View Full Version : jo vs jo
charlesl2
28th June 2001, 18:36
I think I asked my instructor one time how a jo wielder who trained in smr jo would combat another jo wielder. If my memory is intact, I think he may have said that you could treat the other person in a way similar to the way you'd treat a sword wielder. I'll try and remember to ask him again next class.
My question is, how well do trained people figure they would be able to adapt to this situation? Training long enough seems to build up the ability to adapt and be spontaneous in terms of technique against a sword, but how about other weapons?
-Charles Lockhart
Chuck Clark
28th June 2001, 23:45
I think that proper kata training gives the ability to intuitively create answers to novel problems as they arise.
The senior people that I've been around seem like they could handle the problem.
Benjamin Peters
29th June 2001, 00:54
Dear Charles, and Chuck...(hehe)
I agree ! Systems which combine many aspects of combat usually stress the point of training with the Bo or Jo as a point to teach correct distancing - for instance Bojutsu.
In my experience, a beginner who realises distance with a single weapon is all the more prepared for the element of 'adaptation' into other aspects.
That's the beauty of learning aspects of Jo kata - that it prepares you - if you let it. It teaches you - if you let it. Most people think of it as a set pattern and do everything to learn/memorise it.
But in my experience, kata teaches you how to learn; teaches you many aspects of blending and distancing.
Well.....that's my 2 cents anyway...
good points raised by you both, Charles and Chuck !!!
Ben Peters
charlesl
29th June 2001, 06:11
If you mean treating the opponent as if he was using a sword, I'm thinking that's what my instructor reccomended. If you mean the I, the "protagonist" should treat my jo as if it were a sword, I'm thinking that would kind of go against the grain a bit too much.
ps. So, do you practice jo anywhere near the Kenai Peninsula? My instructor was just up there training a couple weeks ago.
-Charles Lockhart
Chuck Clark
29th June 2001, 06:48
Treating the jo as a sword may have more than the obvious meaning. I have heard Nishioka Sensei say that the jo is to be used like a sword with many ha (cutting edge). The movements and hasuji are the same cuts with the sword or the jo. One major difference though is that the jo is longer than the sword. It's one of the advantages of the jo.
charlesl
29th June 2001, 07:50
Ok, I can groove to the connection between the jo and the sword with respect to strikes, and to the jo being similar to a sword with multiple edges (which is a great advantage, as I really suck when it comes to keeping the blade straight during a cut).
My mind rebels at this "use the jo as a sword" idea because, while so many of the techniques seem derived from the use of the sword (and can be better understood/learned if that connection is realized), it's always seemed that in addition to the advantage of greater reach the jo also provides a "superset" of techniques and alternatives that this thinking just doesn't jive with, this flexibility being one of the main benefits that help to offset some of the inherent deadliness of a sword.
What kind of pops into my mind is how to deal with an opponent with the same flexibility of application. But then maybe I need to look at it more from how a swordsman, given a more devastating weapon but fewer alternatives, would defeat an opponent wielding a jo. Which is kind of hard to do, since in all the smr kata I've practiced end up with the swordsman losing.
I gotta think on this one.
-Charles Lockhart
Diane Skoss
30th June 2001, 10:46
Originally posted by charlesl
Ok, I can groove to the connection between the jo and the sword with respect to strikes, and to the jo being similar to a sword with multiple edges (which is a great advantage, as I really suck when it comes to keeping the blade straight during a cut).
Hi Charles,
Unfortunately, the fact that the jo has an infinite possible number of edges gives it both its great flexibility and infernal difficulty, as you must learn to keep any particular edge on the stick--defined only by the precise and correct placement of your hands--and its trajectory as straight as you do when you cut with a sword.
I don't think that when Nishioka Sensei says use the jo like a sword he means to do so completely. He means (among other things) that we shouldn't be thinking of the weapons as separate entities. A strike with a jo should be technically nearly identical to the cut we make with a sword--same trajectory, same finishing body position, same body mechanics in the application of power.
Jo against jo would be fluid; you'd react depending on what your opponent did. If you were attacked as if by a sword, you might respond as if you had a sword, or a jo. If the opponent comes at you with a jo technique, you could counter with a sword move (or a jo move, for that matter). While there's no formalized practice in this, Benjamin Peters hits the proverbial nail on the head:
That's the beauty of learning aspects of Jo kata - that it prepares you - if you let it. It teaches you - if you let it. Most people think of it as a set pattern and do everything to learn/memorise it.
