PDA

View Full Version : Panta rhei: Koryu and evolution



Robert Reinberger
23rd February 2001, 00:04
In a Koryu, the head of the school alone has the authority to change the curriculum in whatsoever way, as I've learnt to see it, and as opposed to changes in Gendai Budo, often initiated by committees. If any other person, even if she might be considered qualified (through Menkyo Kaiden or equivalent), changes something, his teachings therefore can no longer be regarded as the teachings of the original school, but must be seen as a new style.

Yet, that authorization for the current head to make alterations as he likes, may be faced with (and limited through) the obligation to preserve the school's special qualities and tradition. This seemingly or real contradiction may be one of the aspects, at least, that makes a Ryu to a Ryu, a specific, identifiable "style", but yet a living entity, as opposed to a mere folkloristic organization in which a certain splinter of Japanese history is kept and remained.

On the other hand, as somebody mentioned in an earlier thread, it is more than a century ago (at least), that most of the weapons used in Koryu were brought into action in their original enviroment, with their heyday on the battlefields being as long ago as 400 years.

Therefore, it seems to be plausible, that every technical change can only increase the distance between the new forms and historical, proofed usefulness and reality. Even attempts to restore previously lost effectiveness may only be guesses, given the lack of possibilities to proof them in their original enviroment.

So, my questions are:

1.) Which kind of modifications within a Koryu's technical curriculum (regarding historical weapons) could make any sense, today?

2.) Concerning Gendai Budo (dealing with historical weapons), if I may this include here in the Koryu section: Aside from the founding of new branches or organizations for formal reasons, like the one mentioned above, as well as aside from possible dishonorable motives, what could be the legitimate idea behind the invention of whole new arts or systems, if the use of the given weapon is an anachronism already, without any practical (technical) purpose nowadays.

3.) If Koryu are regarded as "living things", to which degree are those parts of the curricula altered, that teach those arts being of practical use now as ever (especially true for the "unarmed" arts, I suppose)? And if there are changes, like adding the use of handcuffs (perhaps as an undercategory), to the Torinawa (Hojojutsu) of a Ryu, for example, are those innovations still regarded as part of the Ryu, or as something else? If the latter is true, then why, considering the nature of a Ryu as a living one? Could training in contemporary streetwear, defences against "modern" type attacks and present-day weapons (often an argument for the founding of new styles) be considered as valid parts of Koryu, or are such patterns already included in any of the old schools? If this is too much in contrast with the preserving aspect, what constitutes the "living" aspect of a Koryu?

Note: Of course I hope to get some answers and informations at this thread. But while some of the questions may be better suitable for providing opinions instead of facts, please accept that they were not meant to offend anybody or any organization, style or school. If any controversial opinions or statements are presented, please treat the person, that uttered them, with politeness and respect.

Regards,
Robert

Erik Hallstensson
1st March 2001, 08:17
That is an interesting question. Maybe some sort of example of this can be seen in the way Shimizu reorganised the techniques of Shinto Muso Ryu (as I have read somewhere that he did, please correct me if I am wrong). I am not familiar with the details of that, but it would be interesting if someone could tell us more about it.

Sincerely,

Erik

johan smits
1st March 2001, 10:47
Hi Robert,

It would be best to leave your question for those people who can answer with authority.
May sound a bit simple but it seems everybody has a opinion on koryu while in my opinion (here goes) only very few people should have one.

I should not, so why post this?

Here's a question for you. Why bother?
(Please don't give your reasons, I am sure they are valid, all of them).

The biggest feature of life and living is change. Existence = change.

Guess koryu are not an exception to this, so koryu have changed, will change. That's a natural thing and ok as long as these changes are guided by those qualified.


Something in general. Koryu seems to be a big item among practitioners of modern arts.
Why is that? Maybe they are not happy with the arts they practice?

Be my quest, bite off my head.

Best,

Johan

Rob
1st March 2001, 10:50
Robert, you raise some very interesting questions and it's dissapointing that those on the board with an intimate knoweldge of the Koryu have not responded.

I should preface this by stating that my martial arts experience is entirely limited to the Gendai arts, primarily a 'modern' style of Jiu Jitsu and that any knowledge of Koryu is purely academic.

Having said that it seems to me that what you have touched on is perhaps the fundamental question facing Budo today. Should the arts entirely reflect the modern world as even the Koryu did when they were founded or is there an intrinsic value in retaining the dress / language and customs of a bygone age..

The biggest argument of the 'modernist' movement is that martial arts should teach modern defences to modern situations. The assumption is that more traditional arts (Gendai and Koryu) are somehow not relevant or that there techniques need updating.. Whilst some techniques may seem undoubtedly anachronistic - Wrestling in armour for example – it has often struck me that there must be reasons why some areas of study have been lost and others retained. It is easy to look at a sword cut and ask how relevant that is to today’s society.. However that sword cut contains all of the tai sabaki, mai ai etc required to perform Shiho nage for example. In essence what I am proposing is that unless one has Menkyo Kaiden or equivalent in an art how can one truly know what the relevance of that technique is. And in all honesty how many modern practitioners would be prepare to start a fight with the Head of Daito Ryu or TSKR ?

The counter argument is of course that modern situations are so much different from that of the Samurai’s world how can those techniques be relevant. Well peoples arms pretty much bend and break in the same way as they did 500 years ago. And there are fundamentally only so many different ways to attack people. A slash from a razor blade differs only different from a cut with a tanto in distance, the intent and the result are the same. For me the only true difference is the introduction of handguns, and the practicality of an unarmed response against an armed assailant is surely a whole other topic..

Setting aside the technical argument then what remains ? The only other argument I have seen is that why should we retain Japanese terms / dress in fact why not simply take the techniques and teach them in a Western environment.

