there was evidence of free-sparring in JMA prior to the 18th and 19th centuries.

More to the point--please name for me a couple of schools of classicial rapier.

I can name plenty from the 16th and 17th centuries. But they have died out.

I mean a real school--one that has carried on an unbroken line of training from its heyday until today.

So are you saying that those schools weren't "real" because they haven't carried on into the modern day?

By the way, I believe the idea of a completely "unbroken lineage" is fairly unrealistic if one observes how arts evolve (or devolve) over time (this includes Eastern arts as well). Peacetime is the worst thing that can happen to combat martial art. When there is no longer a dire, widespread need to use the art in a realistic setting, the art (no matter how well "preserved") tends to change. One can look at how various Asian arts have changed drastically over just the last 100 years and they can get the idea.

If one looks at western sword arts, they can see that they have died out over the last few centuries due to a lack of need. The focus has changed over to sport, and what little (if any) we may have left has degenerated into modern sports fencing, which can still develop skills that can carry over some usefulness if one wanted to train with a realistic weapon. But, nonetheless, as it is done according to the rules, sport fencing is incomplete for fully realistic training due to the rules, lightness of the weapons, targets, etc.

I suspect the same change for the Japanese sword arts. I believe that the focus has changed over the past few centuries. Some movements have been preserved in kata, but much has probably been lost. The arts shifted their focus into kata movements, and the need (or desire for) full bouting was abandoned. This being said, I still believe that the kata, as done in kenjutsu is useful, but is incomplete for training someone to become fully proficient in real combat. That is just my opinion.

I have spoken to a high-ranking kenjustu instructor that told me that much of what is being done in the kata of some schools today is theatrical. That was his opinion, but it was interesting to hear.

There is no-one alive that can say with certainty exactly how to to use a rapier.

How to use it exactly as it was used hundreds of years ago? No, there isn't. With the rapier, there are some basic movements (cuts and thrusts from basic angles) that are elementary, but as an entire art or school, I would agree with you. We will never know exactly what those arts looked like in the 16th or 17th centuries.

But, I believe that a similar arguement can be said for the katana. Many of the movements of the Japanese sword arts have been better preserved (many are also elementary), but do you really feel that the kenjutsu done today is exactly the same as what was done in the 16th or 17th century? Do you feel it is practiced in the same manner? Do you feel that the curriculum of attacks and techniques is exact and complete? Do you feel confident that you or your instructor has the same level of proficiency as a samurai from the Momoyama period?

I would hope that your answer is "no". Just as we cannot know "exactly" and "completely" how training and fighting with the rapier was done hundreds of years ago, we also cannot know with complete certainty the full techniques and training methods used with the katana, even though the arts were better preserved.

There were different schools of kenjutsu, just as there were different schools of rapier. The difference is though, that were was far more variety in the types of rapier than there were in the katana.

Oh, we can guess, we can speculate, we can re-construct. But we don't really KNOW-not in the emperical sense.

Just as you don't know if your kata is exactly the same as was done 400 years ago.

That is the main strength of the Japanese methods--the techniques and specifc training methods WERE preserverd.

Some techniques and methods were presverved, but exactly how much and to what degree is also uncertain. Just as you cannot know if some of your kata was changed or created in 1890, 1930, or 1965. I do still suspect that many of the training methods were lost or abandoned, like free-sparring for instance.

Thats better than guesswork.

Not really. Unquestioningly assuming unbroken lineage can be worse than educated research and guesswork in my opinion.

Again, just in case you missed it, there is FAR MORE to the western method than "free play."

Nope, I didn't miss it. I am quite aware of the different methods employed. Just in case you missed it, I mentioned in my earlier post that free-sparing and drilling of some sort were both necessary in oder to become fully proficient.

Its only PART of the training.

I understand your caution against one assuming that free-play, historially, was the main focus. We weren't there. But, there is a lot of evidence for it in the west, as Nanban pointed out.

We have a variety of weighted practice weapons from the Renaissance era, some steel, some leather. Many of them had blunted edges and round tips.

We see a variety of steel head cages that were used in the Medieval and renaissance era, for mock sword, and cudgel fights. We also see many woodcuts and other artwork depicting what apears to be bouting with these types of weapons. Some even show a combatant bleeding from the head after being hit with a wooden dusack, which was a curved, wooden practice sword.

We have the tournament.

We have the knowledge that bouting was necessary in order to come of rank in many European fencing guilds.

We have the literature, in manuals, from people such as 16th century weapons master George Silver, who himself stresses the importance of realistic bouting with grappling, pommel strikes and knees to the groin. Silver also has many recommendations for the types of opponent that one must spar with, in order to be ranked in a guild. Surely, in order to become proficient at sparring, one must...well...spar.

We also see the importance and popularity of bouting as late as the 17th century, when people like james Figg, used to set up a stage in the counryside and have fight with various opponents in boxing, quarterstaff and singlestick.

I combine all of the above evidence with my personal observation about the importance of free-sparring in realistic training, and I come to the conclusion that it WAS done, historically and it was quite common. I suspect the same for the Japanese arts, since Japan was a very proficient, warlike country. So, I, too, am interested in fidning out the answer to Nanban's question: is there any evidence of free-sparing in Japanese weapon arts prior to the 18th and 19th centuries? It would be interesting to find out.

Ye Olde Lunatic

4th August 2004, 01:01

cxt,

Gotta ask guys what is the purpose of your coming here?

I would like to know if there is an answer to Nanban's question.

And yet here you come to have a "whose art is better" debate.

No, actually, you are turning it into that. I have simply stated - in disagreement with some of your claims - as to why I feel free-sparring is important, and also in order to show why I suspect sparring was employed in the Japanese weapon arts prior to the 19th century. The problem is, (and I don't know why) that you can't seem to take the idea of someone disagreeing with you or holding a different viewpoint. You have become unessecarily defensive during this thread.

Do you have anyone here logging on to the many western arts forums and give you crap about how western arts have degenerated into useless sport?

Sure. Sometimes, and I debate with them. But that is NOT what has been done here.

Yet here you are wanting to show us all the error of our ways--ie what "I" do is better THAN WHAT YOU DO.

Never said that. You don't even know what I do.

And yes thats exactly how your coming across.

I am sorry if that is the case. I certainly is not my intention. But I think you are coming accross as overly defensive.

Me, I 'll argue with an echo just for the practice. And I'll shred you, I know as much about western arts, the strength and weakness, as you do.

Now there is an example of an inflammitory, and unecessary remark. You're also assuming quite a bit here. Why would you automatically assume that you know more about Western arts than I do, when you don't even know me? I wouldn't make such a quick assumption about your knowledge based on one post.

Sounds kinda weak to me.

As do some of your rebuttals.

Most folks secure in what they do simply don't need to engage in such childish behavior.

Please, re-read some of your remarks and think about "childish behavior". I have no disrespect for the Japanese arts, I just suspect that they have changed over time, hence I would like to know the answer to Nanban's question.

Hopefuly this can get back onto topic in a civilized manner.

Ye Olde Lunatic

4th August 2004, 01:06

charlesl

As for "Ye Olde", best ignored. C'mon, the guy creates a new username and makes one post, doesn't provide a name, etc. Not worth responding to.

I am sorry I didn't provide my name in my first post. That was an error, as I pointed out before. But, I don't see why not having my real name at the bottom of my post would invalidate what I have to say. I don't feel I have made any offensive statements. I have corrected my signature, and I am sorry for any problems it may have caused.

renfield_kuroda

4th August 2004, 03:48

Originally posted by Ye Olde Lunatic
As for kata, I think that the way it is done in kenjutsu is useful, but I still personally believe that some sort of free-sparring against an unpredictable, fully resisting opponent is necessary in order to become fully and realistically proficient. This is why I speculate (as I am sure Nanban may) that free-sparring of some sort was employed in the Japanese sword arts prior to the Edo period.

I think my first post got lost in the...clutter...so I shall attempt to answer this point and clarify.
"Kata", at its highest levels, is NOT a set of predetermined moves. Uchidachi is actively trying to win, Shidachi is actively trying to win. The moves (attacks and defenses and counters) are done in such a way so that, given the proper attack, the only reasonably defense/counter is the one as determined by the kata. Remember, the kata is teaching you how move within the theories of a given sword style. Some styles do A in response to X, some do B. So style 1's kata goes X->A, whereas style 2's kata goes X->B.
However if, for example, shidachi is supposed to deflect a cut to the head, leaving his left side open to attack, but he ends up stepping in too close, then uchidachi can just crack him on the head (see my photo above.)
So the opponents moves are not predictable nor is the opponent not fully resisting, thus at high levels, even with bokken, hundreds of years ago and even to this day, people get hurt. Alot.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, most people who do kata are, as Niina-gosoke tells it, "just dancing".
But there are a few schools, mostly in Japan, that still do what has been done for centuries. We "know" this because of the traditional transmission from teacher to student, the extant documentation, and the fact that, even as recently as last century, people were killing each with swords, and this stuff works.
Then again not all koryu are battlefield arts, some are koryu that came about well after the warring periods, and are focused on personal dueling rather than armored battlefield tactics. Some have adapted to the times (Uchida-sensei's adaptation of jo techniques into tanjo walking stick in the 1800's for example), and yes, many many koryu do evolve, very slowly, over centuries. So what we do now is NOT what they did 200 years ago...but what they did 200 years ago is not what they did 400 years ago. The key is, is the ryu evolving the same way, or was it fairly static for centuries and then, all of a sudden in modern times, it all went to hell?

