Shiro Saigo, Judo's Secret Weapon? [Archive]

Ben_Holmes

19th December 2001, 04:20

Brian,

Thanks!!! This is exactly the sort of nits I'd like to have people pick. The names were scanned in from "Beginning Jujutsu", as was the photo, and to be honest, I didn't check it!! I didn't change any spellings, as I make no pretense of Japanese language ability. And my spelling mistake with "ouija" I claim full responsibility for!! I never bothered to run the article through a spell checker... should have.

And your reference to what Obata himself said... PRICELESS!!! I'll include that into my article. Also, your reference to Samura as being one of the contestants in that 1886 tournament, I entirely missed that! Very good point! Much thanks! I'll be revising my article with this additional information...

Mark, I've seen Wayne Muramoto's article before. It is, unfortunately, more of a journalistic invention than real history. It contains too many actual errors... which is one reason I didn't link to it in my article. Starting with his evident error of placing the tournament in 1883, then moving on through things like this paragraph:

"It's his yama arashi (mountain storm)!" the crowd gasped. Indeed, this technique, which probably had its roots in the oshikiuchi of Saigo Tanomo, was unique to Saigo Shiro. No one since his time has ever been able to replicate this throw. Yama arashi was Saigo Shiro's signature method. It was unique to him, and it died with him. Some say that it looked like a variation of the hane-goshi hip throw, but no one truly knows to this day how Saigo's yama arashi was accomplished."

It's a fine article, it has much that cannot be found elsewhere, and unfortunately, due to the obvious errors, it's not possible for me to figure out what's trustworthy, and what's not. I do appreciate that he listed his sources...

Jon, I was about to say I hope I made it clear it was an *opinion* of mine, then I reread my own words!! I hope you didn't take it as an attack on Jujutsu?! Modern day Jujutsu is not what Jujutsu in 1886 was. I do, however, think that many modern day Jujutsu styles feel compelled to revise history, when it's really not needed. If a Jujutsu style has learned the lessons of that tournament, and includes some sort of full speed, full power practice method, then they have nothing in common with the losing side of that 1886 tournament.

Thanks everyone for your help! Any other nits gratefully accepted!! :look:

Ben_Holmes

19th December 2001, 04:23

P.S. Brian!!! Just noticed where you're from... do you practice at Steve's dojo? I'm down here in Oxnard, and train with Neil Ohlenkamp.

Joseph Svinth

19th December 2001, 08:45

Ben --

Really nitpicky, so don't get flustered. Besides, the joy of online publishing is that you can fix gremlins and errors so much easier than you can in print.

1. Use that spellchecker. For example, assistent should be assistant.

2. Watch grammar. I know, up in the lounge we're having fun with that. But if you view writing as kata, then you to do it the traditional way unless you have a specific reason for doing otherwise. Here I don't think you're trying to be revolutionary. An example: "stacked the deck" in the first sub-head should be 'stacked the deck' (single quote rather than double) because it's already inside quotes. I'll assume that the "Just as" sentences are extracted because you want to give them attention, so in this case your usage is understandable, if not exactly "correct." If that wasn't the idea, then move everything back into the main paragraph.

3. A bit further down, you make an excellent point and then fail to emphasize it, to wit, "Keep injuries to a minimum." The Olympic hopefuls I knew were always playing with some kind of serious injury. On the other hand, Karim Abdul Jabbar's most persistent basketball injury was the knuckle he kept breaking when he tried to punch people the way Bruce Lee showed him. There is a lesson here, and it isn't just that Bruce's techniques weren't necessarily the best for punching opponents who stand 6'6" and weigh in excess of 250 pounds. The lesson is that avoiding serious injuries, especially during training, is a combat multiplier. This is a supervisory responsibility, and that's why traditional arts hate it so. (If you blame all "accidents" on the injured party, then the supervisor is never responsible for having created an unsafe training or work environment.)

In the sample you give, to my knowledge, no one died. Folks do like to god up the ballplayers, don't they?

4. Have you read Laszlo Abel, “The Meiji Period Police Bujutsu Competitions: Judo versus Jujutsu,” JMAS Newsletter, 2:3 (Dec 1984), 10-14? It is reprinted at http://www.usjujitsu.net/articles/JuJitsuP3.htm. You should also look at Erwin Baelz, Awakening Japan: The Diary of a German Doctor: Erwin Baelz, edited by Toku Baelz, translated from the German by Eden and Cedar Paul (New York: Viking Press, 1932), 73 and the introduction to the German edition of Irving Hancock’s The Complete Kano Jiu-jitsu. (Also written by Baelz.)

My own take on this (unpublished MS):

QUOTE:

[During the early 1880s] Erwin Baelz, a German physician living in Japan, had complained to the governor of Chiba Prefecture that the well-to-do youths he was examining were in poor physical condition, and that a little exercise would do them a world of good. “The governor was quite of my way of thinking,” Baelz later wrote, “and expressed his strong regret that jiujitsu, as a splendid method of physical training formerly much practiced in Japan, should have gone so completely out of use.” The governor then introduced Baelz to an elderly Yoshin-ryu jujutsu instructor named Hikosuke Totsuka. After watching some demonstrations, Baelz was convinced “that this would be an ideal form of gymnastics for my students.”

Back in Tokyo, however, the Ministry of Education was not impressed by Baelz’s observation. “The students,” Baelz was told, “had come to the university to do mental work.”

Undeterred (organized gymnastics and national wrestling were, after all, key elements of nineteenth century German Kultur), Baelz set about proving the Ministry of Education wrong. Although he couldn’t find anyone who would teach him jujutsu – although only in his early thirties, everyone said he was too old – he did find the young Jigoro Kano. Eventually, said Baelz:

INDENT PARA

He [Kano] and his comrades were at length successful in inducing the university authorities to summon the jiujitsu expert from Chiba and a great jiujitsu contest took place. This made it clear how much training is needed to learn the art, for of all the young men who had been working at it in Tokyo, not one, not even Kano, could cope with the police officers who had been trained by Totsuka in Chiba.

Next day old Totsuka, accompanied by his best pupil Sato, came to call on me and to thank me for my exertions in the matter. I can still see him in imagination, this venerable old man, with tears running down his cheeks… He declared, it made him blush that a foreigner should have had to tell his fellow-countrymen that it was incumbent upon them to revive jiujitsu; but now, when he knew that his beloved art would come into honour once more, he could die in peace.