Firstly I know that one of the reasons I and many others took up the arts is self defence but what keeps us coming back often is the introduction to another culture so different to our own.
Secondly I remain unconvinced that much of what makes the arts truly effective can be taught without that cultural environment. As a sensei one expects and recieves a level of respect that a coach or teacher does not. Many terms do not translate well. I have experienced what I understood to be Mushin but I could not give you an English word that equates to that experience.

I could go on and on (and in fact already have) but I’ll leave it there.

Just some guy
1st March 2001, 12:58
Mr Reinberger,

Sorry that you haven't gotten many responces to your question. I thought that I would just venture my own opinions based on my expiriances in Koryu.

My thoughts on your first question regard the concept behind Many koryu. There are several ryu (infact I think you could say that all koryu in some way or another) are rooted in the consept that their techniques were inspired and given by the Gods themselves. When one trains in a koryu, one tries in some way to get into contact with that Divinity. The Changes that are made in the koryu can be looked at as more of a refinemant reather than a complete change. Even when completely new weapons are incorerated, they try to merge it with this school rather than just slap a few techniques together and call them a few names. also, though the emphasis is today almost completely on kata training in koryu, this was not always so and is in many ways a very new thing. Seki Sensei of Kashima Shin Ryu fought many no rules compititions before he was given the title of shihanke of Kashima Shin Ryu. This was this century and I think the main reson this does not continue (publicly at least) in any koryu (if not the only reason for that matter) is because the Japanese Government passed a law against such a practice. Uptill that time anychanges that were made were much more likely to come from personal expiriance than just wanting to do something new. Nowadays, I don't have a clue how changes will occur.

Your second question about Gendai Arts using Historical weapons has me at a loss. I think that at least a part of it is just simple enjoyment. People like swinging swords around I guess. Beyond that there is the fact that weapons and hand to hand fighting are complementary skills and need not exclude each other. I think it would be best to ask the schools themselves this question though. I know that I can't answer it and I woon't even try.

Your third question I think depends on how extem the Changes are. Just adding a few things I think would be considered a part of the ryu. However, when you start changing the form and Function of everything (be it to compete in the UFC or other contrsts) then you're not changing anymore but reinventing. Of course it's hard to exactly see where the line is drawn, so this is left to the Headmaster who, after all, is the only one who can really say he has learned everything about the ryu.

For the second part of the questions regarding street clothes and modernday attacks, I'm forced to argue if it's really needed. Having trained in both traditional clothing and my street clothes (left my uniform at home for a few weeks. Home being America on the other side of the planet from where I live.) the differance is very negligable and I don't think I would even notice it if I was really fighting someone. True differant clothing has differant constrictions but, if you where this stuff everyday your body knows how they will and will not allow you to move and I don't think it's really important.

As for Modern day attacking, well what does that mean exactly? If your talking about jabs and boyerstyle punches, I think you're exaggerating how differant Japan and the West are. Though true they don't have a distint style of boxing or anything like that, to say that everyone in Japan is going to fight by using round kicks and Karate chops is a bit upserd as well. I thiink people need to realize that the Samurai got into just as many street fights and bar brawls as people in the west did. These is even a very famous story of a man ambushed on the street by robbers (sorry, I forget the name of it at the moment). While it is very argueable that the complcated techniques do not work against unskilled attackers or people with little formal training, From my personal expiriance I can honestly say I don't think that they were ever intended to. The complicated techniques are designed to work against a skilled attacker. For the untrained people, I just think that you don't really need them. I've trained with a few people before in a situation similer to this and I really never needed anything more than simple basic techniques. In terms of Hand to hand and other weapons besides the hand gun, I'm completely convinced that there is no need to change these things. It is much more important to know when to use what technique. A matter of putting the round peg into the round hole instead of trying to force it into the triangle one.

Finally (I'm out of breath from typing this much), the hand gun is the great mystery. I must add that this situation is soomething that even the modern Military has a hard time trying to defend against when they do not have a gun as well. The only answer in such a situation is to hope that he makes the mistake of coming in close so that you can grapple the gun from him. Well, that or hoping for an act from God. Not a situation I really like myself. Will a koryu ever have this? Can't say, but I doubt it. This is mainly because first off in order to devise techniques against a handgun one must first become an expert with the handgun. Having so many other things to work on in a ryu, too say nothing of having to support that nasty habbit of eating and breathing, is simply too much to work on I think. And in the end, what good would it do? I don't really think that would give one more chances or help than one could get by learning the basic lock and weapons disarms that exist already.

Anyway, that'S my bucks worth. Hey, if enough people disagree with me then maybe we'll start getting more answers here. I do think that this is a very worthy topic to consider and I have yet to see people I think have really explored it as they should. Hope that I've helped.

johan smits
1st March 2001, 13:48
Hi,

Since nobody has bitten off my head yet I can make another post.
I hear a lot about fighting. I don't get it. My Xing Yi teacher never talks about fighting (but I have seen him have a go!). Everybody else (in my case I am talking about Modern Japanese Style Martial Artists) talks all the time about fighting. Nobody ever does, but we talk about it.
Fighting has everything to do with mind-set and a lot less with techniques.

Some people do research on medieval European fighting arts. Now these arts could be compared with koryu.
As always it is the essence that connects us. The rest is culture. Interesting to learn (about) and greatly necessary if one wants to understand and practice in a correct way.

Funny thing is that for a very long time there has been some sort of myth that Oriental Martial Arts were on a very high level while during the same period the Martial Arts from Europe were non-existent or consisted of clubbing each other on the head until the opponent died.
Recent research, tells us a different story and shows European Martial Arts were on a par with Oriental Martial Arts.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the essence of old martial arts are fighting, the essence does not change. Fighting is still fighting, Mind-set for fighting is still the same Mind-set that was necessary hundreds of years ago.