Regards,

r e n

Finny

4th August 2004, 11:02

David (I hope you dont mind me calling you David), I think it's a bit rich for you to start this thread, and then get all indignant when people become tired of you refusing to accept other people's opinions.

You say you began this stread in an effort to hear the opinions of others more knowlegable about the koryu, with regards to the existance of free-sparring before the turn of the twentieth century.

You say to Chris "I didn't start that debate" re. the kata vs. free-sparring issue.

I'd argue you did.

You began a thread titled and structured almost word for word identically to this one six months ago on swordforum.com.

Find that thread here: http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26126&highlight=free+sparring

You ask for the opinions of people more knowlegable than you on the existance and prevalence of free-sparring in koryu arts in the edo and pre-edo period, then refuse to even consider the opinions they provide.

Someone said kata was the predominant and primary means of instruction in the sword in premodern Japan.

To which you reply: "With all due respect, I fail to see how either you, or Mr. Lowry, or anyone else can make such a declaration. Unless there is some ancient scroll or other document that says, "Hey, people of the future, we ancient bushi never used any form of free-sparring!", I don't see how you can even know that that is the case."

and

"So we have authentic scrolls from the 13th-16th centuries, that specifically state that no kind of free-play was used in certain schools?"

Someone else comments: "I can't recall the specific quote by Mr. Lowry you are quoting, but in spirit he is basically correct. Kata was and is simply "the" main training method for pretty much all classical ryuha."

To which you kindly reply: "That doesn't make much sense, IMO."

again, someone tries to let you know what the accepted version of history is:

"While there was undoubtedly some freeform sparring type activity going on among some people during the 1300-1600 period you metioned, the historical record makes it pretty obvious that kata was seen as the primary means ."

Which you again reject:

"On the contrary--the historical record, at least in terms of the actual martial exploits of the Medieval and Renaissance Japanese, suggests that free-sparring was an integral part of their training."

Insisting that because they were successful in military campaigns, they MUST have used some form of free-sparring to a large (primary) extent.

Someone else offers the opinion that the surge in popularity of free-sparring occured towards the END of the edo period, so you say:

"And you are ignoring the fact (like most other folks on this thread) that free-sparring is essential to developing that proper sense of timing and distance..."

and

"So you're saying that a two-man kata--working with a cooperative "opponent" on a specific pattern of movements--will prepare one for dealing with a resisting adversary who is actually going to try to kill you?".

Someone else posted a reply which summed up in the first sentence the point I'm trying to make here:

"David,

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but it sounds like you asked a question you had already answered in your head and now you refuse to listen to the responses you received. "

So yes, you did start the debate, by insisting that it's simply impossible that the Japanese trained primarily in kata, rather than emphasising free-sparring. If you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question.

Cheers,
Brendan

Finny

4th August 2004, 11:41

And before you start to argue with me, allow me to post another quote from you, six months ago (I hadn't bothered to venture beyond the first page of the other thread.):

"As to what the Japanese probably did hundreds of years ago--yes, I am convinced that free-sparring was a part of their training, despite the popular beliefs of today which are regarded by many as fact. "

So, it becomes clear that you have made your mind up, and aren't interested in hearing " the popular beliefs of today which are regarded by many as fact. "

The fact is, ALL current kenjutsu schools, which have documents passed down to the current generations from centuries ago, teach via kata. The scrolls discuss kata. It ALL revolves around kata. Not just kenjutsu, but everything that has been passed down through the generations, chado, for instance. The densho don't say: "This is the entire curriculum of our school - a kata, b kata, c kata, and so on, and then at the end say 'oh yeah, and once you've done that go do a whole heap of free-sparring, cos free-sparring's vital'."

Go to Japan and tell someone like Otake sensei that you think that 'back in the day', his ancestors trained significantly in free-sparring type practise and see what he thinks. Perhaps you could ask him about the results of the 'bout' he had with the kendoka back when TSKSR was being considered as an 'intangible cultural asset' by the government. Being an expert in free-sparring against 'live, resisting opponents', the kendoka would have it made, right???

When the entire world disagrees with you, why ask the question if you don't want to consider "the popular beliefs of today"??

I hope this doesn't sound like a personal attack. I actually find the subject at hand fascinating and would welcome further discussion from our resident historical gurus (Dr.'s Friday and Bodiford, for instance) on the extent of sparring type training among medieval Japanese.

I just think perhaps you could be a bit more accepting of what is a commonly accepted (not just by amateurs, but by japanese historians who have spent their lives researching 'Ye Olde Japan'.) version of history. Especially when you're then one asking for people's opinions.

David: "The fighting record of Japanese swordsmen argues that they probably had some kind of free-sparring in their curriculum." "The crux of my argument is that free-sparring is essential to developing functional combative skills, regardless of what one's system is. It does not matter that I am not an exponent of JSA; there are universal principles that apply to all arts."

Why didn't you qualify your first post by saying this is your stance, and you'd argue with anyone who provided an alternative opinion? Seems like the perfect kindling for a good "Free-Sparring vs. Kata" type fire, if ever I saw it.

Regards,
Brendan

Nanban Bushi

4th August 2004, 13:42

Originally posted by Finny
David (I hope you dont mind me calling you David), I think it's a bit rich for you to start this thread, and then get all indignant when people become tired of you refusing to accept other people's opinions.

You say you began this stread in an effort to hear the opinions of others more knowlegable about the koryu, with regards to the existance of free-sparring before the turn of the twentieth century.

You say to Chris "I didn't start that debate" re. the kata vs. free-sparring issue.

I'd argue you did.

You began a thread titled and structured almost word for word identically to this one six months ago on swordforum.com.

Find that thread here: http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26126&highlight=free+sparring

Hello Brendan (hope it's cool if I call you Brendan),

I have never denied that I consider free-sparring to be an essential component--obviously, I stressed it ad nauseam on that SFI thread, and I have stated that here as well.

However, I realize that my approach to the discussion was a flawed one, on the SFI thread in question. The discussion ended up panning out in a particular way, due largely to what (and how) I posted--JSA folks reacted as anyone else would have--and in the end, I was disappointed.

Still, the issue of the possiblity of free-sparring in Japanese weapon arts prior to the 19th century continues to intgrigue me, despite the admittedly botched thread on SFI. When I first came to E-Budo (to inquire about some historical points regarding judo), I saw that this site was set up much like Swordforum, and appeared to be very comprehensive. I therefore decided to attempt to ask the same question regarding the history of free-sparring use in JSA, but without trying to infuse my personal opinions regarding that subject.

I think if one compares the SFI thread with this thread, one can see the obvious difference. The only person on this thread who seemed to take exception to my inquiry was cxt/Chris, and the only reason I became "indignant" was due to his continuing condescension, obnoxiousness, and (I assume) deliberate misquoting of me. Again, I invite anyone to re-read this thread, and compare it with the SFI thread--the topic is the same, but the approach is totally different. I was certainly in error on the SFI thread, but I think it is clear that cxt/Chris was in error here.

I was also angered by the fact that it appeared as if this thread was going to head in the same direction as the SFI thread, despite all my efforts to prevent that from happening.

Again, I realize my approach was wrong on the SFI thread. I am also aware that I ran the risk of folks recalling that thread (and judging me based on that thread), since there are many people who post on both sites (Renfield and Hyaku, for example). I chose to give it a shot anyway.

If anyone feels that I had any sort of "ulterior motives" regarding this thread (as cxt/Chris obviously did), I want to state right here and now that I most certainly did not. That was not my intention whatsoever. I learned a great deal from the SFI fiasco, and I never want to have a repeat of that.

Cxt/Chris has apologized to me numerous times now; I was reluctant to initially accept, as it didn't sound sincere (though such things are admittedly difficult to gauge online), but his last post sounded different. I am now willing to accept cxt/Chris's apology, as well as offer one of my own--ie., I'm sorry if anyone took this thread the wrong way (that is, as a repeat of the SFI thread). I'm simply trying to find out more about the free-sparring issue, as it applies to JSA. And Brendan, as a goodwill gesture, I'd be willing to offer an apology on SFI's JSA Forum too, if you think it would help in any way.

I would still like to discuss the original question. We come from different MA/CS backgrounds, and obviously have different ideas regarding training methodology, but Dr. Bodiford's statements are too compelling for any of us to ignore, IMO. In addition, I was told that Hunter Armstrong once mentioned the use of free-play in JSA, prior to the 19th century--does anyone know anything more about that?

For the sake of our common, collective knowledge, I implore you all to continue with this discussion/debate.

Best Regards,

David

Nanban Bushi

4th August 2004, 13:47

Cxt/Chris,

Originally posted by cxt
Charles

You have a point.

However, still take exception to the nature of the questions.

As far as I am concerned he did exactly what I mentioned. Both in tone, the questions themselves etc.

Certainly not trying to speak for eveyone here--just explaining how I took it.

Again, Chris, that was not my intention at all.

His entire line of questioning and argumentive points are solidly grounded in western models of swordplay.

Western and Filipino models, actually.

In additon I made several attempts to say I was sorry for offending him.

An offer he did not extend to me.

I just explained my reservations in my post to Brendan.