CLOSE INDENT PARA

This defeat (invariably glossed over in Kodokan histories) probably took place in 1882, as in 1883 a Kodokan team defeated another Yoshin-ryu jujutsu team led by Totsuka’s son Eimi.

In 1886 the Kodokan received financial support from Baron Yajiro Shinagawa, and the dojo moved from Kano’s house to property owned by Shinagawa. (Shinagawa was minister to the Court of St. James in London, and evidently had asked Kano to look after his property while he was gone.) Soon after, a Kodokan team defeated yet another Yoshin-ryu jujutsu team. From then on, Kodokan judo was highly regarded in Tokyo.

CLOSE QUOTE

5. Sumo wrestler is Japlish. I know, we gaijin use it all the time, but it should really be sumotori or rikishi. (For amateurs, sumotori is probably preferable.) "provencial" ? Provincial, perhaps? Shouldn't this really be prefectural, if that is the case? If so, what is the source? Remember, wrestlers are always champions of somewhere, and the Japanese are no exceptions.

6. "The connection is to be found in the name of Tanomo Saigo (1830-1903 who later changed his name to Chikanori Hoshina) Shiro Saigo was the illegitimate son of Tanomo Saigo according to some sources, who in any case adopted Shiro." This is what is known as a run-on sentence.
:smokin:

7. A pet peeve: "practicing it's... cheating it's" -- practicing its, cheating its. It's is a contraction for it is; its is possessive.

Public flagellations -- they feel so good when they stop...

Brian Griffin

19th December 2001, 09:42

Originally posted by Ben_Holmes
... do you practice at Steve's dojo?Actually...I've been nice enough to let him practice at my dojo for the past fifteen years or so ;)

Seriously...we've been running the club together since my sensei "retired" in the mid '80s.

MarkF

19th December 2001, 10:52

Hi, Ben,
Yes, you're right. I was attempting to "work" the legendary end of the story. Sometimes, even when you're right, you're wrong.

I never took the story as fact, only as a story, as so many "factual" documents are wrong as you point out.

I know a yonkyu out there who hasn't lost the glint in his eye when he reads it.

Just the same, it was a good summary and I liked it, Joe's comments aside.;)

Mark

PS: The web site is looking nice these days.

Jon S.

19th December 2001, 23:18

Ben,

I definately did not take it as an attack on Jujutsu. I have no reservations that people of your experience in Judo wouldn't degrade Jujutsu since doing so would be practically like attacking Judo (at least in my opinion). I understand that your only attack was against the falsehoods that exist and I commend you for doing a good job of presenting the facts of the matter and backing up your research. Perhaps I might have said "on behalf of Jujutsu" instead of "in defense of Jujutsu". I apologize for implying that you were attacking Jujutsu. Just goes to show how careful one must be with words when communicating by computer.

In truth, only the ignorant question the value of either Jujutsu or Judo as a combat art. I don't see either one as being better than the other - I see Judo as more specific and Jujutsu as broader.

If the effectiveness of either art is without question then there certainly must have been some reason (or perhaps a combination of reasons) why Judoka dominated in the matches. I share your opinion as to why (essentially that Judo is more focused), and it explains everything without compromising the integrity of either art (and I refuse to accept any theories that do).

My intentions were to emphasize the point you made, to voice my agreement, and to point out that it is a workable solution for both Judo and Jujutsu. I don't subscribe to the belief that Judo cheated in any way, nor do I accept the notion that Judo was the new and improved version of Jujutsu.

Again, congratulations on an informative and objective article. I regret that my own ignorance prevents me from offering you some constructive criticism, but others seem to be quite capable. I learned a lot, found nothing objectionable, and, as a Jujutsuka, I appreciate your unbiased presentation and I understand your irritation caused by those who twist or lie about the facts of history.

Best regards,

Jon Small

Ben_Holmes

20th December 2001, 04:03

Mr. Svinth,

Hurt me more!! I'm going to spend quite some time going through your critical help... I appreciate your comments!!

Jon, Attacking Jujutsu *would* be an attack on Judo!! I agree! I look with wonder at the BJJ'ers who are attacking Judo, although, to be sure, it's not the top-level people.

Brian, I was the one who lent Steve my "Canon of Judo" awhile back. Tell Steve he's welcome back in the Oxnard dojo anytime! It's been too long since he's visited. You too!

Mark... it *is* a good story, well written... but I'm shooting for a more historical approach. I want something out on the net to counter so much of this 'Oshikiuchi' nonsense.

Thanks everyone for your help! I fear that with Christmas fast approaching, it'll be a few weeks before I can completely edit my article... but you've all given me resources and help I needed. Thanks!!

Brian Griffin

20th December 2001, 15:03

A couple of other things--

Obata studied Yoshinkai Aikido under Gozo Shioda. As far as I know, he's never studied Daito Ryu. I don't think it's accurate to describe a technique he admittedly made up, as "the Daito-ryu version of Yama Arashi."

Moreover, the Daito Ryu I've been exposed to doesn't even use names for their techniques.

If you'd like, I'll try to go through the list of names & clean up the romanizations. Some of the style names are incorrectly rendered, and the teaching titles (kyoshi, hanshi) have been omitted.

Ben_Holmes

21st December 2001, 04:11

Brian, Please!!!

I copied the names straight out of the reference, but I think the photo, and an *accurate* listing of the names would be of interest to others. If you can provide it, I'd certainly correct the article with your help!

And just as an interesting tidbit, I just got an Email from a member, and former president of, a Finnish Judo club named... drum roll please... Yama Arashi Dojo. Esa Vakkilainen is his name, and he also provided the following paragraph:

"My impression is (I should be able to find the references someplace) that the reasons for Judo’s win in 1886 were especially in the throws. Throwing was not ‘main stream’ jiu jitsu those days and therefore something new. (There are many stories from the early days of Judo about development of throws). Especially Yama-Arashi was something new as described then; “How can somebody maintain his balance and throw with
just one foot in the ground. “

Can anyone confirm or deny this? Or provide any references? I don't think this is quite correct, I'm under the impression that it was Judo's randori that was the cause of the difference in result at the 1886 tournament.

By the way, saw an interesting article by Kenji Tomiki at http://www.aikidofaq.com/essays/n_section24.html

Interesting commentary on early Judo.