For now.
Best,

Johan

Walker
1st March 2001, 18:48
Interesting set of questions. I’m not answering as a koryu guy, but in my ‘papered’ area of training - anthropology. I think that a ryu is an anti-evolutionary structure designed to protect against change and that is its value. True, change can and may occure, but the structure of a ryu works against change happening - for better or worse.
Contrast this with gendai martial arts and sports and you see the emphasis is on individual achievement (in competition, personal growth, overall proficiency, etc) not preservation of tradition or information. So, for example, we talk about the stylistic differences of each Aikido Shihan and many practitioners pick and choose several to study with and expose themselves to those styles in hope of achieving a personal style. In Koryu, on the other hand, the practitioner studies with one teacher (esp. in traditions like SMR where there are several authorized outlets) in an attempt to grasp and internalize a specific set of techniques and or principles and thereby preserve the traditions of the ryu into the next generation. So in short modern art/sport innovates and searches for better technique, koryu preserves and transmits cultural knowledge through time.

As for the funny clothes they serve as a liminal marker of difference setting a group apart as an exclusive body and equalizing its members with each other. In the dojo the rich man practices on an equal footing with the poor man and the only recognized emblems of status are those conferred by the group. In the final analysis it doesn’t matter what form the clothes take only that they are ‘different’ and meaningful to the group.

Diane Skoss
1st March 2001, 23:38
Hi Robert,

Ellis Amdur is writing an essay on this exact topic for inclusion in our third volume (coming out late summer). Some of the other guys who might have opinions are hard at work on their own essays to meet my completely unreasonable :) deadlines and so may not have time for E-budo at the moment.

It's also such a deep and complex topic that it is difficult to say something useful without a lot of thought and work--and I fear I must save the limited supply of brain cells for the new book.

I hope that you'll find the final result worth the wait!

Cheers!

Diane Skoss

Robert Reinberger
2nd March 2001, 02:13
Many thanks to all of you who have contributed so far to this thread.

Johan Smits asked: Koryu seems to be a big item among practitioners of modern arts. Why is that?

I, of course, can only answer for myself: it seems to me, that certain aspects of what I call Budo are obvious to be found in Koryu to a higher degree than they are in modern arts. Accidentally that aspects are of interest for me.

Rob Wallis wrote: Firstly I know that one of the reasons I and many others took up the arts is self defence but what keeps us coming back often is the introduction to another culture so different to our own.

Robert, I think I understand your statement very well. But it isn't simply the "asiatic touch", that interests me. I started with a "westernized" style of "Jiu Jitsu" like yourself, and I still practice it, like yourself. When I commenced training my reason for training was self defence. When I continued, my reason for training was sport and competition. When I continued further, my interest shifted back to self defence. But then, what made me continue my training until today, was a very personal, perhaps not very widespread interpretation of Budo. That interpretation without doubt includes historical and cultural sectors. If it would be only sport, I wouldn't practice anymore; if it would be only for self defence, I wouldn't practice any more; if it would be only philosophy and development of personality and/or character, there are other ways and I wouldn't train anymore. It is the combination, a certain sporting (physical) aspect, together with a certain amount of a self defense aspect, together with other aspects, including cultural ones, that, for me, constitute "Budo", whatever it really is. That's, I'm not longer interested (of course I was, in the past) in systems that teach the "best techniques" from X, Y and Z arts, and combines them to an "effective system of self defense", nor am I interested in sports, in which success in competitions is the goal that superimposes everything else.

Mr. Baker, with my first question I adressed the difference between changes and improvement. While every improvement implies a change, not every change is synonymous with an improvement. I dont think, the teachings of a Koryu are changed as an end in itself. I would think that any of those changes are meant as improvements. Therefore, if we speak about ancient fighting techniques, how can they be improved today at all? I would really like to hear the opinion of Koryu practitioners, regarding those changes within the historical and preserving meaning of a Koryu.

Regarding the second question, you wrote: Your second question about Gendai Arts using Historical weapons has me at a loss. But you also said: I think that at least a part of it is just simple enjoyment. People like swinging swords around I guess.

Agreed, but there are a lot of arts in existence already, which allows one to "swing swords around".

Than you meant: I think it would be best to ask the schools themselves this question though.

Of course you are right. I hope some practioners of schools that fall into that category will tell us, what they think. I didn't want to address certain schools or systems, so that the question couldn't be missunderstood as an insult. I know of at least one very friendly, sincere and active member of one of those systems (blessed with a founder of outstanding qualifications, to the best of my knowledge) here at e-budo. But I doubt that my English is good enough to address him personally, making clear that I (still) don't understand why this art was founded, without sounding impolite or attacking.

With reference to question number three, you asked: As for Modern day attacking, well what does that mean exactly?

I think that even a "weaponless" overhead strike of someone trained with the sword would much more resemble what is called "Shomen uchi" than a similar type of attack carried out by a contemporary brawler. Likewise, I don't think "attacks" like Eri dori, Kami dori, Emon dori, Ude dori are of the same prominence today, as they seem to have been in the older days. With that I don't say these types of attacks are the only one that can be found in 'unarmed' or 'minimal armed' Koryu Kata, but aren't they typical? . The names I chose to describe them, are well known names from Gendai Budo, probably totally unusal in any Koryu, of course. Moreover, and regarding the clothes, I was told by an Australian Budoka, who once have had the rare opportunity to watch a training of the Kagoshima Jigen Ryu: "The students wear 'street wear' and the dojo floor is packed down earth ! The traditional training tools are a straight stick (like jo) cut from cherry tree wood with the bark left on, and the tsuba looks like a crude baseball mit made of straw/cotton and slides over the shaft." Not exactly what I meant, but that's an example of using street wear in training of a swords art. How much more sense would it make, using it with unarmed close combat training? (I mean as an additional part of the training, of course, not to replace the more traditional parts).

Further you wrote: Finally (I'm out of breath from typing this much), the hand gun is the great mystery.

Yes, that's a good example. And, I know, a difficult and complicated one. But, on the other hand, isn't a Mutodori approach against a skilled swordsman of similar hopelessness? And that kind of last resort is definitely part of Koryu teachings.