But in my experience, kata teaches you how to learn; teaches you many aspects of blending and distancing.
Cheers!
Diane Skoss
taino1
6th July 2001, 16:45
Hello,
Would anyone be able to recommend a good book or resource that goes through some basic Jo kata movements? Of course, you can never substitute a good teacher, but for solo practice this information may suit my purpose.
I'm a Gendai Jujutsu student and would like to begin undersanding some practicle uses for the jo, not to mention the rational behind certain Katas, and even some history behind them.
Thanks in advance...
Brently Keen
6th July 2001, 18:41
My jo (and bo) experience is really limited to just a little aikido (bo ikkyo & Iwama style jo) which is very different than the aiki-jo of Daito-ryu. Actually in Daito-ryu, Okamoto sensei tends to classify all stick arts regardless of their length as "bo waza".
Because I have no smr jo experience to speak of at all, I can't really relate to the supposed quandary of traditional jo practitioners whose kata seem to be designed primarily with the intent of defeating swordsmen rather than other stick wielders.
I understand that presumably the jo has some features that make for an advantage over the sword, such as it's length, symmetrical ends and "infinite edges", and that those advantages are explored and exploited in smr jo katas in order to defeat the sword which although it has a sharp edge, is generally assymetrical in that you can only wield it from the tsuka. When faced with another person wielding a jo, obviously the inherent advantages are negated because both people have the same options.
This brings out some much more interesting (to me) questions. And perhaps underscores the reasons why I am drawn to Japanese martial arts and strategy in the first place, and continue to study them enthusiastically.
All things being equal (size, strength, speed, weapons, etc...): How does one accomplish your objectives when your opponent is obviously opposed to your doing so?
Is there an ingredient that really determines success or failure in combat?
How does one secure an advantage in order to win or at least increase the odds?
What about when all things are not equal? Say my opponent holds the advantage in weapons, size, speed, strength and agility, how do I stand a chance of turning the tables and pulling off an upset?
I am sure that for the more experienced practitioners and instructors out there it's not really such a quandary (jo vs jo) because they understand that inherent in the purpose of the kata are principles for problem solving, principles for creating advantages and creating situations where solutions become possible. The question is can we take what we learn from our practice and actually apply it when confronted with new variables?
In closing, I must say that some of the most memorable and amazing training experiences I have ever had were some freestyle jo on jo exchanges between me and my Daito-ryu teacher Seigo Okamoto sensei. I believe that he not only didn't think of his jo as a separate entity, he didn't think of me or my jo as a separate entity either. The only way I could describe what happened on those occasions is with expletives I don't normally use in private and certainly would rather not use on a public forum.
Incidentally, in the Roppokai, we usually only practice jo-dori and a few other assorted aiki-bo techniques, most of which are really exercises more than techniques per se. So I wondered how sensei would respond to the challenge of jo vs jo when I put him on the spot, needless to say I didn't hold back and I sure suffered for it!
Brently Keen
charlesl
27th July 2001, 09:19
D. Skoss wrote:
Unfortunately, the fact that the jo has an infinite possible number of edges gives it both its great flexibility and infernal difficulty, as you must learn to keep any particular edge on the stick--defined only by the precise and correct placement of your hands--and its trajectory as straight as you do when you cut with a sword.
Hey D. Skoss, thanks. Thought about it, talked about it with one of the senior guys in my group, applied it, and seem to have broken out of another training plateau wrt strikes. Now I can go on to delude myself that my technique has gotten better for a couple months. Again, thanks.
-Charles Lockhart
Honolulu, HI
Boris
27th July 2001, 14:41
Hey all,
I'm not sure if this should be a new thread or not but...
Previously, some comments were made about the similarities between Jojutsu and Kenjutsu. While similar, my teacher has been very clear and adamant that at the contact point they are very different. Whereas the the arc of the sword uses the natural "slicing" motion.(Ie: A slightly pulling motion that comes from completing a circular form), because the Jo doesn't "slice" it needn't use this motion. He always tells me to use Umpo Ho and move with a forward motion so that the contact point is completely in a forward direction. Obviously, rear motions exist and are a different situation.
Any thoughts on this?
Shaunessey Joudrey
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.