MarkF

21st December 2001, 10:01

I can't confirm or deny any of that but a response which was becoming or the molding of ju jutsu or judo into a science was what was probably new.

Since Kano was the first (probably) academic to take the technique apart and put it together piece by piece, we can say it was the first style of ju jutsu which had three stages, all of which connect in nage waza to complete a technique.

Kuzushi, Tsukuri, and Kake refined technique into a sequence of moves instead of one move, mostly made of strength and muscle by some of the schools of jujutsu of the day.

This refinement was that which made judo distinct and popular, and I think it was accepted by numerous schools, something Kano encouraged. So throwing while on one foot was indeed possible and probable in at least some of the schools.

The other may or may not be randori, but kodokan judo was not the first to encourage the study by ran.

To shorten it, probably kuzushi was what changed it, and in those schools of jujutsu which had open-minded instructors, it wasn't easily ignored.

There were also certain things which made the study of ju jutsu to be of a lower "class" type of behavior AT THAT TIME. Obviously, many schools incorporate the same intention, one major school being yoshin ryu of the day, and continues to evolve so say its practitioners.
******

The reference mentioned by Brian of Obata and DR are right on the money. While its adherents describe it as *aiki bugei* or aikijujutsu, there is really no connection of which I am aware, and while DR ajj has a much storied history of it's aiki no jutsu technique, it is not the only one which claims to have its own (style of aiki) technique.
****

I look forward to whatever changes you make, Ben, so I'll (we will) have our eyes on the Best Judo web site now and in the future.

Here's to looking the future.

Mark

Walker

21st December 2001, 19:30

Me no do the judo, but Jon Bluming talked a bit about Kano being inspired by Greco Roman wrestling especially the basic koshi throws (Mark or Joe, you could do better with this, you were there).

In his own words:
“ Uki goshi, which was the first throw from Kano and [he] got that out of
GreecoRoman wrestling .
O goshi . big hipthrow. This time both legs come of the ground which in Greeco roman was not allowed.”

jimmy o'curry

22nd December 2001, 06:13

i read an article a couple of years ago by a danzan-ryu jujutsu BB that indicated one of kano's big innovations was throwing with the feet close together. according to the article, 1800s jujutsu schools still did throws out of a "horse stance."

the piece goes on to say that kano's guys threw with their feet close together, giving them faster footwork & more throwing power. according to the article, this advantage helped produce kodokan-judo victories at the tournament.

i have no references to cite; this is something i read in a danzan-ryu newsletter a while back.

jeff slade

Nathan Scott

22nd December 2001, 07:23

It would be more accurate to say that Obata Toshishiro made an "educated guess" rather than "made it up".

I've discussed the logic behind Obata sensei's "yama arashi" with him at some length, and the conversation was quite interesting (much more than he let on in the e-budo statement).

In his "Samurai Aikijutsu" book, he provided a technique based off of existing records, lore, and the specifics of the long match that took place. From a technical perspective, he had some interesting reasons why he presumed it to be something close to what he demonstrated.

Legend says that it is a Daito ryu technique, but nobody seems to know for sure.

Also, the fact that an early Judo book (by Kano or anyone else) has a version of yama arashi in it does not necessarily make the issue open and shut. Lets face it - there is no "secret weapon" throw. They are all based off of logical principles, and can all be reversed. If Saigo had some great technique, it was more likely effective through a deeper education in other subtle aspects (such as perhaps Daito ryu aiki) rather than a specific "unbeatable" throw.

There may very well not be any yama arashi at all.

But in any event, I'm looking forward to reading the article posted originally.

Regards,

MarkF

22nd December 2001, 09:02

No, there is a Yama Arashi alright, and I doubt Yokoyama or anyone else thought of it as any more or any less than what it was, a tewaza throw as described in his book. It is also in the modern Kodokan Judo book as it was in the 1958 edition and earlier manuals from the Kodokan.

That throw is a difficult one to pull off precisely and probably accounts for all the variations. Consider uchi-mata as an example. M. Kawaishi says it is a koshi-waza, while the Kodokan sees it as a loin or thigh sweep. Just in my experience from the sixties through today, that throw has changed so much that rules of "diving" an opponent dangerously close to the floor have since been included.

When I learned it, it was a straight thrust with the leg while the hand directed the body forward and up over the leg, the leg being the "tripping" mechanism and with more hip involvement and even a lift and pull or "tsuri-komi" than it is today. So in Kawaishi's time, he is probably closer with that description than was the Kodokan. Today, it is a different throw, or variation of that throw. I also noted that in a photo of a young Jon Bluming being thrown with it. It was somewhat different, the difference notably was the leg rise. There wasn't nearly as much.

What made yama arashi such a question mark was the legend of that tournament. In those days, short teenagers didn't through the big, tall jujutsu master like that. But then, I don't think Kano or anyone else thought it "magical" as it is today so nothing special about learning the throw was anything more than learning the principles of throwing. It was a science, something which went through many incarnations, but the principle is the same.

The comment above, though that closing the feet being a major change is true enough, as most throws of the day were accomplished with strength, thus the "horse stance" style change, but I think it came naturally with the three points in a throw, that the feet may be closer together, but I am more inclined to believe that the feet could be spread, but front to back rather spread side to side. This is a principle of kuzushi.

I've also heard people currently explaining yama arashi as an aiki technique. Two things need to be done to take it from legendary status and be placed back into the tewaza category of nage waza. First that the throw or I should say the principles of throwing must supplant those of what the "crowd" saw as a magical throw, and also, that is is not only around today, but that variations of kuzushi are so great that it should not be seen as one, single technique with no variation. We know this to be true with nearly all nage waza, so why is yama arashi made so distintly different in each dojo? It isn't.

As an example, seoinage in all its variations, needs forward kuzushi to pull-off correctly, thus the need to move uke off-balanced toward the front. Since the implication is that one is going to turn one's back to his opponent/attacker, kuzushi and tsukuri need to be accomplised nearly at the same exact time. But that is not always the case as the variations on kuzushi are so great that forward movement is not necessary or desirable in many cases.

In randori, seoinage is achieved by many by forward movement of tori with uke also moving to the back, but how is a foward throw accomplished while uke is going backwards? Gliding into the throw toward uke whil uke is moving backward, with a forward pull of uke to the front also completes the technique just as if you had broken uke's balance and brought him forward (Speaking plainly, you have. It just doesn seem that way). Either way, it is forward kuzushi, but with the players moving backward. Difficult to explain, easier to show on the mat. The Kodokan video Nage Waza shows a plethora of movement in differing direction to accomplish this throw. Of course, they also say no one is going to do so in shiai, but in randori is standard.