But if I did mis-understand--happy to offer yet another "I'm sorry"

Thank you--and likewise.

Peace,

David

George Kohler

4th August 2004, 13:50

Did it [Weapons free-play in classical JMA] exist in any form, prior to the 18th or 19th century?

Let's stick to answering the original question. We have plenty of threads here on E-Budo about the sparring/kata argument. Don't make me close this down.

Nanban Bushi

4th August 2004, 13:57

Originally posted by Finny

David: "The fighting record of Japanese swordsmen argues that they probably had some kind of free-sparring in their curriculum." "The crux of my argument is that free-sparring is essential to developing functional combative skills, regardless of what one's system is. It does not matter that I am not an exponent of JSA; there are universal principles that apply to all arts."

Why didn't you qualify your first post by saying this is your stance, and you'd argue with anyone who provided an alternative opinion? Seems like the perfect kindling for a good "Free-Sparring vs. Kata" type fire, if ever I saw it.

Brendan,

Perhaps I should have stated that, but I refrained from doing so because I did not want this thread to be a "Free-sparring vs. Kata" debate--I simply wanted to know more about the history of free-sparring within JSA itself, which is something I think we can discuss without letting our personal views on the subject get in the way. However, if anyone here wants to discuss the relative merits of different training approaches, and how they relate to Japanese MA history, I have no problem with that. I am actually quite intrigued by Renfield's and Hyaku's clarifications, as to how sword katas are utilized, and I would like to know more about that.

I don't study a Japanese martial art, but I do study Japanese military history, and so I'd like to think that we do still have some common ground here.

Peace,

David

Nanban Bushi

4th August 2004, 13:59

Originally posted by George Kohler
Let's stick to answering the original question. We have plenty of threads here on E-Budo about the sparring/kata argument. Don't make me close this down.

George, I don't want that to happen--I've done everything I can to salvage this thread!

:( :p

cxt

4th August 2004, 13:59

Ye Olde

Ok, maybe this one is my fault--I was less than clear.

I am NOT and was NOT argueing historical western sword schools.

Only current practice.

Which for my money is so signifiactly different from what was done "back in the day" as to make comparision problematic at best.

Feel the same way about the eastern art of kendo.

Its not personal, its performance.

Not questioning that historical western sword schools used "free play"

I am questioning if that it was an "empahsis" because as far as I know.

A-It was only ONE of a number things they did--as list which includes extensive 2-person drills, solo work on specific pattrens of lunges, parries, footwork, etc (which for my money could be considered a form of kata) a sort of target work. etc.

B-We really don't know what folks spent more time on.

As I said it probably varied from school to school, master to master.
period to period.

What we know of the Japanese method would indicate that kata was the primary means of instruction--again amoung other methods, such as solo practice, target work, drills, etc.

NOT saying one is beter than the other, I AM saying that the question is not clear cut as it might seem.

Chris Thomas

cxt

4th August 2004, 14:11

George

In specific answer to the above question.

I would have to say no.

It does not appear that "free play" as we would view it, formed much of a part of classicial Japanese methods of instruction.

The information we have, from the oldest of schools, tends to indicate that "free play" was just not a major focus.

I think that the nature of the Japanse sword played a part, the early schools were focused on battlefield combat and the katana was primarly a cutting weapon--a fairly substantial one.

So they really did not have a "safe" option for free-play--they bokken, safer than a "live blade" was still very, very, dangerous--lethal in fact.

The Yagyu's developled a "safer" version--still not "safe" enough to be used for "free play."

Then you have the nature of kata--which would take far more time and space than I have to discuss right now.

Personally I see kata as being much closer to "free play" in terms of skill development.

I aslo consider it possible that "people being people" there may have been more "free play" than we think.

But the bottom line is that simply is not the method that was primarly used for the training of JApanese warriors.

Its worth pointing out that kata was used to train, swordsmen, spearmen, naganata users, pretty much EVERY form of fighting including firearms.

Its a fundamental part of JMA.

Chris Thomas

Nanban Bushi

4th August 2004, 14:27

Chris,

Originally posted by cxt

Its worth pointing out that kata was used to train, swordsmen, spearmen, naganata users, pretty much EVERY form of fighting including firearms.

Its a fundamental part of JMA.

The same can be said of virtually any martial art--drill (for that is what a kata is, no?) is essential.

But, it's also only part of the equation.

Dr. Bodiford's post I quoted from that old thread suggests that, as in any other culture, fighting arts went thru distinct phases. The difference between the "rural fencers" and their city-bred counterparts could be compared to the "plowmen" and other rustics of Renaissance England, and their social betters, who often trained in a very different manner.

Take for example, what the Elizabethan swordmaster George Silver said about this, in 1599:

Whereby it grew to a common speech among the countrymen "Bring me to a fencer, I will bring him out of his fence tricks with down right blows. I will make him forget his fence tricks, I will warrant him."

Silver suggests that the plebian swordsmen of his day had no problem dealing with "school-trained" nobles, because the former trained more realistically overall. This seems to parallel the situation in 19th century Japan, as described by Dr. Bodiford.

Thoughts?

Peace,

David

Guy LeSieur

4th August 2004, 14:54

Hear, Hear! M. Finn

cxt

4th August 2004, 15:20

nanban

But see now your mixing your examples.

And drawing conclusions that may not be supported by the evidence.

1st On the JMA question even if Dr. B quote should be taken as is--it does not rule out that the "rual fencers" DID NOT TRAIN IN KATA-that may well have been the base of ALL their training.

There is no record OF ANY JMA school that did not use kata as its training base.

So even if taken at face value (a debatable point at best) it just to weak a reed to lean a case on.

Too much we don't know about the titular "rual swordsmen" and too much we do know about period JMA practice.

To your latest example.

It could also be accurately stated that many of the "plebies" mightr just ahev had more overall fighting experinece thatn did some courtier.

Might not have had anything at all to do with training methods.

You could also argue that the "court" fencers trained with the duel in mind-a much more regulated fighting enviorment than they were used to.

Also could argue the weapons might just be different as well--as I recall the chances of a "plebie" owning a fine rapier is rare--maybe they are talking about useing a heavy weapon vs a much lighter one.

Also I am not sure that you can take a line from a record--no matter who writes it--and take it at face value.

You could equally quote english fencers as to how the use of the point is much inferior to the use cut---and I can show any number of quotes that back that up.

Does not mean that its 100% right.

So I overall I think that not as solid as comparison as it looks.

Back the JMA

There is really no record of the the actual success mentoned in Dr. B quote of the "rual swordsmen" (least don't remember it) so we really don't know how good they really were or whom they might have defeated.

So its kinda nebulous to be drawing conclusions from either statement.

Seriously not trying to be a pain.

Chris Thomas

cxt

4th August 2004, 15:47

Nanban

Sorry to jump back in here.

But I was just taken to task for my last post by a buddy of mine.

I forgot to include something he felt needed.

Seems that many schools of JMA were considered "rual" to begain with.

Most of Japan at the time was rual--outside of the major cities the whole country was rual.

Again back to the Yagyus, seems the "original" line was a "rual" traditon to start with and its major branch remained so for much of its history.

So there is no way to tell from Dr. B's quote what the "rual" swordsmen practiced--it may well have been extremly traditional just not a "city" school.

Or it could have been a rual branch of a "city" school--the Yagyus had at least one or more "city based" (as in the then capitol based) branch schools under a different master and seperate line of descent.

So the use of the term "rual" may not be indicitive of anything substative.

Chris Thomas

Nanban Bushi

4th August 2004, 15:48

Chris,

Originally posted by cxt
nanban

If you prefer to call me by my username, that's fine--but you can refer to me by my real name too.

But see now your mixing your examples.

And drawing conclusions that may not be supported by the evidence.

1st On the JMA question even if Dr. B quote should be taken as is--it does not rule out that the "rual fencers" DID NOT TRAIN IN KATA-that may well have been the base of ALL their training.

I'm not saying that the "rural fencers" didn't train in kata--I'm certain they did--but Dr. Bodiford's post suggests that the "rural fencers" also capitalized on some sort of free-play, wheras their cosmopolitan opponents did not.

Again, for the record, my opinion on the training issue is that both drilling (kata, etc) AND sparring (randori, "loose play", etc) are essential.

There is no record OF ANY JMA school that did not use kata as its training base.

That depends on one's definition of "training base".

Kata is useful on several levels--it's how body mechanics are taught to the student, and it is also how a given set of techniques are preserved, like a "living catalog", so to speak.

However, that doesn't mean that it was/is the only essential element.

So even if taken at face value (a debatable point at best) it just to weak a reed to lean a case on.

Too much we don't know about the titular "rual swordsmen" and too much we do know about period JMA practice.

And how much do we know about that period practice?

To your latest example.

It could also be accurately stated that many of the "plebies" mightr just ahev had more overall fighting experinece thatn did some courtier.

Definitely--and admittedly, the same could apply to those Japanese "rural fencers".

Might not have had anything at all to do with training methods.

You could also argue that the "court" fencers trained with the duel in mind-a much more regulated fighting enviorment than they were used to.

Amberger has written about that.

Also could argue the weapons might just be different as well--as I recall the chances of a "plebie" owning a fine rapier is rare--maybe they are talking about useing a heavy weapon vs a much lighter one.

FWIW, the "short sword" (broadsword) of the English and the rapier of that time were of similar weight--if anything, there were actually some examples of rapiers (which were often very long) which are heavier than their cut-and-thrust counterparts.