With question number three I try to find out, how much of the arguments of the founders of new arts are (or could be) covered by Koryu, beside their obligations regarding the preservation of traditions, which I value very high. If those aspects were addressed within the Koryu more prominent, wouldn't have a lot of frauds and wannabies a harder time? And than again: The Ko of Koryu, as far as I know, refers to the founding of a school prior to a certain time. It doesn't imply that "modern applications" can't be included, to the best of my knowledge, which isn't so impressive. Therefore I asked. Questions one and three together are attempts to learn more about the different nuances of the "living aspect" or "living nature" of a Koryu per se.

Of course I would limit my expectancy concerning the adaption of certain parts of Koryu teaching to "modern enviroment", or adopting those teachings as integral parts, to weaponless arts or arts that do not teach the use of ancient weapons.

Chris Baker also wrote: Having so many other things to work on in a ryu, too say nothing of having to support that nasty habbit of eating and breathing, is simply too much to work on I think.

Well, that's an argument against said changes, that I'm able understand.

Mr. Walker meant: So in short modern art/sport innovates and searches for better technique, koryu preserves and transmits cultural knowledge through time.

Regarding your first sentence, I think that depends on what "better technique" mean. Techniques better suited for competition, or better suited to make a referee giving one a point may not be better technique for survival on a battlefield or in a street encounter. Sometimes, the opposite may be true. And I don't think that "the funny clothes" as "a liminal marker of difference setting a group apart as an exclusive body and equalizing its members with each other" are distinguishing marks for Koryu people. Most of that can be found in certain Gendai Budo as well. They may, of course, and including the type of Keikogi "invented" by Kano Shihan, be seen as distinguishing marks of Budo (in a very wide sense) enthusiasts at all.

Diane, thanks for the information. Good to hear about a third book coming into being! And I think you are right when you speak of a deep and complex topic that needs a lot of thought and work. I think the lenght of my posts here is not only caused by my poor English :) .

Finally, let me assure everybody that all my questions are really that: questions. Please don't misunderstand any of my comments as something that was intended to insult anybody or to turn any of the questions into a mere rhetoric.

Regards,
Robert

Just some guy
2nd March 2001, 14:52
Mr Reinberger,

Before I forget, thanks for starting this thread. This is getting really interesting. Anyway, in your last post you stated:

"Chris Baker also wrote: Having so many other things to work on in a ryu, too say nothing of having to support that nasty habbit of eating and breathing, is simply too much to work on I think. "

Well, that's an argument against said changes, that I'm able understand.

Anyway, I think you're taking my words a little out of context. I'm not argueing against change at all really. I also think it happens more often than a lot of people think it does (IMHO). Anyway, I was actually trying to explain why such things as firearms training hasn't made it iinto the koryu that exist. The rife and a small one shot pistle existed when many of the koryu were formed. I even think that the Book of five rings talks about a rifel as well, though don't quote me on that as I'm going on my very hazy and withered memory here. However, no koryu, that I know of anyway, has any techniques for such a weapon. Many people talk about this being because the Japanese were such differant people than the weasterners. I personally think that this isn't the case. Yes the Samurai belived in Honour, but they weren't stupid. However, like I said earlier, the Headmaster is the only one in the entire school who can honestly say that he knows everything that the school teaches. This includes the people with Menkyo Kaiten. Except for the man who has the schools there is no one esle who knows all there is and therefore, really no one else who is qualified to change a thing. Now, look at the massive amount of matirial for the Headmaster to not only learn, but master in every way possible. In Kata, then on differant environments (rock ground, slippery floors, in the dark, ect.). Even without the teaching reserved for the headmaster, I think that this is a job that would take most of us our lifetimes to achive. And the headmaster is responcable for all that and still more. then we must take into account that the Headmaster must also make a living just like the rest of us and I doubt that any koryu instructor does this through teaching. This takes even more time away from the person. Now if Firearm techniques were to be added into a koryu, or firearm defences from an unarmed standpoint, would it not be logical for a teacher to first receve exstencive training and practice with a firearm? After all, no one can create a reliable and aplicable form of defence against a cirtain weapon when he or she does not know how said weapon is used. this will automaticly take a great deal of time to learn this by itself. Than we have the time needed to devise defences and then the time needed to master the ideas and concepts. In my oppinion, this combined with training in the massive amount of work that already exists and then the troubles of earning a living on top of all of that (a thing which by itself keeps many people from even bothering to train at all, I might add) is just simplly too much work for a koryu instructor to bother with. The headmaster already has his work cut out for him already. Of corse all of this is assuming that the headmaster even has such an interest in the first place.

"Anyway, another statement you made was:Regarding the second question, you wrote: Your second question about Gendai Arts using Historical weapons has me at a loss. But you also said: I think that at least a part of it is just simple enjoyment. People like swinging swords around I guess. "

"Agreed, but there are a lot of arts in existence already, which allows one to "swing swords around". "

This is true. there are many koryu that allow someone to do this. However, as I'm sure anyone on the koryu forum can tell you, finding koryu in Japan is not easy. Finding them outside of japan is next to impossible. If people can't find the authentic somewhere, they tend to go for the next best things. Once again, I don't really know myself. I'm just giving my oppinion about why people are making up new sword arts.