Then there is side to side kuzushi, take your pick, as just as the backward moving uke can be thrown forward, a sideways walk or tsugi-ashi to uke's side can effect the same throw. This breaks uke to his side, but a forward throw in the suddenly new direction is accomplished. Again, the principle is the same.

So are these different and distinct throws? Not that I feel whether pulling uke to the front or "pushing" to the back.

Then there is forward momentum throws such as seoi-o-toshi. Drop to both knees, and load him on your back/shoulder[s], it isn't seoi o toshi as many infer. If you "load" uke, it is still seoinage, even when on both knees when beginning the tskukuri. If you drop and bring uki with you and stay on your knees for the entire throw and do not load in any way (nearly so) it is seoi o toshi.

While I'll almost always go with the legend of yama arashi, basic principles has taught me that only one type of movement can distinguish throws. I think the only problem or the difference in opinion is in classification and what characterizes the throw, that is, is it tewaza as listed by the Kodokan, or is it a koshiwaza/shoulder throw as done by other styles? In Kodokan judo, yama arashi has always been a tewaza technique. If it isn't, then it probably isn't yama arashi.

Anyway, I think that is what makes it difficult. Classification of the nage waza. It also carries a name which makes it "mystical." Mountain Storm. If it were named as most other throws, this too would probably not have garnished the palate with Shiro's sudden move.

He gives little guys hope, too, with that throw.:)

Mark

MarkF

22nd December 2001, 09:10

Originally posted by Nathan Scott
There may very well not be any yama arashi at all.

BTW: I basically began to understand that Nathan, whether he realizes it or not, may just be correct. Not that there wasn't a nage waza called Yama Arashi, only that the throw produced unexpected bounty, and that it is, after all, a judo throw. It may have been called something else originally, but got attached to this name because of the spectactular results it received rather than the basic throw it is today. It doesn't mean "easy" by being basic, only that a basic principle of judo was applied, with "Maximum Results."

Mark

Nathan Scott

22nd December 2001, 20:48

Hi,

I just got finished reading the article - it a good effort.

I'd like to address a few points though if I may.

In Kodokan judo, yama arashi has always been a tewaza technique. If it isn't, then it probably isn't yama arashi.

My point was, where did "yama arashi" come from before Kano s. classified it as one of his techniques in Judo?

If this throw was supposed to be what made Judo famous, it would have been embarrassing not to have included it in the Judo curriculum. People would say "the throw that made Judo famous is not even a Judo throw". Even if others were not clear how Saigo made the throw work, it would have been prudent to include some version of it in the curriculum.

The legend and controversy of yama arashi sounds very similar to that of a technique called "tsubamegaeshi" in the swordsmanship world. Yoshikawa introduced it as Sasaki Kojiro's famous technique in his fictional novel "Musashi", but it is not clear if that technique was really used by him, or if so, what exactly it would have been. Other arts have a technique by that name though.

Back to the article - it is hard sometimes to tell what elements of the article are quotes from references, and which are the author's conclusions. It may be worthwhile to try to format it somehow (italics) with reference numbers for them all.

As far as Daito ryu, here are a few comments for what they are worth:

1) The reference to yama arashi in "Conversations with Daito ryu Masters" , pgs. 133-134 was not sited in the article.

2) On pg. 69 of CWDRM, Takeda Tokimune states: "A man called Shiro Saigo was also one of Kano's students. Sokaku met Kano through his acquaintance with Saigo.'

"[Shiro Saigo] was a natural son of Tanomo Saigo, born out of wedlock. Therefore, although Shiro was Tanomo's real son, he later adopted him to make it official".

3) There is an interview somewhere that I've read (and can't find right now) that refers to Saigo, and says that he was different, because as soon as you grabbed him you felt helpless. You could not keep your power once you grabbed him.

If I remember, the statement implied that the attacker would have their balance broken immediately and they would be thrown easily, though they did not know how Saigo was doing it.

If this was true, the later classification by Judo of yama arashi as a tewaza would make sense.

I'll post the reference here if I can find it.

In the meantime, Kondo s. states in CWDRM, pg.157:

"The difference between aikido and Daito ryu in the eyes of the general public is that in techniques of Daito ryu you must break the balance of the opponent the instant you touch him. This is because there is aiki in the technique, used to break the balance of the opponent. This is a major characteristic of Daito ryu."

In any event, I would agree that Shiro, despite any natural talent, would not have been considered a "master" of what is now called Daito ryu. He probably did learn some useful principles or tricks though.

3) Another quote I have in my notes, without reference to which interview I got it from, is an interesting comment by Sokaku:

- "What I do now I learned from Hoshina-san [Saigo Tanamo]. There was another student [Saigo Shiro], but he's gone now." - Takeda Sokaku, quoted from a discussion with his friend Itabashi Rinzaburo.

These references indicate that Sokaku may have known Saigo. Sokaku apparently also believed that Shiro was training in some kind of budo with Tanomo.

4) Oshikiuchi - this is quite controversial, but I would point out that nearly every senior instructor inside Daito ryu believes Oshikiuchi to contain martial techniques and/or principles - including Takeda Tokimune. It may very well have included matters of etiquette as well, but the exact scope of instruction is not clear to outsiders. I don't believe oshikiuchi should be thought of in the same way as a typical ryu-ha, but rather, a "tradition" passed down within the upper samurai class of the Aizu-han.

Researchers, primarily outside of highly ranked Daito ryu exponents, are the primary critics of this term, which is worth noting. The fact that the term was passed down by Sokaku himself, who was illiterate, does not help much when it comes to trying to establish which kanji were originally used for the term.

Regardless of which kanji was used, or if it was pronounced "goshikiuchi", "oshikiuchi" or "oshikiiuchi", there are numberous references to it as a set of martial techniques by several of the prominent Daito ryu exponents.

5) Be careful who you quote. The "Saigo-ha" is considered dubious at best by both researchers and those inside Daito ryu, though their statement does not seem unreasonable. It would be best to stick with the mainline (Tokimune/Kondo), Takumakai, Kodokai, Roppokai and Sagawa dojo in order to keep credibility to your piece.