Also I am not sure that you can take a line from a record--no matter who writes it--and take it at face value.

But can we ignore it outright? Silver criticised the "gentle play" used in some schools, although it's unclear as to what exactly he was referrring to.

You could equally quote english fencers as to how the use of the point is much inferior to the use cut---and I can show any number of quotes that back that up.

I can honestly think of only one--Silver--and while he made an excellent case for the damage that cuts can do, he still also stressed that both cuts AND thrusts are needed. He argued for cuts to be used in rapier practice, and thrusts to be used in broadsword practice.

Does not mean that its 100% right.

Agreed.

So I overall I think that not as solid as comparison as it looks.

Fair enough--but I'm logging that comparison for future reference.

Back the JMA

There is really no record of the the actual success mentoned in Dr. B quote of the "rual swordsmen" (least don't remember it) so we really don't know how good they really were or whom they might have defeated.

But, Dr. Bodiford cited sources.

So its kinda nebulous to be drawing conclusions from either statement.

Seriously not trying to be a pain.

I know that now--it's cool.

Peace,

David

Nanban Bushi

4th August 2004, 15:54

Originally posted by cxt
Nanban

Sorry to jump back in here.

But I was just taken to task for my last post by a buddy of mine.

I forgot to include something he felt needed.

Seems that many schools of JMA were considered "rual" to begain with.

Most of Japan at the time was rual--outside of the major cities the whole country was rual.

Again back to the Yagyus, seems the "original" line was a "rual" traditon to start with and its major branch remained so for much of its history.

So there is no way to tell from Dr. B's quote what the "rual" swordsmen practiced--it may well have been extremly traditional just not a "city" school.

Or it could have been a rual branch of a "city" school--the Yagyus had at least one or more "city based" (as in the then capitol based) branch schools under a different master and seperate line of descent.

So the use of the term "rual" may not be indicitive of anything substative.

Chris Thomas

Chris,

But the fact remains that, the "rural fencers" were doing something different--something that enabled them to prevail over their opponents.

I think we should also consider what was practiced by the last folks to wield Japanese swords in earnest--WWII officers--they trained in both kenjutsu and kendo, did they not? I don't think that is mere coincidence.

On the "Clip Art" forum, there were some old pics of kendoists engaging in grappling, which looked very interesting, and it indicates that kendo has likewise gone thru phases.

Peace,

David

cxt

4th August 2004, 16:21

Nanban

I am useing your user name by way of avoiding confusion as to whom I am "speaking" or typeing too.

Your logged on as Nanban so its just easier to use that.

No disrespect meant.

Maybe this will help.

Dr. B's quote-

No names, no specific ryu, he did not know or at least did not include anything substantive about either group.

For that reason alone its suspect.

(This is comparable to an english rapierman haveing a match with an unkn swordsman, of unkn country (we don't know spanish school or italian school etc)
With unkn rules, with nothing known of the relative skill of the folks involved.
Then claming it as a "victory" for "english style" swordwork--thats way to nebulous to make that conclusion)

For all we know the "rual" group were experts and they matched with novice students.

We don't know how the conclusion was drawn that the rual group did free play and the city group did not.

We don't know HOW that conclusion was reached. We know he siad it but we don't know WHY.

Thats one interpratation, but its still a reach.

We know quite a bit more about period practice in JMA than we do about western methods.

And what we know is that kata was used by pretty much everyone regardless of "style" or weapon used.

So even if "free-play" played a role--it just does not seem to be focused on as much.

I see this as a mis-understanding as to how kata is done when coampred to "free play."

We also do NOT know anything about the particulars about the matchs themselves.

If it was to the death duels--then that probably would have been recorded, that there was no mention of guys killed leads to me think it might very well have been a "sport" match.

An arguable interprataion.

Since I would argue that the skills needed to win a heavily regulated sport match such as kendo, are NOT the skills needed to when a match with live blades--the point is not really what you conclude it to be.

More on your last posts.

Your missing the point--or trying to do what is called mudding the waters.

The differnce in the weight and handleing of a rapier and broadsword is vast.

Rapier are not "of similar weight" unless your defineing "similar" much more broadly than is standard.

Not suggesting that "we ignore (Silver) outright"

Am suggesting that given the nature of quoteing dead men, who penned lines 100's of years in the past--and can't be questioned as to what and why they wrote what they did.

So what I AM suggesting is a a grain of salt in drawing conclusions.

Again, if your argueing Silver as a "according ot Hoyle" source then you must also accept ALL of his claims--ie. the cut is superiour the thrust.

And as we well know that idea was a hotly debated topic amoung master of Silver days and today.

Either way you cut it, Silver is just not an empirical source, at best its questionable.

Please cite Dr. B's sources. That might clear some of this up.

More to the point, when speaking of kendo and kenjutsu, any number of kendo teachers--including the folks that trained the WW11 swordmen have taken great pains to point out that kendo does not provide the training needed to use a live blade in combat.

That the skills developed were specifically designed as a method of training for SPORT match. Not combat.

The manner of use of the kendo shinai simply is not possible with a bokken or live blade.

In addition kendo was specifically designed NOT to get you hurt--the target areas of kendo are areas that pretty well protedced by a swordsman in armor.

Most classical ryu focused their cuts quite specfically where the armor was NOT--such as the thumb cut in Yagyu ryu and the underside of the wrist in Katoru ryu.

So no, your kendo example does not hold up.

Just an FYI that topic has been run into the ground as well--the Kendo vs Kenjutsu debate I mean.

Been argued for years, with the kenjutsu side pretty much winning.

Chris Thomas

Nanban Bushi

4th August 2004, 16:35

Originally posted by renfield_kuroda
There seems to be this perpetual misunderstanding of what kata are and how practicing kata is done in an increasing difficult and free way.
The basic moves of a kata, say a two-man pattern, are pretty much set. He cuts, I counter, he counters, I counter and win or something like that.
And it's practiced like that for a long, long time.
And then it gets harder: the timing changes, the targets change, the 'victim' aggresively tries to control the centerline, cuts are no longer stopped just before contact, but are carried through with full intent, and sometimes the kata changes in the middle...
And sometimes you end up like this:
http://renfield.net/blogged/2004/08/ouch.html
A fairly minor bonk on the head, actually. That was when I was shidachi -- I was supposed to win -- but uchidachi came in faster than I could counter, I backed off more than is usual but still couldn't clear, and he connected nicely with my temple.

So when I hear "free play" or "sparring" or "that stuff they do with wooden swords in The Last Samurai" the answer is yes: kata.
Do not let the fact that it is a series of set moves fool you into thinking there is no freedom to play.
It has been stated before, but I believe the concept of "kata" as it exists in koryu does not really make any sense to anyone not actively involved in a koryu. Sorry if that sounds like a cop-out on my part in attempting to explain, but all the words in the world still wouldn't give you a working definition. You have train it and live it to understand, so please take my word for it; there is plenty of free-play in koryu, and it works just fine for training, thanks.

Regards,

r e n

***

Originally posted by hyaku
The fact that we know what they are going to do allows us to deal with it and not injure them. But moves are so quick its difficult to add a high percentage to an attack one sometimes concentrate more on avoiding.

Protective equipment and mock weapons or both allow us a sense of freedom that can without doubt become too free if taken lightly. That's when we can afford to feint whatever and try things out. But do tryouts dont help us win the day? Isnt its the techniques we have commited to memory, the ones we can do subconciously that usually win.

Guys,

OK, I find the particulars of JSA katas interesting, based on what you have posted above. I can see that the variation on timing, etc., can "free" things up a bit. Thowing in an unfamiliar move in the middle of the play will certainly test one's skill too.

But (and correct me if I'm wrong here), you're still dealing primarily with a specific set of moves, which is still a very far cry from dealing with an opponent where you have no idea what attack he's going to launch (aside from what one can gather by observing the fighter's guard, movement, etc). This is what concerns me with the "pro-kata-only" argument.

In addition, it appears (based on your descriptions) that the kata are geared towards dealing with similar weapons and/or modes of combat--do any kata exist, for example, which pit the kenjutsuka against an opponent armed with a Chinese dao and rattan shield, or a Korean flail?

Thanks,

David

cxt

4th August 2004, 17:06

Nanban

But thats my exact point on currrent trends in "free play"

You don't train to defend vs ANY weapon but a copy of the one your useing.

More to that point, you didn't have classical rapier guys training vs the flail either.

So thats a non-point.

Classical JMA trained in sword vs spear, naginata, chain, various other weapons.

More pointedly (yes thats pun) I don't really consider it "free play" when you only train in a heavily regulated enviorment where your oppt MUST strike ONLY specifc targets.

To quote you:

"Your dealing with a specific set of moves, which is a far cry from dealing with an oppt where you have no idea what attack he is going to launch"

Ok, I'll bite, so standing on the strip, facing an oppnt I have NO idea what he goign to do?

Or would it more accurate to say that I know for a fact that ther are any number of things he WON'T DO.

He is NOT going to stab me in the face.

I know he or she he is NOT going to grab my wrist, trip me and then stab me.

I know he is NOT going to stab me in the calf or the groin.

I know he is NOT going "tie me up" and punch me in the face with the guard.

I know they will not pull a dagger.

I know he he or she is going to fight me pretty much like I am going to fight him.