Now finally (I'm begining to wonder if I should get a voice operated computer. It's save the wear and tear on my hands) you also stated:

"Further you wrote: Finally (I'm out of breath from typing this much), the hand gun is the great mystery.
Yes, that's a good example. And, I know, a difficult and complicated one. But, on the other hand, isn't a Mutodori approach against a skilled swordsman of similar hopelessness? And that kind of last resort is definitely part of Koryu teachings. "

Well, I hate saying it like this but, no. I'm sorry but a gun and a sword, though very simmiler in many ways, are two completely differant animals and I don't think we can relate the two as easy as people want so badly to. I can't slice you with my sword from twenty feet away. My sword generally doesn't break the sound berier when I cut. I can't move a simple finger and kill you with my sword. To be quite frank, mutodori and disarming a compident gunfighter really aren't that comparable. Especially since any gunfighter worth his salt would never let you get near enough to him to do anything other than be shot from ten feet away in the first place. One could make the arguement that it becomes more like mutodori when the gunman makes a mistake and lets you get in close. However, I really find it much more like simple locking and throwing like I would do against anyone else regardless of what weapon he had, if he had one at all. I'm not saying it's exactly the same. However, in both cases I'm going to make sure that both hands are not able to hurt me and that I'm completely safe at all times. The form may change a bit but the idea is still the same. One does this in mutodori as well but, no more than one does iin any other as in any other aspect I think. It's just most easy to see there.

Mr Smits:
(Congratulation on not getting your favorite head removed from your boody :) )

"I hear a lot about fighting. I don't get it. My Xing Yi teacher never talks about fighting (but I have seen him have a go!). Everybody else (in my case I am talking about Modern Japanese Style Martial Artists) talks all the time about fighting. Nobody ever does, but we talk about it. "

No kidding! I know, I do it to. Part of it I think is that, well, this is a MARTIAL art and fighting is going to come in there somewhere. In my case, I'm trying to prove a point as as scientificlly as I can and I just don't know any other way to do it. Though I would also like to point out, just in case I haven't made it clear, that my own "fighting" expiriences are mostly limited to training with frinds from other martial arts, who all respect each other and are willing to put our egos aside to learn. I don't go off and get into bar brawls every weekend. I hate fighting actually. I just like understanding my school as much as possible and this requiers me to train in friendly combat situations with guys who train iin other martial arts (and are usually much bigger than me too sicne I only weigh 65 Kilos). I think on a topic like this one, it can't really be avoided. At least not with out saying it's anything more than our opinions.

Now back to Mr. Reinberger:
"I dont think, the teachings of a Koryu are changed as an end in itself. I would think that any of those changes are meant as improvements. Therefore, if we speak about ancient fighting techniques, how can they be improved today at all? I would really like to hear the opinion of Koryu practitioners, regarding those changes within the historical and preserving meaning of a Koryu."

I like to use a specific analogy for this situation. Let's look at push ups (is that a big enough streach for you?). By the push up is designed to develop the arms and chest. Now to that end, it's perfect. I don't think there has ever been another excersice that has worked as good for so long. Now, let's say that as the years go by we realize that our arms are great but, our chest needs more work. Then we change the kind of pushup we are doing by doing deeper push ups to get the chest better developed. Now, after a few more years the chest is great but the arms could be better, Now we start doing dimond push ups ect. I don't think any of these push ups can be called better or improvments, rather they are a more refined way of doing soomething to bring out the desired effect much more clearly.

I think the nature of changes in koryu are the exact same. Lets take spear fighting. Who uses a spear today. Hell, for that matter, how many people, even in a koryu, even own one? I think the answer in 99% of the cases will be 0. With the in mind our spear muscels are really weak and need something too bring out the desired effect more clearly than they needed in the old days when probably every Samurai iin the world had used a spear on a very regular basis. So, here we do a more concentrated spearfighting (for lack of a better way to put it) more like the dimond push ups because not only do we not use this weapon very often but, most of us aren't even exposed to it and don't have a clue of what is right and what is wrong. The teachniques are not really "improved" so to speak, say rather, they are tailored to the needs of the student, the nature of all koryu training in the first place. Though it is true that koryu are trying to teach one how to fight, the emphasis is on TEACHING someone something. Teaching teachniques change to fit the student in all cases. As a teacher myself, I can say from expiriance.

Well, that's everything I feel like saying. God can I talk. I would like to say to Ms Skoss that I can't wait to read her new book. Please keep those unrealistic deadlines!

Robert Reinberger
2nd March 2001, 16:27
Originally posted by Just some guy
"Chris Baker also wrote: Having so many other things to work on in a ryu, too say nothing of having to support that nasty habbit of eating and breathing, is simply too much to work on I think. "

Well, that's an argument against said changes, that I'm able understand.

Anyway, I think you're taking my words a little out of context. I'm not argueing against change at all really.Mr. Baker, there isn't any disagreement here. I understand very well what you are saying, but of course tried to make my post shorter and to the point, quoting significant sentences only. I didn't mean you've excluded any possibility of changes in Koryu. My comment was more directed towards whole "new groups" of techniques.

BTW, and regarding firearms, I think the use of historical firearms at least is considered Koryu, with several schools teaching Hojutsu. Am I wrong? That, of course, wasn't what we meant earlier when we adressed modern firearms.


I'm sorry but a gun and a sword, though very simmiler in many ways, are two completely differant animals and I don't think we can relate the two as easy as people want so badly to.I also didn't want to imply they are equal. I simply made a comparison in the grade of difficulty to handle attacks with those weapons, unarmed. Of course, regarding firearms, there is the problem of distance too, that sets them apart. Moreover, even in handling them at close quarters, there is an additional and increased threat for possible bystanders (maybe even someone of your family, and even if they aren't too close?), that we have to take into account. A very difficult and complicated matter, that, as I said before.

Thank you very much for your insights into the nature of possible changes in Koryu. Very interesting, for me, at least!

Regards,
Robert

Just some guy
2nd March 2001, 16:48
Mr: Reinberger,
Mr. Baker, there isn't any disagreement here. I understand very well what you are saying, but of course tried to make my post shorter and to the point, quoting significant sentences only. I didn't mean you've excluded any possibility of changes in Koryu. My comment was more directed towards whole "new groups" of techniques. BTW, and regarding firearms, I think the use of historical firearms at least is considered Koryu, with several schools teaching Hojutsu. Am I wrong? That, of course, wasn't what we meant earlier when we adressed modern firearms.