FWIW, the yama arashi info from "Samurai Aikijutsu" is on pages 56-59. The book was published by Dragon Books in 1988. Though there are a few bits in there that are now considered errors in light of more recent research, there is still alot of valuable history in there.

So, in conclusion, I would propose that Saigo most likely learned some amount of oshikiuchi principles from his Father, and applied them to jujutsu techniques - especially his "favorite" - in order to keep an edge over everyone else.

I mean, how many of us can accurately define exactly what Mifune s. was doing to throw everyone so effortlessly? We can say "aiki", but what exactly? You can see what he's doing, but it is very hard to show that intangible element in technical photos of your own (referring to Kano's book). Especially if you were not skilled in those aspects of the throw.

If Saigo knew any of the Oshikiuchi, he would have been able to apply it to most if not all of the Judo techniques.

Personally, I think focusing on the yama arashi technique itself is missing the point.

Good effort in the article though. I've started a chronology on our web site that may or may not be of much use. It isn't finished yet, but the section for Sokaku pretty much is:

http://www.aiki-buken.com

Sorry for the obnoxious length of this post!

Aaron T. Fields

23rd December 2001, 03:56

I know three "yama arashi," depends on who you talk with as to if it is a hip or hand throw. Since I know three versions I call them the "weather pattern" series. :idea:

MarkF

23rd December 2001, 10:49

As for Yama Arashi not being included in the judo syllabus it is. And it is listed in the tewaza techniques. That "Kodokan Judo" doesn't include a description, well, it doesn't include other throws either but the throws are still recognized and taught.

On Koryu.com and/or daito-ryu.org, interviews with Tokimune say that his father and Kano were great friends, and even if it were a DR technique/aiki technique, there are those who say that is a "fact." Read the "Judo History" by Steven Cunningham. He agrees that Shiro used an aiki technique and that he was, at the very least, educated in what became DR AJJ. As Aaron says, he knows three versions. I'd say that of the forty-seven of the gokyo no waza, there are that many versions of all of them.

There are quite a few throws which have been around for long periods which are not in (before 1997) the listed syllabus as separate techniques, but photos show up without comment, just the variation on a theme, e.g., ippon-seoinage.

"Weather Pattern" throw has great potential. And you know what they say about the weather, don't you?:smokin:

It's a fascinating search, though, but I still believe, if the throw were listed or described just as most other throws, this would probably not be the stuff of legend.

Mark

PS: In another thread, we just may be discussing Yama Arashi ryu.;)

kusanku

23rd December 2001, 13:12

This Yama Arashi throw, isn't it something like a Harai Goshi early variant?

Now I mean, that's a good throw.

And if you did it like Mifune is shown doing it in film, that could be as nearly an unstoppable technique as you might ever get spun three hundred and sixty degrees knees over tin can by.

I think, as Mark said, if it were not listed and photogtrapehd, taught and demanded at tests and used in shiai, as is the case with the elusive Yama Arashi and described like that is and if we didn't all do harai goshi all the time, harai goshi would also be a lengendary secret technique, and the story of it being done with aiki, whatever that entails, possibly by instant kuzushi on grasping the wrist and lapel, would be equally as legendary.

Tell you what, anyone that can unbalance you as you take hold of them or as soon as they take hold of you, every time, is a great judo player.All should strive for such greatness. Part of that comes from making a conscious effort to effect kuzushi as one grasps or is grasped, sometimes it can be that simple.If skills are equal anyway.

I would bet that Saigo was taught some tricks to help that, and that even the tricks may have made their way into judo.At least as far as Mifune.

regards,

Nathan Scott

23rd December 2001, 20:26

Hi,

Mark-san, I didn't say that some version of yama arashi was not included in the Judo curriculum, just that it would have been kind of dumb not to, which may be why some version was added (from sources unknown).

I would bet that Saigo was taught some tricks to help that, and that even the tricks may have made their way into judo. At least as far as Mifune.

Yes, but I do not think Saigo's "tricks" made it into Judo. Mifune was awesome, but his application of aiki was different also - more inline with how it is used in aikido.

I like watching that tape of Mifune s. though. That's good stuff.

Regards,

kusanku

24th December 2001, 07:31

Nathan Scott says:'I do not think Saigo's 'tricks' made it into Judo.'

Perhaps not.The sad thing is, neither, it seems , have some of Mifune's.

Fortunately, we still have Kano's kata notes available and so do know pretty much what he intended.

It's the same thing everywhere,one can see what Mifune does, but doing it, is another thing entirely.But if one could, then one would indeed have formidable approach.

As to what exactly Saigo knew or did, it seems we may never know.As to how Mifune got so good, likewise, and as to restoring the finesse to judo, well, really, it never actually left, it just suffered a bit with some of the new rules.

But all the fundamental tools to ahcieve the skills needed, still exist. Judo is an art where all the secrets are an open book, laid out cards on the table, and level playing field.The thing is to master it.

So, if one has perfect form, perfect mechanics, and dynamics, and perfect timing, good spirit and good conditioning,perfect execution and follow-through,well, there it is, it ain't glamorous to describe but its Mifune to see.

Did we suffer from losing Saigo and what he brought to the table? I don't know.Because the Daito Ryu Is so secretive, its hard to calculate the loss. As you know, I am a big fan of trying to understand that art,But I don't, because its so secret.:D

Regards.
Regards

MarkF

24th December 2001, 10:47

Hey, Nathan,
I understood what you were saying, and apologize if it came of as if I didn't. I was trying to bring the dead back to life. All MA have holes in them big enough to toss three uke through and judo is no different in this respect. As most things were passed down, basically person to person, this is going to happen.

Not everyone thought Mifune or Saigo S. were the saviors we want them to be. Mifune wasn't always in line with the protocol of the Kodokan, especially later in his life. His students are very well respected people in judo and that says more about the kind of man he was, not his technical prowess.

What actually drew me to Mifune was very simple: he was the only living 10-dan, my teacher at the time kept us up to date on his life (or death by dying), so most of what I know about him is limited to, well, the same manner of word to word. Later, I began to see how he was so different.
******

The denial by some that there was only Mifune and no other who approached him in skill or with his manner of doing so is not necessarily correct, though Donn Draeger and John Cornish have given some tidbits on how he taught judo. Neither were his "longtime students," but Cornish had described, fairly recently, how he managed to stick his, Mifune's, head in the door which lead to a dislike of the technique of a throw he and Donn were doing and when when a translator was found, he made them do the complete nage no kata three times each. This for a mistake in technique which only the kata could solve. Cornish said he ended up with tiny little marks on his body from the mat, many were still bleeding later on.