He will be trying to hit the same limited number of target areas I will aiming for.

Use the foil in pretty much the same manner and follow the pretty much the same rules and behaviors as I do.

And Amberger works (with other) are pretty quick to both illustrate this and to show how that can be deadly.

I just don't see that as being "really" free play.

Thus I don't think its an accurate "apples to apples" way to compare and contrast them.

This IS NOT some indictemnt of western methods.

No method is perfect, each devloped due to specifc enviroments and for specific reasons.

Chris Thomas

Ellis Amdur

4th August 2004, 20:24

There is no ryu that did not have kata as the primary training base. Some included sparring components - but kata was still the gold standard (Renfield K.'s post describes kata training at the higher levels wonderfully well).

Free-style training was endemic. It was called shiai/dojo-arashi/dojo-yaburi/as well as vendetta, duels, etc. When young bushi wanted to test themselves they "free-sparred" with opponents from OTHER schools. This was regulated by many laws, but much as France several hundred years ago, the regulation controlled chaos rather than eliminated the practice.

Best

Ye Olde Lunatic

5th August 2004, 02:34

Renfield_kuroda

"Kata", at its highest levels, is NOT a set of predetermined moves. Uchidachi is actively trying to win, Shidachi is actively trying to win. The moves (attacks and defenses and counters) are done in such a way so that, given the proper attack, the only reasonably defense/counter is the one as determined by the kata. Remember, the kata is teaching you how move within the theories of a given sword style. Some styles do A in response to X, some do B. So style 1's kata goes X->A, whereas style 2's kata goes X->B.

That is an excellent post and description. Thank you. It would seem that the formula you are describing is not so different after all. In boxing, fencing and even wrestling one is expected to defend against specific attacks with an appropriate defense. Oftentimes there are numerous ways to defend a single, specific attack.

So the opponents moves are not predictable nor is the opponent not fully resisting, thus at high levels, even with bokken, hundreds of years ago and even to this day, people get hurt. Alot.

So, in essence, is the highest level of classical kenjutsu kata pretty much the same as free sparring? It seems so according to your description. If not, where in lies the difference?

Unfortunately, in this day and age, most people who do kata are, as Niina-gosoke tells it, "just dancing".

I think that is a lot of the kenjutsu kata I have seen. This seems even more prevalent in the unarmed arts. It would seem that few classical unarmed schools these days (at least in my area) are training realistically.

So what we do now is NOT what they did 200 years ago...but what they did 200 years ago is not what they did 400 years ago. The key is, is the ryu evolving the same way, or was it fairly static for centuries and then, all of a sudden in modern times, it all went to hell?

That is what I would like to know with some certainty, although it does seem impossible to know for sure. What is your opinion on it?

Thanks for your post. It was very informative.

Ye Olde Lunatic

5th August 2004, 03:05

cxt,

I am NOT and was NOT argueing historical western sword schools. Only current practice. Which for my money is so signifiactly different from what was done "back in the day" as to make comparision problematic at best.

I understand, and I actually agree with you. I have received some flak for voicing that opinion on some SFI threads. I argued that there is no way of knowing how close any reconstruction is to the real thing. Some European manuals had concise, cryptic text, with no pictures, and I got the impression that some people believed that what they reconstructed from those manuals was pretty close to the original combat art. Some manuals are easier to interpret than others, and there are some techniques that are fairly rudimentary, and seemingly obvious. But yes, I agree with your statement that much of the European reconstructions are probably off from the real thing. We can only surmise.

Not questioning that historical western sword schools used "free play". I am questioning if that it was an "empahsis" because as far as I know.

A-It was only ONE of a number things they did--as list which includes extensive 2-person drills, solo work on specific pattrens of lunges, parries, footwork, etc (which for my money could be considered a form of kata) a sort of target work. etc.

B-We really don't know what folks spent more time on.

I still think that bouting was a fairly prominent form of training given the history and the evidence. But, I thought you were arguing that it was probably rarely done. I understand your stance now. Nothing wrong with a cautious view on the matter.

As I said it probably varied from school to school, master to master.

I would agree with that. Especially considering that the 16th century weapons master, George Silver, complained that there were Italian rapier schools opening up in England that were not training realistically. Apparently he was a big proponent of free-play. As I mentioned before, he argued that many schools failed to used grappling, pommel strikes and other realistic techniques in their training.

What we know of the Japanese method would indicate that kata was the primary means of instruction--again amoung other methods, such as solo practice, target work, drills, etc.

Does any of this information come from pre-19th century scrolls? How certain are the scholars regarding the training methods of the past?

NOT saying one is beter than the other, I AM saying that the question is not clear cut as it might seem

I understand. I am sorry for any confusion on the matter, my intention was not to come on here and offend. If you I came off that way, I apologize. Things seem to be cleared up now. Hopefully we can continue this thread in constructive manner.

Mekugi

5th August 2004, 04:20

Originally posted by wmuromoto

That most present day koryu jujutsu schools don't emphasize randori and contests is probably due to the success of Kodokan judo as a national sport. If it works, and works so well and broadly, why set up splinter groups? ...Just focus on kata geiko if you want to do koryu and if you really want to do randori and shiai, join a judo club. In fact, I visited the Hontai Yoshin-ryu jujutsu school once a long time ago. The younger Inoue sensei taught the system with his father, the soke, and on alternate days, as a judo godan he taught Kodokan judo. --No big deal to him. Each served a purpose.

Wayne Muromoto

Incidentally, Tenjin Shinyo Ryu seems to retain some sort of randori in it's curriculum- seemingly a little rougher than Kodokan Judo. I do not know how one may have influenced the other; maybe Steve Delaney can explain this better when he gets back from the UK.

Nanban Bushi

5th August 2004, 11:30

Chris,

Originally posted by cxt
Nanban

But thats my exact point on currrent trends in "free play"

You don't train to defend vs ANY weapon but a copy of the one your useing.

But the fact that the play is comparatively free makes up for that.

More to that point, you didn't have classical rapier guys training vs the flail either.

So thats a non-point.

Come on now, Chris--I think you know better than that! :)

The rapier (rappir) against the flail (pflegel) may be seen in Jakob Sutor's New Kunstliches Fechtbuch of 1612.

Despite the fact that the rapier was primarily intended as a civilian weapon for use in the duel and personal self-defense, it sometimes had to be used against other weapons (especially in the latter scenario). In addition, rapiers were sometimes taken into battle, although most experts advised against this (see Sir John Smythe's Certain Discourses Military of 1590). Girard Thibault, in his famous Academie de l'espee of 1630, pitted the rapier against the two-handed sword. Luis Pacheco de Narvaez, in his treatise on the destreza from 1600, showed the rapier opposed to the Turkish kilij ("scimitar"). Miguel Perez de Mendoza showed the same thing, in his Resumen de la verdadera destreza de las armas of 1675. In 1686, Francesco Antonio Marcelli showed rapier (spada) vs. saber (sciabla).

This mixing of weapons was probably a carryover from earlier sword traditions, where a variety of military weapons were used against each other. Silver spoke of the "vantages" that various weapons had against each other, Marozzo showed the two-handed sword's utility against polearms, etc.

And, even well into the age of the smallsword, this trend continued. Donald McBane, in his classic Expert Swordman's Companion wrote about how to use the smallsword against the broadsword, the backsword, the shearing sword (spadroon), the long Spanish cup-hilt rapier, etc. He also gave advice on how to use the broadsword and shearing sword against the smallsword. French smallsword masters often gave advice on how to deal with ethnospecific guards, like that of the Italian smallsword, the German smallsword, and the Spanish rapier. In Fencing Familiarized, or, A New Treatise on the Art of the Scotch Broad Sword, Thomas Matthewson pitted the broadsword against the pike and bayonet.

So with all due respect, I'd say you're wrong on that supposed "non-point".

Classical JMA trained in sword vs spear, naginata, chain, various other weapons.

I've seen stuff like that, yes.

More pointedly (yes thats pun) I don't really consider it "free play" when you only train in a heavily regulated enviorment where your oppt MUST strike ONLY specifc targets.

But that's exactly what your doing in the kata, even as described by Renfield and others.

To quote you:

"Your dealing with a specific set of moves, which is a far cry from dealing with an oppt where you have no idea what attack he is going to launch"

Ok, I'll bite, so standing on the strip, facing an oppnt I have NO idea what he goign to do?

Or would it more accurate to say that I know for a fact that ther are any number of things he WON'T DO.

He is NOT going to stab me in the face.

Only if it's foil.

I know he or she he is NOT going to grab my wrist, trip me and then stab me.

I know he is NOT going to stab me in the calf or the groin.

I know he is NOT going "tie me up" and punch me in the face with the guard.

I know they will not pull a dagger.

I know he he or she is going to fight me pretty much like I am going to fight him.

He will be trying to hit the same limited number of target areas I will aiming for.

Use the foil in pretty much the same manner and follow the pretty much the same rules and behaviors as I do.

And Amberger works (with other) are pretty quick to both illustrate this and to show how that can be deadly.

I just don't see that as being "really" free play.

It's certainly still more "free" than the kata on a certain level, IMO.

Thus I don't think its an accurate "apples to apples" way to compare and contrast them.

This IS NOT some indictemnt of western methods.

Likewise, I am not condemning Japanese methods.

No method is perfect, each devloped due to specifc enviroments and for specific reasons.