Me:
Sorry I gues I miss understood as well. I thought that youcouldn't understand my point about not having time and figured that was the reason. Teaches me to think doesn't it. As for Firearms in koryu, it's possible but, I really am not the person to ask here. I can honestlly say that I haven't seen nor heard of any schools with any teachniques, though I have also heard of schools containing something to a stratigic end. I'm not the person for this one. Even if I studied a school that had such techniques, I doubt I'd be really interested in them anyway.

Mr Reinberger,

I also didn't want to imply they are equal. I simply made a comparison in the grade of difficulty to handle attacks with those weapons, unarmed. Of course, regarding firearms, there is the problem of distance too, that sets them apart. Moreover, even in handling them at close quarters, there is an additional and increased threat for possible bystanders (maybe even someone of your family, and even
if they aren't too close?), that we have to take into account. A very difficult and complicated matter, that, as I said before.

Me:
Couldn't agree more. I just don't think that when the situation gets into a hand to hand situation that it would be all that differant, CONCEPT WISE, than it would be with another weapon. Even when you're disarming a swordsman you watch out to make sure the sword dooesn't fall and cut someone by accident (to say nothing of yourself). The same is true, though granted easier, unarmed. If I'm locking someone, I make sure he can't grab onto another person to make things worse or onto something to stop his fall. I also make sure he can't grab, hit, punch, stab, ect. me Protecting both yourself and the people around you (esspecially if that person is your lord which was quite likely in many cases) is just simplly put, good training and a good idea. The specific way will change when a different weapon is used but it's all the same idea. If you know how to move protected, then I think the weapon is realatively unimportant. For example, let's say for the sake of argument that I'm attacked by a gunfighter.I'll tell you right now I'll be locking his gun holding hand. After that it's a matter really of making sure that the gun just stays in a safe direction at all times, not pointed at me or other people.Easier said than done I know but then when it comes to combat, everything is.

Wew. That's all my computing for the day. Bye all.

2nd March 2001, 17:44
Robert,

You hit on an important and difficult question facing many classical nihon bujutsu traditions. If you have not already done so, I recommend you got to the Aikido Journal website and read the interview with my Sensei, Yukio Takamura. He very adeptly discusses this delimma in his interview. I know his opinions ruffled some feathers but he was an uncompromising technician who decided to face the realities of a changing environment and it's impact on his families martial traditions. It is simply the best discussion on this subject I have ever read. Many others evidently thought so as well because Stan Pranin told me that no article ever published in Aikido Journal generated so much positive mail.

Toby Threadgill

johan smits
2nd March 2001, 21:05
Hi Robert,

Well it took some time but your post sure got some interesting comments. Although I don't always agree with what I read I sure learn a lot from the people posting here!

In a post you use the term " westernized jiu-jitsu", now this is something which interests me a lot. I have noticed that some people, mostly people with experience in koryu, have a tendency to look down upon so-called "westernized jiu-jitsu".
It might be possible, I think, that "westernized jiu-jitsu"suffers from a certain lack of identity (at least the practitioners, where it concerns their art). This might be an explanation for the interest in the arts of their origin.
Perhaps this is something for a new thread but I would like to hear your opinion on this.


Mr. Walker:

"a ryu is a anti-revolutionary structure designed to protect against change and that is its value"

Mr. Walker,

When you see a ryu as an entity in itself I guess I can understand your point, however when you look at a ryu as a means to an end, a tool or something to be used to achieve something, whatever that may be, isn't the ryu, in that case, of secondary importance to the people?
And in that case ryu would change according to the circumstances, just to be abel to survive?

Mr. Baker:

Still have my head, true, just afraid of losing a leg if you keep pulling.

I understand what you mean and I feel the same about fighting (I also hate it). It is just that sometimes I get fed up with people talking about fighting when they never do and still having an "expert's" opinion on it.
In my experience a lot of the martial artists around are a lot less "martial" than they claim to be.
Who is entitled to change a koryu? Maybe an answer could be, those people who have achieved a certain level of expertise and who use the contents of the ryu in real life situations, not just in training.

For now,

Best,

Johan Smits

Just some guy
3rd March 2001, 11:21
Mr: Smits

Still have my head, true, just afraid of losing a leg if you keep pulling.

I understand what you mean and I feel the same about fighting (I also hate it). It is just that sometimes I get fed up with people talking about fighting when they never do and still having an "expert's" opinion on it.
In my experience a lot of the martial artists around are a lot less "martial" than they claim to be.
Who is entitled to change a koryu? Maybe an answer could be, those people who have achieved a certain level of expertise and who use the contents of the ryu in real life situations, not just in training.

Me:
I completely understand and agree with you there. what I hate the most myself is when I'm trying to show techniques to people and I get the imfamous "well in a real fight I would never do that" or "well this is more practical" and my personal favorite "that doesn't fit to modern day times". Bear in miind that I think everyone who says this probably have never been iin fights and the closest thing they see to combat is Bill Goldberg on Nitro :) . I always feel that the people giving this coment are simplly people who don't want to say that they can't do something right and that the technique is wrong instead of them. I use my limited expiriance in tis case because it is usuallyx the only way I can comunicate to these people that they will listen to. I think the main problem is that everyone has their mind made up before they even see what they're learning. This isn't a martial arts thing either as I get this from several of my students too. I think that people in general hate hearing that they don't know everything.

Unfortunately you're right about most koryu people looking down on western Jujutsu. I hate saying it but there is a fair degree of pedigree (isn't it hard to avoid the word snobishness?) and politics in koryu today. I for one think that this is a much bigger problem in koryu that the lack of evolution so many talk about. Koryu are more in danger of being scrutinized out of existance than becoming stagnate I think.

johan smits
3rd March 2001, 15:52
Hi Mr. Baker,


" I think the main problem is that everyone has their mind made up before they even see what they're learning"

You are absolutely right there! I do not know what causes this. A lot of people (practitioners of the arts I mean) have some preconceived opinion about fighting, unfortunately (or maybe for them fortunately) most of these people lack experience in fighting.
I have noticed that people who due to their profession sometimes get involved in violence (police, security-personnel) do not show this attitude. They ask questions but they don't nag, they are there to learn and they pay attention.
I guess one needs to have some courage to admitting not knowing it all and place trust in one's teacher, that's where learning starts.