But what I admire and tried to emulate was his ability not to be thrown even when technique, the basics, etc., were as good as one could get on him. He could hang six inches off the ground in the middle of a nage waza but tori could not throw him. I thought this a tale until one day we had a new bb student from Brazil. He was about Mifune's height (I towered over him at 5'3" as he was only 5'1" or less). From the first randori session with this guy I learned there was another part of technique called "FINISHING YOUR NAGE! (Kake) I thought I understood this part of the technique until this man who was perhaps a year or two older than me could be thrown if my technique was sound, but every time I did that, I'd look where he was supposed to be, and he would instead be on his feet waiting for me to straighten up. He loved this, and grinned ear to ear on each time I failed to throw him to the floor. I've never felt anything like it, except, perhaps, in contest, when one applies nage as soon as one touches up with the opponent, and it comes off so smoothly and effortlessly, you wonder why every one doesn't feel like that. Our Brazilian friend could make you feel like that, but he didn't hit the floor on anything but his feet.

Silly me, I forgot to ask him for his personal data and today I can't remember his name. He spoke little English, but both of us knew enough Spanish to get stuff across. He's the one that taught me the fifth throwing direction in the Gokyo no waza; "throw him where you are." It was all visible technique, probably much like aiki, and probably was aiki. It was very small circle stuff, but basically could be garnered along with many waza.
******

BTW: Obata-Sensei's version or educated guess on what Yama Arashi was/is, isn't that far off. Mainly, the difference was the typical jujutsu stance of the day, so while I disagree based on judo principles, it is probably as close as anyone else who understands how nage waza was done in the jujutsu school. Move the non-posted leg to the back a little, it isn't so very different, actually. Pictures can make you look very good or very bad, that is, in any given snapshot.

Mark

MarkF

24th December 2001, 10:54

BTW: Nathan, this was in LA, or more correctly, in the Glendale YMCA and the old Hollywood YMCA in the boxing area of the building. It was up in a loft in the Hollywood Y. It was difficult not to at least try boxing a little.:idea:

Mark

Nathan Scott

26th December 2001, 08:32

Mr. Vengel,

Good points - I agree. The only thing that can't be transmitted in the old text books is the "direct transmission" part. While an experienced judo-ka can mimick the technique based on the photos and text pretty accurately, there may very well be sublties that exist and are hard to guess without that direct instruction from someone who knows. I've seen this alot before with regards to reconstruction - both elsewhere and with my own experimentation.

There are a few old time judo-ka around still who were taught "Kodokan" judo. I hope ya'll milk them while you still have the chance!

Mark, interesting story. Throwing the opponent where you were/are is typical of alot of jujutsu styles, since causes kuzushi on nearly everyone simply through in-flexibility. Very effective when combined with reasonable waza. I like to do it with kubinage myself (not in the context of judo).

Funny about the Hollywood YMCA. I drive by there all the time. A classmate of mine from a Kung Fu class I used to take years ago teaches there. It looks like a good facitily from the outside, despite the "YMCA" stigma!

Good thread.

Happy Holidays,

MarkF

26th December 2001, 08:46

Nathan,
I actually got the term from Daito ryu as I really didn't know at that time, but yes, "throw him where you were" was it.

Here's wishing a safe drive/ride/flight home.

Mark

Brian Griffin

26th December 2001, 13:48

Originally posted by Nathan Scott
If this throw was supposed to be what made Judo famous, it would have been embarrassing not to have included it in the Judo curriculum. People would say "the throw that made Judo famous is not even a Judo throw". Even if others were not clear how Saigo made the throw work, it would have been prudent to include some version of it in the curriculum.Yama arashi did not make Judo famous.

Judo's initial fame was due to Kodokan no ashi i.e. the devastating skill at foot-sweeps developed by Kodokan students, as a result of their extensive randori training.

Even if Saigo had lost his 1886 match, the Kodokan would still have won by an overwhelming margin.
I think it was the novel Sanshiro Sugata that made Saigo & his tokuiwaza famous. Of course, by that time, yama arashi was no longer included in the gokyo.

The legend and controversy of yama arashi sounds very similar to that of a technique called "tsubamegaeshi" in the swordsmanship world. Yoshikawa introduced it as Sasaki Kojiro's famous technique in his fictional novel "Musashi", but it is not clear if that technique was really used by him, or if so, what exactly it would have been. Other arts have a technique by that name though.This would only be analogous if Yoshikawa's father

a) knew & trained with Sasaki Kojiro as a fellow student for many years
b) witnessed Sasaki's famous duel & saw him use the tsubame gaeshi.
c) taught tsubame gaeshi to many students over the succeeding decades, prior to his son's book being published

...of course, in that case, it would be incorrect to claim tsubame gaeshi was a "lost" technique.

There is an interview somewhere that I've read (and can't find right now) that refers to Saigo, and says that he was different, because as soon as you grabbed him you felt helpless. You could not keep your power once you grabbed him.The same has been said about Kano.

Hey...maybe that's where Saigo (and Mifune) learned it!

So, in conclusion, I would propose that Saigo most likely learned some amount of oshikiuchi principles from his Father, and applied them to jujutsu techniques - especially his "favorite" - in order to keep an edge over everyone else.I'd be happy to agree, if you can just explain:

What are the "principles" of oshikiuchi?
How do they apply to jujutsu techniques in general?
How are they applied in yama arashi in particular?

I mean, how many of us can accurately define exactly what Mifune s. was doing to throw everyone so effortlessly? We can say "aiki", but what exactly? You can see what he's doing, but it is very hard to show that intangible element in technical photos of your own (referring to Kano's book). Especially if you were not skilled in those aspects of the throw.Whatever he was doing, he didn't learn it from Saigo. Must have been Kano.

Brian Griffin

26th December 2001, 14:43

Originally posted by Nathan Scott
It would be more accurate to say that Obata Toshishiro made an "educated guess" rather than "made it up".

I've discussed the logic behind Obata sensei's "yama arashi" with him at some length, and the conversation was quite interesting (much more than he let on in the e-budo statement).