Agreed--and I must say that I do at least have a better understanding of kata as it applies to JSA, than I ever have before.

Peace,

David

Nanban Bushi

5th August 2004, 11:35

Originally posted by Mekugi
Incidentally, Tenjin Shinyo Ryu seems to retain some sort of randori in it's curriculum- seemingly a little rougher than Kodokan Judo. I do not know how one may have influenced the other; maybe Steve Delaney can explain this better when he gets back from the UK.

Mekugi,

The Tenjin Shinyo Ryu was Kano's original jujutsu style, so there was certainly an influence on judo there.

Peace,

David

Nanban Bushi

5th August 2004, 11:46

Chris,

You mentioned that you feel that modern sport fencing has no combative application; I mentioned that that has not been reflected in my own MA experience, as well as that of others. Since you seem to be unwilling to consider my opinion on the matter, here's an interview with Ray Floro, from the Realfighting.com site:

http://www.realfighting.com/issue7/floroframe.html

I think we should all consider Ray's opinions seriously, as he happened to train under a man who was arguably one of the last "real" swordsmen (ie., someone who skillfully fought and killed enemies with a sword) of the 20th century, the late GM Antonio Ilustrisimo. Ray Floro finds much merit and application in modern fencing.

Peace,

David

Nanban Bushi

5th August 2004, 11:48

Folks,

What is the earliest documented use of the practice yari with the padded tip?

Thanks,

David

renfield_kuroda

5th August 2004, 16:18

Quoting from various posts is a pain, so I'll do my best to sum up and answer what I can.

Lesse, this week I did sword versus:
sword, tessen, jutte, kusarigama, and kodachi.
So yeah, we train with all kinds of weapons, and boy nothing messes with your maai like a 4 meter chain.
I did techniques including: parry and counter, hip throw, aikido-like arm bar and takedown, flying headbutt, throat smash, kick to the balls, and step-on-foot-pin-wrist-smash-backbone-with-iron-weight.
So even within the limits of the kata, there are many, MANY kata.

As Ellis said, the main purpose of kata was to familiarize you with the essence of the ryu; the strategies and techniques that make one ryu different from another. So for example in Mugairyu, we always cut gyakukesa from the draw against an opponent who has already drawn his sword, and/or is on the right...until of course the advanced levels, where one does the 'secret' techniques, because naturally everyone KNOWS that Mugairyu always cuts up and to the right in certain situations, so to counter what the opponent thinks he knows, and knowing what we know about school XYZ, the advanced technique is...well I can't tell you but you get the idea.
So when doing kata, first you're just dancing; playing back and forth to familiarize yourself with the essential techniques of your school. At advanced levels, strategy becomes important, specifically targeting and timing.
But given all that, there are really only a certain number of things you can do effectively with a given weapon against a given opponent. If I have a katana, and you have a katana, and I am in hasso, and you are in jodan, you CAN try to attack my anywhere below my waist, but it is basically inconceivable that you'd succeed before I embedded my blade in your skull. In fact, my left wrist is probably looking tasty, especially since I'm holding it so far away from my body...but then again you KNOW it's a trick, a ploy my school uses to get you to lower your sword...but it's SO tempting, and if you use your school's secret 'stepless' technique to close the gap so quickly you probably CAN cut my wrist before I can react...but you don't know that I know the counter to your secret move, and as you close so quickly to cut my wrist, I LOWER my kissaki, and cut up into your chin from below, dropping my center of gravity, which pulls my wrist JUST out of your reach...
Yes there is a kata for this, and when done correctly it's magical, and when done badly fingers get smashed and temples bonked horribly. And of course uchi can just screw it all and go for a nice head shot, too. But it is really quite stupid to practice from that position a cut to the leg. Remember this is training for BOTH participants, and to allow uchi to do random, stupid things doesn't help prepare shidachi for a 'real' opponent (well ok maybe it helps prepare against a really stupid opponent) and it doesn't help uchi prepare either.
So yes there are 'limits' on kata, at first many, but at advanced levels only within the bounds of reason.
There are also several ways of practicing kata; sundome (no contact), sunate (minimal contact), and at advanced levels "if-you-get-hit-it's-your-fault."

Then again, and as you have experienced, MOST schools these days hardly ever get past the dancing stage.

Regards,

r e n

cxt

5th August 2004, 21:24

Nanban

Speaking personally I have not found that the modern/current methods of fenceing have much if any "carry over" to more robust combatives.

Again I can only speak for myself, in the limited area of saber.

But I have found that the methods, use of the blade, the footwork, the body mech, etc.

Simply did not allow me ( or anyone else in the classes) to effecively use a "real" saber.

In fact I would go so far as to say that it was harmful--all the 1000s of hours or work on the "sport" appraoch had established patterns of response and "reflex" (for lack of a better term) that proved disasterious when "real" (blunted but of real weight and handleing) weapons and far less "sport" based level of play was undertaken.

Can't speak for everyone, just for me--and for me, that experiment left a deep distrust of modern "free play" as being at all useful for "real" fights.

But a concussion and some stichs would tend to do that to you.

So no, I don't agree with you on that score.

Just so you know, I have not had the same set of problems with the JMA methods.

But I am perfectly willing to concede that others have.

Like I said no method is perfect, each has its strengths and its weakness.

Again your mudding the waters.

You have a single example of a rapier vs flail--from one author--that does not an argument make.

Since you used the examples of a Chines Dao, in your question ertaining to katana--do YOU have an example of rapier vs Chinese Dao?

The examples of rapier vs 2 handed sword and saber and scimter only reinforce my orignal point that you train vs weapons your likly to encounter--and even that is far, far, far back in current western fenceings history.

Today you match ONLY with the same weapon vs the same weapon.

Where in current kenjutsu you are still training vs common Japense period weapons.

So that goes my way--either way you cut it.

More to the point my example of target area does apply to the foil.

BUT, and this is a big one, each of the three weapons also has a very specific rules, everything I said about foil fits to the other two.

Again, goes my way.

Plus still think Dr. Bs quote needs more support, you and I still know nothing of the match.

As I said, taking it as is, would be the logical equvilent of reporting a unkn match with unkn folks with ukwn rules with folks of unkn skill levels then claming it a "victory" for whatever style of swrod you practice.

Simply does not pass the "sniff" test.

Chris Thomas

Nanban Bushi

6th August 2004, 10:34

Chris,

Originally posted by cxt
Nanban

Speaking personally I have not found that the modern/current methods of fenceing have much if any "carry over" to more robust combatives.

Again I can only speak for myself, in the limited area of saber.

But I have found that the methods, use of the blade, the footwork, the body mech, etc.

Simply did not allow me ( or anyone else in the classes) to effecively use a "real" saber.

In fact I would go so far as to say that it was harmful--all the 1000s of hours or work on the "sport" appraoch had established patterns of response and "reflex" (for lack of a better term) that proved disasterious when "real" (blunted but of real weight and handleing) weapons and far less "sport" based level of play was undertaken.

Can't speak for everyone, just for me--and for me, that experiment left a deep distrust of modern "free play" as being at all useful for "real" fights.

But a concussion and some stichs would tend to do that to you.

So no, I don't agree with you on that score.

That's fine. They have worked very well for me, as well as for many other folks.

Just so you know, I have not had the same set of problems with the JMA methods.

But I am perfectly willing to concede that others have.

Like I said no method is perfect, each has its strengths and its weakness.

No doubt.

Again your mudding the waters.

You have a single example of a rapier vs flail--from one author--that does not an argument make.

I'm not "mudding" anything, Chris--you claimed that:

Originally posted by cxt
More to that point, you didn't have classical rapier guys training vs the flail either.

And I provided a period example that shows otherwise. The use of the flail was not restricted to Asia. I went on to give 4 more period examples of the rapier being used against other weapons.

Since you used the examples of a Chines Dao, in your question ertaining to katana--do YOU have an example of rapier vs Chinese Dao?

No, I don't--and that wasn't my point anyway (see below).

The examples of rapier vs 2 handed sword and saber and scimter only reinforce my orignal point that you train vs weapons your likly to encounter

And that is precisely why I brought up the Korean flail, and the Chinese dao-and-rattan-shield combo--they are weapons that the samurai had to face from time to time. Expecially in the case of the latter, one would think that some sort of kata would have been developed (assuming that kata was--as is generally believed--the primary method of training), in order to teach Japanese warriors how to cope with a shield (since the Japanese generally didn't use such implements themselves).

--and even that is far, far, far back in current western fenceings history.

Considering the long history of European swordplay, the smallsword examples I gave aren't all that old. In addition, folks were still fighting saber vs. bayonet until only 130 years ago--perhaps even more recently.

Today you match ONLY with the same weapon vs the same weapon.

Where in current kenjutsu you are still training vs common Japense period weapons.

So that goes my way--either way you cut it.

Not really, since in fencing one is still using a comparatively free form of play.

More to the point my example of target area does apply to the foil.

BUT, and this is a big one, each of the three weapons also has a very specific rules, everything I said about foil fits to the other two.

Again, goes my way.

On the contrary, sir, everything you said about foil does not fit the other two, because of those "very specific rules".

So no, it does not go your way.

Look at the very first thing you mentioned:

Originally posted by cxt
Or would it more accurate to say that I know for a fact that ther are any number of things he WON'T DO.

He is NOT going to stab me in the face.