For the second part: I wouldn't say most koryu practitioners look down upon western jujutsu but (at least in my experience) quite a few do.
These people tend to forget that "Westernized jujutsu" has a history of almost a century and (in one way or another) has been instrumental in paving the way for the practitioners of koryu.
On the other hand, among practitioners of "Westernized jujutsu" I know of only a few who are honest enough to admit that within their systems some essential elements are lacking and that these elements can be found in koryu jujutsu.
That would be felt as a defamation of their expertise and well, we know where learning starts.

Best for now.

Johan Smits

Yamantaka
3rd March 2001, 19:56
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Diane Skoss
[B]Hi Robert,

Ellis Amdur is writing an essay on this exact topic for inclusion in our third volume (coming out late summer).

YAMANTAKA : HURRAH! Consider me already on your mailing list for your book. I can't hardly wait for it!
And by the way, did you send Amdur's book to me?
Guys, if any of you haven't read Diane's first two books (KORYU BUJUTSU and SWORD AND SPIRIT) go buy them immediately! They're simply fantastic! You may get them, if I'm not mistaken, at www.amazon.com or www.bn.com
(Now, Diane, I did my best. Do i deserve an autographed edition? Please!?!) :up:
Best regards to you and Meik from your friend
Ubaldo.

MarkF
4th March 2001, 10:27
Hey Ubaldo,
OK, I think you've groveled your way into that autographed copy you are asking for. Another point in Ubaldo's favor from this side of the fence is that he spent all of thirty bucks American on a Questionable C/D purported to be the original Go No Sen, and was nice enough to let us know it wasn't what it was supposed to be.
Sorry, but any further "proxy-groveling" will have to be done by the groveler himself.:D
****
Originally posted by johan smits

For the second part: I wouldn't say most koryu practitioners look down upon western jujutsu but (at least in my experience) quite a few do.
These people tend to forget that "Westernized jujutsu" has a history of almost a century and (in one way or another) has been instrumental in paving the way for the practitioners of koryu.

On the other hand, among practitioners of "Westernized jujutsu" I know of only a few who are honest enough to admit that within their systems some essential elements are lacking and that these elements can be found in koryu jujutsu.
That would be felt as a defamation of their expertise and well, we know where learning starts.



The first part of this quote is quite true. I wouldn't use the word "most" either, but "some" definitely. There is a reason why the topic of "koryu snobbery" does come up from time to time.

I think a forum such as this paves the way for some to act as if they have no body odor after a hard and fast workout. What is equally true is that what is called "gendai" today did pave a road of sorts, but it wasn't a handout, it was a hand up or "come along with us" type thing.

I will also admit to being one who believed koryu or other budo couldn't do a thing and that I alone could make it work to my satisfaction. Well, if koryu snobbery does exist, so does it in the newer arts, and proof is when it makes you feel shame in announcing one's training grade or dan-i rank, whatever you wish to call it.

I once said that attempting to keep koryu alive wasn't a possibility as it was all ready dead. I was wrong. While I wouldn't say it was anything definite in koryu, I do have to think of the founder's roots, and went searching for them.

What I found still amazes me, and if there was any reason to return to the basics this was it. I found kata, largely still intact, and even a few who practice them today. It is similar to assuming you have safe passage, then in the following moments, you run into a wall. Most don't know it, and those who do know it is there, aren't willing to do anything about it.
****

What I have found, however, is in the manner of how they get by, on the slimmest of margins. Koryu tend to be very small affairs while gendai are very large. One thing in common, though, is that both have a very small minority of good practitioners, and still smaller yet, are those who actually live it. All modern gendai schools act as a filter of sorts, that for those who are serious, can meet up with the very small group willing to teach it. Truly, this, IMO, is a truth someone with a lot of faith may come to believe.

As to practicality of either, is in the situation, and simply believing this puts a seal of protection around you is utterly nonsense. No matter, big, muscular oafs still have an advantage. Those who study it, in reality have a smidgeon of hope, and if perfect in execution, may save your neck. Not in the fight, but in the admission that not fighting at all is the only one and true way of heading off the violence.

The argument is old, and usually, someone is left with a lot of blood on the sword. Perfection is a search, not a state of being. This is probably the only truth in both, IMO.

Robert Reinberger
4th March 2001, 11:24
Hi Johan,

you asked:


Originally posted by johan smits: In a post you use the term " westernized jiu-jitsu", now this is something which interests me a lot. I have noticed that some people, mostly people with experience in koryu, have a tendency to look down upon so-called "westernized jiu-jitsu".
It might be possible, I think, that "westernized jiu-jitsu"suffers from a certain lack of identity (at least the practitioners, where it concerns their art). This might be an explanation for the interest in the arts of their origin.
Perhaps this is something for a new thread but I would like to hear your opinion on this.When I wrote "westernized Jiu Jitsu" I used it as a descriptive notion, not as an assessment or depreciative term. I think it has strenghts as well as shortcomings.

In my case it is to describe my practice in an art, that has developed in the last 100 years in Austria out of Japanese roots, but with very little connections to Japanese culture and Jujutsu techniques during this period, and to tell it apart from another, Japanese (Gendai) Jujutsu style I practice.

I consider that topic as a very interesting one, deserving extensive considerations and discussion, and therefore suggest you really start the new thread you mentioned, dealing with that specific problem in the Jujutsu section if you like.