In his "Samurai Aikijutsu" book, he provided a technique based off of existing records, lore, and the specifics of the long match that took place. From a technical perspective, he had some interesting reasons why he presumed it to be something close to what he demonstrated.It's odd that the "existing records" he checked didn't include any books on Judo published in the last century. I'd be interested in hearing the reasoning behind his "reconstruction." There are also some technical reasons not to accept his reconstructed version.

Although the Kodokan currently lists yama arashi among the tewaza (hand techniques), all the older references (including Yokoyama) call it an ashiwaza (leg technique) in which tori sweeps his leg back strongly in order to throw.
Kawaishi called it a koshiwaza (hip technique), but still describes the vigorous sweeping action of tori's leg.

The key element all sources agree on is the somewhat unusual grip:
tori's right hand holds uke's right lapel, thumb inside.

Obata's version does not use this grip, nor does it involve a sweeping leg-action. I would call it a version of tsurikomigoshi.

Nathan Scott

26th December 2001, 19:15

Mr. Griffin,

While I think you may have misunderstood some of what I was saying, and don't agree with your conclusions, I do thank you for your post.

For what it's worth, it sounds to me like the principles Saigo was emphasizing were different from those that Mifune was emphasizing.

The first paragraph you quoted in your first response, along with much of what I wrote, was simply my opinion. Your free to have your own.

FWIW, my comment that I thought that yama arashi is a tewaza was my own opinion, based soley on what has been said about Saigo's technique. I could be wrong. As you know, an ashiwaza or koshiwaza won't work without the proper setup, and it sounds to me as if it Saigo set them up using subtle hand techniques. That would explain why the technique itself may not be all that impressive looking (especially if you look at the Kodokan's version), but still be very effective.

It's odd that the "existing records" he checked didn't include any books on Judo published in the last century. I'd be interested in hearing the reasoning behind his "reconstruction." There are also some technical reasons not to accept his reconstructed version.

Mr. Obata is well aware of the Judo books that contain such information. He is Japanese, and has easy access to such things. I don't know why you assume that he would not have checked the Kodokan books before forming his opinions.

In fact, he is aware of them as they were written in their original language, where all of us are only aware of them in translated versions (that may be edited or flawed). I ask again - where did Kano s. learn yama arashi? Where did the technique come from? Who taught it to him?

The fact that you, and many others, are so willing to authoritatively state that you know for a fact what Saigo was doing, and that everyone else must be wrong is interesting. I agree that it is pretty amazing to find so much controversey about something that happened not that long ago. There surely must have been judo-ka who knew Saigo and could at least explain what they saw visually. But we still end up with alot of unanswered questions just the same. Go figure.

Mr. Obata obviously suspected that the existing information on yama arashi, including the official printed information available through the Kodokan, was flawed. It might not be, but he has his reasons why he thinks the throw might have been performed differently- or at least with different variations. It is his educated opinion.

He actually showed me a couple of other variations to the throw he included in his "Samurai Aikijutsu" book, and explained why they might have been possible variations of the technique. The words "it must have been performed like this" in "Samurai Aikijutsu" are not his own, they are that of the publisher who was selling the book. Obata sensei considers the technique to be "one likely possibility".

His reasons for this I won't go into, since he did not wish to go into it during his spotlight here, and I'm sure I would forget important points if I tried. Some of what he was saying though was based on experience with long randori, where fatigue starts to set in, and the grip (on uke's gi) becomes weak.

There were many other aspects to Obata sensei's opinion that made alot of sense as well - to me at least.

But, it is his "educated guess". Feel free to disagree. Unfortunately, I don't think he cares to debate the subject any further.

Regards,

Brian Griffin

27th December 2001, 13:09

Originally posted by Nathan Scott
Mr. Obata is well aware of the Judo books that contain such information. He is Japanese, and has easy access to such things. I don't know why you assume that he would not have checked the Kodokan books before forming his opinions.

In fact, he is aware of them as they were written in their original language, where all of us are only aware of them in translated versions (that may be edited or flawed).
--snip--
Mr. Obata obviously suspected that the existing information on yama arashi, including the official printed information available through the Kodokan, was flawed. It might not be, but he has his reasons why he thinks the throw might have been performed differently- or at least with different variations. It is his educated opinion.Obata-sensei's own statements here on E-Budo, as well as the clarifications you posted at the time, show that he believed yama arashi to have been a literary invention of the author of Sanshiro Sugata--that it's unlikely to have been a real technique, because such a technique would have been passed down (implying it has not).
Originally posted by Obata Toshishiro on 8/23/2000
Yama Arashi is actually a technique in a book that was written and created by Tomita Tsuneo.

It is said that Yama Arashi was created by Tomita Tsuneo, but no one really knows. Since it was written, people think that it is a real technique. However, if it was real, it [would stand to reason that it would have] been passed down.
--snip--
Therefore, I basically researched and guessed [from what little evidence could be found] the Yama Arashi technique based from knowledge of Aikijujutsu, and used it in the "Samurai Aikijutsu" book.
--snip--
Unfortunately nobody can know for a fact - there is not enough believable evidence to say.
Originally posted by Nathan Scott on 8/24/2000
...I talked to Obata Sensei about this subject briefly again last night in the dojo, and he reiterated that Tomita Tsuneo was a writer, and more than likely made up a fictional "secret Judo technique", that nobody could ukemi from! You have to admit that the name (mountain storm) is pretty dramatic, and the inclusion of such an idea in a novel definitely makes alot of sense from a "romantic" standpoint. The tale of Sugata Sanshiro is quite famous in Japan, and has been retold many times. I would not place too much value on such tales.

However, that's not to say such a technique could not have existed. As you have pointed out, we are only talking about the early part of the twentieth century that all this was concluding. This possibility combined with the consistant pubic interest in discovering such a technique motivated Obata Sensei to attempt to reconstruct what he thought most closely fit the descriptions and possible body mechanics.Nothing here suggests even a passing familiarity with the Judo literature. That's not such a terrible sin, given that he was writing a mass-market book rather than an academic text. Would you now prefer we believe he did the research, but found Kano, Mifune et al not sufficiently believeable? On what basis?

I ask again - where did Kano s. learn yama arashi? Where did the technique come from? Who taught it to him?Where did Kano Shihan learn haraigoshi...kosotogake...hanemakikomi? Where did those techniques come from? Who taught them to him?
ANSWER:
These (and others) were created (and named) spontaneously, on the mats of the Kodokan, as a result of intensive randori & shiai.
Yama arashi may have been adopted from another style (maybe even Daito Ryu!) or it may have been invented at the Kodokan, or a technique from another style may have been modified at the Kodokan. The name certainly didn't come from Daito Ryu.