That only applies to foil, as the target is everything from the waist up in saber, and the entire body in epee.

In addition, we have your statement:

Originally posted by cxt

I know he is NOT going to stab me in the calf or the groin.

The issue of not getting hit in the calf applies to foil and saber, but not to epee. The issue of not getting hit in the groin applies only to saber.

Plus still think Dr. Bs quote needs more support, you and I still know nothing of the match.

As I said, taking it as is, would be the logical equvilent of reporting a unkn match with unkn folks with ukwn rules with folks of unkn skill levels then claming it a "victory" for whatever style of swrod you practice.

Simply does not pass the "sniff" test.

The info is apparently available:

"The basic data on which this assertion rests, was first published by Prof. Watanabe Ichiro, in his book: Bakumatsu Kanto Kenjutsu Eimeiroku no Kenkyu (Investigations of Kenjutsu Rosters in Eastern Japan at the End of the Tokugawa Period, 1967). This book contains detailed lists of competitions: dates, names, schools, styles, who won, who lost, etc."

Peace,

David

P.S. Everyone else--I want to address many of the other recent posts, and I will get to them as soon as I can. Limits on time have been the main factor here. Thanks.

Nanban Bushi

6th August 2004, 10:45

Originally posted by Ellis Amdur
There is no ryu that did not have kata as the primary training base. Some included sparring components - but kata was still the gold standard (Renfield K.'s post describes kata training at the higher levels wonderfully well).

Free-style training was endemic. It was called shiai/dojo-arashi/dojo-yaburi/as well as vendetta, duels, etc. When young bushi wanted to test themselves they "free-sparred" with opponents from OTHER schools. This was regulated by many laws, but much as France several hundred years ago, the regulation controlled chaos rather than eliminated the practice.

Best

Interesting post, Ellis. Perhaps you could answer my question regarding the introduction of the practice yari--ie., when was it introduced?

Thanks,

David

Mekugi

6th August 2004, 11:10

Not really his first. Mister Kano was a member of Kito ryu before TSR and I do believe he recieved his Menkyo in TSR after he formed Judo. Perhaps an anal retentive point, but there is a difference in the timeline.

Originally posted by Nanban Bushi
Mekugi,

The Tenjin Shinyo Ryu was Kano's original jujutsu style, so there was certainly an influence on judo there.

Peace,

David

Nanban Bushi

6th August 2004, 12:18

Originally posted by Mekugi
Not really his first. Mister Kano was a member of Kito ryu before TSR and I do believe he recieved his Menkyo in TSR after he formed Judo. Perhaps an anal retentive point, but there is a difference in the timeline.

Russ/Mekugi,

Check your sources again, bro.

Kano began training in the Tenshin Shinyo Ryu in 1877, and he didn't become a member of the Kito Ryu until 1881.

Peace,

David

cxt

6th August 2004, 13:36

Nanban

Dude, this is why these discussions get all nasty.

Your spinning. And you are either doing it on purpose, or you really don't know.

I try and explain how your spinning you just do more spin.

I mention that rapier was not trained vs flail--you present a SINGLE example of ONE manual that shows ONE illustration.

That only only shows that ONE guy in ONE rapier school in ONE location, IN ONE PERIOD OF TIME, MAY have traiend vs flail.

A-Unless you can show that it flail train was endemic to Italian, Spanish, English, French, etc rapier.

Then you lose-simple as that.

B-The other examples you gave were AGAIN, just more proof of my point that you only train vs wepaons your likly to meet.

C-Even if your right (whcih your not) what AGAIN, what was done "back in the day" has NO bearin gon CURRENT practice--Which is regulated to practice ONLY with saber vs saber, epee vs epee foil vs foil.

So you lose this one as well.

Your both incorrect AND mixing your time periods.

Your point in asking if kata exsited for the katana vs Chinese Dao.

They Chinese Dao was not really a weapon the Japanese had to face on any large scale--weapon just was not used much in mainland Japan.

Again non-point dressed up to look like a weakness of the JMA appraoch.

You present a weapon that has no specific kata vs it. Then ask a retorical question designed to make it appear a weakness.

When the weapon in question WAS NOT USED IN JAPAN--in ANY major sense.

More spin, I show how current "free play" is really anything BUT.

Its a heavily regulated sport--that is has very specific rules as to target area.

Your corect as far as you nit-picking goes in that the rules for the foil, epee, and saber are differnet.

BUT IT DOES NOT NEGATE THE FACT THAT RULES PREVENT TRUE "FREE PLAY"
to use your own quote.

"That only applies to the foils, as the target is everything from the waist up"

Yeah, so you CAN'T make ANY ATTACK below the waist in foil.

So what you REALLY saying is that I KNOW A FOIL IS NOT ATTACKING MY LEGS, GROIN etc.

How can it be true "free play" is there are KNOWN limts as to what my oppt can do and VERY specifc rules that stop them from doing specific things??

That just does not make sense.

As you, yourself say.

"The issue of not getting hit in the calf applies to foil and saber but not epee."

Ah, dude that EXACTLY MY POINT--its not "really" free play when you and your oppt are NOT "free' in what they can do.

Thanks for pointing that out so clearly.

Back to Dr. Bs quote.

If, as you say, and I quote.

"The info is apparently available"

Then please post it.

This is the quote you based your entire question around.

You should have all availabe infomation pertaining to it.

As I have asked multiple times now--with no response from you.

You have a quote involving unkn men, or unkn level of skill, from ukn ryu, with unkn methods of training (we don't know if they trained kata or not) in a match of unkn rules, with unkn results, unkn number of matchs, unkn how the information was gathered.

It just does not pass muster as a soild point.

Honestly not trying to hack you off.

You just are not dealing the questions and issue raised.

Chris Thomas

cxt

6th August 2004, 23:24

Nanban

In re-reading my post above I may used a tone that was harsher or more unfriendly than I intended.

I mean no disrespect or animus.

Just trying to get to the heart of what is and is not significante to the discussion.

Your points pertaining to the specifc rules and differences between saber, foil, and epee are correct--they are just largely irrelvent in terms of supporting your contentions.

And in a very real way illustrate my points exactly.

Chris Thomas

Nanban Bushi

7th August 2004, 00:29

Originally posted by cxt
Nanban

Dude, this is why these discussions get all nasty.

Your spinning. And you are either doing it on purpose, or you really don't know.

I try and explain how your spinning you just do more spin.

Okay, Chris--no offense, but I've just about had it with your nonsense.

For starters, it's very revealing how you describe how things can "get all nasty"--I've simply been presenting my case, and I can only surmise that you're having a difficult time debating with me, so then you get hostile. You've done it throughout this thread, aside from your first post and our all-too-brief truce.

I would like to remain civil towards you, but you're making it extremely difficult to do so. The nature of your posts suggests that you have no regard for anything I have said, and you're becoming condescending again.

I think you're simply getting PO'd because I have countered you time and again on this thread, despite the fact that you threatened to "shred" me in this debate/discussion. As I said, you started off like anyone else with your first post, but then became progressively dismissive, condescending, and obnoxious. Perhaps that's just how you deal with things when the debate doesn't go your way.

I mention that rapier was not trained vs flail--you present a SINGLE example of ONE manual that shows ONE illustration.

That only only shows that ONE guy in ONE rapier school in ONE location, IN ONE PERIOD OF TIME, MAY have traiend vs flail.

A-Unless you can show that it flail train was endemic to Italian, Spanish, English, French, etc rapier.

Then you lose-simple as that.

No.

You rashly claimed that rapier was not trained against flail, and I provided a PERIOD EXAMPLE to the contrary.

That means that you are wrong, and YOU lose.

Your bluster will not eradicate Sutor's 17th century manual, so just deal with it.

Simple as that.

Case closed.

B-The other examples you gave were AGAIN, just more proof of my point that you only train vs wepaons your likly to meet.

That's right, and the Continental Asian weapons I mentioned qualify.

Depending on the time period, the dao-and-shield is something that Japanese soldiers would have run into quite a bit.

C-Even if your right (whcih your not)

Why, because you say so? Gimme a break...

what AGAIN, what was done "back in the day" has NO bearin gon CURRENT practice--Which is regulated to practice ONLY with saber vs saber, epee vs epee foil vs foil.

There's enough "common ground" between the older material and the modern stuff, where functional adjustments can be re-introduced into the modern practice. It's pretty easy to do.

So you lose this one as well.

Your both incorrect AND mixing your time periods.

Not at all.

Your point in asking if kata exsited for the katana vs Chinese Dao.

They Chinese Dao was not really a weapon the Japanese had to face on any large scale--weapon just was not used much in mainland Japan.

But it was used on the Continent, and I'm sure that the troops in Hideyoshi's Army who fought against the Ming Chinese and Koreans from 1592-98 would disagree with your assement.

Indeed, they had to deal with daos-o-plenty.

And thus I cite another historical example. I'm still waiting for you to do the same.

Again non-point dressed up to look like a weakness of the JMA appraoch.

You present a weapon that has no specific kata vs it. Then ask a retorical question designed to make it appear a weakness.

I never said that the lack of a "katana vs. dao kata" was a "weakness"--what I was getting at, actually, is that the absence of such a kata might be an indicator that some sort of free-play was perhaps more common than is generally thought today.

When the weapon in question WAS NOT USED IN JAPAN--in ANY major sense.