Regards,
Robert

Yamantaka
4th March 2001, 14:07
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MarkF
[B]Hey Ubaldo,
OK, I think you've groveled your way into that autographed copy you are asking for. Another point in Ubaldo's favor from this side of the fence is that he spent all of thirty bucks American on a Questionable C/D purported to be the original Go No Sen, and was nice enough to let us know it wasn't what it was supposed to be.
Sorry, but any further "proxy-groveling" will have to be done by the groveler himself.:D
****
[YAMANTAKA] Hello, Mark San!
I hope you're right and that I'll get my "proxy-grovelled" autographed copy from Diane Sama... ;)
Speaking seriously, those books ARE good! In my opinion, they are the best to come out after Donn Draeger's "Martial Arts and Ways" series. I heartily recommend them!
By the way, you're confounding me with someone else, Mark! I was looking for "lost" judo kata and we discussed Go no Sen but I never bought the CD (wasn't it a video?), so I couldn't say if it was good or not. Probably not... :(
Best

johan smits
4th March 2001, 17:22
Hi Robert,

Thanks I will start a new thread on the subject tommorow.

In great haste.

Best,

Johan

Robert Reinberger
5th March 2001, 23:11
Originally posted by Just some guy As for Firearms in koryu, it's possible but, I really am not the person to ask here. I can honestlly say that I haven't seen nor heard of any schools with any teachniques, though I have also heard of schools containing something to a stratigic end. I'm not the person for this one.Mr. Baker,

meanwhile, after a little searching I found the names of two Ryu that contain Hojutsu: Morishige Ryu (also mentioned in Diane Skoss's "Koryu Bujutsu - Classical Warrior Traditions of Japan"), and Seki Ryu;

Regards,
Robert

johan smits
6th March 2001, 08:16
Hi Robert,

You practice another "gendai" jujutsu style from Japan.
Would that maybe be Jigen ryu?
I am asking because that is the third party involved and mostly forgotten. The first being koryu jujutsu, the second "westernized jujutsu" and the third modern jujutsu systems originating in Japan.

Regards,

Johan

Just some guy
6th March 2001, 08:38
Mr. Reinberger,
Oh, I see what you mean. I thought that you were talking about MODERN firearms (as this is what most people I talk to on this subject mean). Yes these schools have Hojutsu but, I am pretty sure that it's the old Tanegashima rifles of Japan. I'm not going to coment more on them because I don't know that much myself. I would believe though (boy isn't that a dangerous statement) that these Ryu-ha use firearms much life the Kyudo people use bows. I can't say more than that really. I don't know that much about these schools and, like I said earlier, koryu Firearms just isn't my area of interest. It seems cool and all, but just not my thing. I can say that I don't think that they're any Clint Eastwood stuff going on in the school. :shot:

Robert Reinberger
6th March 2001, 09:56
Originally posted by johan smits:You practice another "gendai" jujutsu style from Japan.
Would that maybe be Jigen ryu?Johan, yes I practice Jigen Ryu ( http://linear.mv.com/cgi-bin/j-e/s=12/fg=b/inline/nocolor/jap/%bb%fc%b4%e3?TRhttp://linear.mv.com/cgi-bin/j-e/s=12/fg=b/inline/nocolor/jap/%ce%ae?TR ) but recently try to always add the Kanji, so that no confusion with Togo Bizen no Kami's Jigen Ryu (a Koryu, using different Kanji) occurs.


Originally posted by Mr. Baker:It seems cool and all, but just not my thing. I can say that I don't think that they're any Clint Eastwood stuff going on in the school. Of course :) . I assumed I've made it clear earlier, that my comment refered to ancient firearms, not the usage of (or "defenses" against) contemporary firearms.

Regards,
Robert

Just some guy
6th March 2001, 19:22
Mr. Reinberger,
Well you did. I just get so used to the situation that I sometimes don't pay complete atention to the words. Saw one thing and read another.

Robert Reinberger
10th March 2001, 15:45
Mr. Threadgill,

thank you for for the hint regarding the interview with your teacher. It's great, as I've already mentioned in another thread in the Jujutsu section. And there are some interesting points made regarding changes that occured in Koryu during the Edo-period.

Regarding the founding date of Shindo Yoshin Ryu itself (1868), and, evidently much later, Takamura-ha Shindo Yoshin Ryu, do you see them as Koryu, strictly speaking?

Regards,
Robert

Robert Reinberger
12th March 2001, 14:37
Mr. Skoss, if you read this:

some time ago in another thread, concerning Tenjin Shinyo Ryu, I mentioned what I saw as a discrepancy (between Mr. Draeger in Classical Budo and your essay in Koryu Bujutsu) in the perception of the changes that took place in that school after the founder has passed away. I wrote:
What surprises me a little, is the different perception of the Tenshin Shinyo Ryu's techniques after the death of the founder.

Mr. Skoss wrote in the conclusion of his essay:

Tenjin Shinyo-ryu may lack the extravagant or flashy techniques of some more recent creations, but it has a very well-founded set of biomechanical and physiological principles that are soundly based on the close observation and extensive empirical knowledge of the realities of close combat.

as opposed to Donn F. Draeger, who mentions in 'Classical Budo', pg. 120:

Mataemon's concern for realism in combat is apparent. Later headmasters, however, lacked either Mataemon's outlook or the skill with which to maintain the practical realism that its founder had instilled in the Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu. In the Meiji and later eras the teachings of this ryu degenerated into an aesthetic approach using empty-hand tactics in abstract situations.

This was relativated - at least a little and partially - by Mr. Draeger himself in 'Modern Bujutsu & Budo' when, in fact, he wrote:

The Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu was devoid of any martial aim in the Meiji era,

but continued:

but it still had the reputation of being an effective art of self-defense. Fukuda provided rigorous training for his few disciples, who soon proved to be less devoted to their study than was Kano.Mr. Skoss, would you mind to comment on this observation or the nature of changes in Tenjin Shinyo Ryu in general (if it isn't intended to be part of the new book, in any connection, of course)?

Regards,
Robert