But that does not mean that Japanese warriors didn't have to face it. The Japanese did fight elsewhere, as I'm sure you know. I already mentioned the Imjin War, and we also have cases of Japanese mercs fighting for the Dutch in the Spice Islands, in the early 17th century. In addition, there were also wako, who were active on the Korean and Chinese coasts, as well as in the Philippines.

More spin, I show how current "free play" is really anything BUT.

Its a heavily regulated sport--that is has very specific rules as to target area.

Your corect as far as you nit-picking goes in that the rules for the foil, epee, and saber are differnet.

LOL--thanks for the backhanded compliment.

My "nit-picking" is simply a desire to be accurate, something which you obviously don't take seriously, since you have done nothing but present inaccurate generalizations throughout this thread. I know I've already mentioned that, and I'm not trying to re-escalate tensions here, but I'm not going to simply let you walk all over me, especially when I have made a good case.

BUT IT DOES NOT NEGATE THE FACT THAT RULES PREVENT TRUE "FREE PLAY"
to use your own quote.

"That only applies to the foils, as the target is everything from the waist up"

Yeah, so you CAN'T make ANY ATTACK below the waist in foil.

So what you REALLY saying is that I KNOW A FOIL IS NOT ATTACKING MY LEGS, GROIN etc.

{Nanban shakes head in dismay...}

Once again, sir, you get my quotes wrong!

You CAN attack the groin in foil--it is a legal target. That's why a foil jacket goes down to the crotch, and that's why a cup is recommended!

How can it be true "free play" is there are KNOWN limts as to what my oppt can do and VERY specifc rules that stop them from doing specific things??

That just does not make sense.

The limited target helps one to develop point control. There are training formats in certain eskrima styles which use a similar approach.

Modern fencing's bouting is still very much a useful exercise, regardless of the weapon used. It develops a real sense of timing and distance, that--contrary to your claims--CAN be applied to more combative forms of swordplay (as well as other weapons use, like knife fighting). I'm sorry that it didn't work for you, but it's worked for plenty of other folks.

BTW, no commentary on Ray Floro?

As you, yourself say.

"The issue of not getting hit in the calf applies to foil and saber but not epee."

Ah, dude that EXACTLY MY POINT--its not "really" free play when you and your oppt are NOT "free' in what they can do.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I've heard that all before...

Thanks for pointing that out so clearly.

Anytime.

Back to Dr. Bs quote.

If, as you say, and I quote.

"The info is apparently available"

Then please post it.

Dude, I don't have the book in question, but I'm gonna try to track it down.

However, considering that you train in JSA, I would think that, if anything, it's something you would seek out on your own.

This is the quote you based your entire question around.

I based my question around Dr. Bodiford's post. His post alone apparently wasn't good enough for you. So sorry.

You should have all availabe infomation pertaining to it.

"Pot--meet Kettle."

I think it's really funny that you're faulting me for not posting one source, when I have constantly cited sources thoughout this thread (whereas you have not).

As I have asked multiple times now--with no response from you.

I'm doing the best I can--do you want me to make the book in question appear out of thin air? Wait, I'll bust out my magic eskrima stick and get to work...

You have a quote involving unkn men, or unkn level of skill, from ukn ryu, with unkn methods of training (we don't know if they trained kata or not) in a match of unkn rules, with unkn results, unkn number of matchs, unkn how the information was gathered.

Well, the RESULTS aren't unknown--that's why this thread exists. ;)

It just does not pass muster as a soild point.

Honestly not trying to hack you off.

You just are not dealing the questions and issue raised.

Chris Thomas

Whatever, dude.

Like I said, you have presented nothing but generalizations throughout this thread, you have misquoted me time and again, & I now realize that you were serious when you said that you would "argue with an echo".

Indeed, that's all you want to do--argue aimlessly, as opposed to debate and discuss. I still intend to continue with this thread. If you have useful material to contribute, then by all means do so, but I'm not going to sit here and waste time going back and forth like this. You haven't acknowledged any of my many pertinent points, so what's the use?

And so, I give you the last word--which is all you appear to want anyway.

Peace,

David

Nanban Bushi

7th August 2004, 00:32

Originally posted by cxt
Nanban

In re-reading my post above I may used a tone that was harsher or more unfriendly than I intended.

I mean no disrespect or animus.

Just trying to get to the heart of what is and is not significante to the discussion.

Your points pertaining to the specifc rules and differences between saber, foil, and epee are correct--they are just largely irrelvent in terms of supporting your contentions.

And in a very real way illustrate my points exactly.

Chris Thomas

Chris,

I just read this as I posted my latest post.

Fair enough--I appreciate your effort at diplomacy--let's just agree to disagree then. I don't see us getting anywhere at this point.

Peace,

David

renfield_kuroda

7th August 2004, 08:23

Originally posted by Nanban Bushi
And that is precisely why I brought up the Korean flail, and the Chinese dao-and-rattan-shield combo--they are weapons that the samurai had to face from time to time. Expecially in the case of the latter, one would think that some sort of kata would have been developed (assuming that kata was--as is generally believed--the primary method of training), in order to teach Japanese warriors how to cope with a shield (since the Japanese generally didn't use such implements themselves).
Looking at the centuries-long history of samurai, from the lonely, poor farmer samurai off in the boonies, to the aristocrat-bureaucrat in the big city, and everyone in between, from civil war after civil war, through closed-nation policies and finally forced internationalization, the percentage of samurai who would be facing foreign enemies with non-Japanese weaponry was incredibly small.
(And in many cases, Japanese armies got schooled, specifically because of their lack of adaptation -- more an issue of military strategy than any particular weapon.)
Which brings up a good point; a need to separate the training of armies and foot-soldiers versus the training of samurai in traditional ryu. Not all samurai were soldiers, and not all soldiers were samurai.
I think of it like dinosaur fossils; think of the sheer number and different types of dinosaurs that must have existed all those years ago, and think of how few fossils we have today.
There were hundreds if not thousands of koryu that are now gone, simply gone. Died with the last son, vanished with some bureacrat's brushstroke, blown up in Manchuria or Nagasaki, defeated on the battlefield against a rival village's lord, locked away in the corner of grandpa's mind, his grandkids too concerned with playing soccer to care...

So I think I agree with you: 'free play' in so much as there are some rules to keep the 'play' as a valid training exercise, did and does exist in koryu training, within a kata context.
And beyond that, true 'free play' existed in the form of duels and fights. Unlike in European traditions, there weren't too many rules regulating fighting (actually, there were, but they weren't followed very much until a concerted effort to stamp out samurai violence started in the late 1700s and early 1800s) and only 3 possible outcomes to a samurai duel: you die, he dies, or both die.

In closing let me say that I find the comment "assuming that kata was--as is generally believed--the primary method of training" incredibly condescending. There is a wealth of information in Japan -- ancient scrolls and manuscripts, oral history and family traditions passed down from father to son, official government registries and historical documents, tombstones and engravings at temples and shrines, etc. -- that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that kata was and is the, as Ellis put it "Gold Standard" for traditional koryu training.
And in fact, despite a determined governmental policy to eradicate all vestiges of 'old Japanese tradition' including koryu, it is a testament to the strength of koryu via a tradition of transmission through kata, that several koryu survive even today.

Regards,

r e n

Mekugi

7th August 2004, 10:00

I meant in terms of his Menkyo. Didn't come out that way when I wrote rhe post, though.

Originally posted by Nanban Bushi
Russ/Mekugi,

Check your sources again, bro.

Kano began training in the Tenshin Shinyo Ryu in 1877, and he didn't become a member of the Kito Ryu until 1881.

Peace,

David

Nanban Bushi

7th August 2004, 12:25

Originally posted by renfield_kuroda

In closing let me say that I find the comment "assuming that kata was--as is generally believed--the primary method of training" incredibly condescending. There is a wealth of information in Japan -- ancient scrolls and manuscripts, oral history and family traditions passed down from father to son, official government registries and historical documents, tombstones and engravings at temples and shrines, etc. -- that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that kata was and is the, as Ellis put it "Gold Standard" for traditional koryu training.

Renfield,

Please know that I did not mean for that comment to be condescending whatsoever, and I apologize if it came across that way (as it clearly did with you). :(

My point there was simply that we don't know everything about classical JSA, just as we don't know everything about the Western arts. Even though the classical Japanese arts have been preserved on a level that their European counterparts have not, the fact remains that there are still more questions than answers, IMO. "Ancient scolls and manuscripts", "official government registries", "historical documents", & "tombstones and engravings", while all incredibly valuable, don't necessarily give the whole picture, and "oral history and family tradition" can change over time, distorting their accuracy.

And FWIW, in the West, there are a great number of period fight manuals, as well as government documents, first-hand accounts of duels and battles, and similar sources which have always been there, but none of those things prevented the modern Western fencing community from adopting a largely false view of what the earlier Western swordfighting traditions were like. When modern fencing history books began to be written by Victorian scholars like Sir Alfred Hutton, Egerton Castle, and others, they were right about some things, and downright wrong about plenty of others--and frankly, in many cases these men should have known better. Only now, with the works of authors like J Christoph Amberger, Professor Sidney Anglo, and many others, is the record being set straight.

Dr Bodiford's statements suggest that JSA went thru its share of changes, and there may have been changes that we are not yet aware of.

I will comment on the rest of your post when I have more time.

Best Regards,

David