The fact that you, and many others, are so willing to authoritatively state that you know for a fact what Saigo was doing, and that everyone else must be wrong is interesting. I agree that it is pretty amazing to find so much controversey about something that happened not that long ago. There surely must have been judo-ka who knew Saigo and could at least explain what they saw visually. But we still end up with alot of unanswered questions just the same. Go figure.I mentioned this 16 months ago, but I might as well do so again...

We do have several eyewitnesses who knew & trained with Saigo over the course of many years. They experienced his yama arashi at first-hand many times, and saw him use it in the famous 1886 tournament. In fact, they fought beside him in that tournament.

Yamashita Yoshiaki
Yokoyama Sakujiro
Tomita Tsunejiro
Samura Kaichiro
...and, of course, Kano Jigoro

Tomita's son Tsuneo (also a judoka) wrote Sanshiro Sugata.
In 1909, when Tsuneo was five years old, Yokoyama published Judo Kyohan, a "master text" illustrating & describing the Kodokan curriculum. It features the original (1895) gokyo no waza, which had yama arashi as a standard throw. Yokoyama helped create the 1895 gokyo. The photograph of yama arashi shows Samura as tori. In fact, everyone but Tomita appears in that text. Kano himself reviewed and approved it. At the time of it's publication, Saigo Shiro was alive and vigorous and owned his own newspaper. He certainly could have objected to any perceived inaccuracy in the depiction of "his" technique.

So what we are asked to believe is:

Some time between 1890 (when Saigo left the Kodokan) and 1895 (when the gokyo was first promulgated) The Kodokan changed yama arashi. Everyone listed above, as well as hundreds of others, either remained silent, or actively promoted the deception. Saigo himself went along with the conspiracy.

William of Occam...please call your office. Your razor appears to be missing.

Nathan Scott

28th December 2001, 01:24

Mr. Griffin,

As I mentioned in my last post, I don't intend to argue the validity of Mr. Obata's research or publication. Take it for what it is, at the time in which it was written.

Book companies like the one Obata sensei used to work with make money from sensationalism, and this is something that the authors have to contend with on a constant basis. If your not a qualified academic, you will also have a hard time getting published by a University press as well. So until recently- the time of self-publication - it was difficult for authors in misunderstood fields like martial arts to write fully credible works without bearing some influence from the "money man". The publication company, who has the financial backing, wants to be sure to make their money back, along with as much profit as possible. I wish people would consider this (in general) when picking apart books published by such companies more than ten years ago. Mr. Obata has not been completely satisified with any of his written works, which is why he has just begun to self-publish his writings. It is that much more difficult when the author is not fluent in English, and is forced to rely to some degree on the accuracy and integrity of the "employer". I think any Japanese martial arts author would tell you the same thing. The well read enthusiast needs to develop a sense for what is embellishment and exaggeration based on a few factors such as this, unfortunately.

Anyway, what was I saying?

Oh yeah - I stand by what I said previously, as well as what I've said here. I don't believe they are in contradiction.

Perhaps there is a technique that exists and has been recorded named yama arashi, but whether it is the same version performed the same way I don't think we'll ever know. Seeing as how it is a fairly logical throw in the Judo version, perhaps it was called something else in another jujutsu style?

It is said that Yama Arashi was created by Tomita Tsuneo, but no one really knows. Since it was written, people think that it is a real technique. However, if it was real, it [would stand to reason that it would have] been passed down.

"But no one really knows". Mr. Obata is saying the same thing. It is strange that it would not have been passed down if it did exist. But if the Judo version is as everyone says, why is it not that "amazing"? Why can't everyone use it with the same legendary results? I suspect it may be because Saigo was using subtle principles of movement he learned elsewhere, adding it to that technique or any other technique, and greatly increasing the efficiency of the techique(s). This is something, if my hunch is correct, that would not be obvious to the eye. You would not be able to replicate or explain these principles from watching it, or really even feeling it alone. You would need some serious practice and direct instruction in what they are and how to apply them to techniques. In theory.

Therefore, I basically researched and guessed [from what little evidence could be found]

Mr. Obata does not say what his research was, but lets face it - the first place to start would be exant records from the Kodokan. When I mentioned Kano sensei's book to him during the spotlight, he was well aware of it and said basically what I've said. Just because it is in a book is no guarentee. In my own opinion, the technique shown in that book may be visually close to what Saigo was calling yama arashi. I don't know, as I have not taken the time personally to carefully research the subject. But I have studied a wee bit of judo, and know enough to know that the technique shown there is not any more technically advanced than any other judo throw. And that it is hard to believe that the results of such a throw would warrant the fearsome legend and attention that has been given to it.

The fact that Saigo never objected to the version the Kodokan published is also not convincing. Who wants the whole world to learn and possibly get better at your favorite technique ("secret weapon")? Everyone knows how secretive Daito ryu is, and Saigo was probably instructed not to show them to anyone. However, applying a few of the tricks to other jujutsu techniques, such as yama arashi, could be done pretty safely without others picking up on what he was doing. I doubt he would want these details included for a variety of reasons.

Those curious in the whole Daito ryu thing may be interested in reading a new (and important) submission to Aikido Journal - just announced:

Sagawa dojo - Paul Wollos (http://www.aikidojournal.com/articles/_article.asp?ArticleID=1119)

Anyway, believe what you want - it's a free world!

Regards,

tommysella

28th December 2001, 09:33

Brian wrote:
Where did Kano Shihan learn haraigoshi...kosotogake...hanemakikomi? Where did those techniques come from? Who taught them to him?
-----------------

Don't know about the hanemakikomi, but harai-goshi is one of the throws in Tenjin Shinyo-ryu. I read somewhere that Nagaoka was the one that came up with kosotogake...

Regards,
Tommy

Brian Griffin

28th December 2001, 10:08

Originally posted by Nathan Scott
But if the Judo version is as everyone says, why is it not that "amazing"? Why can't everyone use it with the same legendary results?
Maybe for the same reason my seoinage never works as well as Koga's and my tai otoshi isn't remotely as effective as Paul Maruyama's.
Those guys are...well...just better than I am.

Brian Griffin

28th December 2001, 10:17

Originally posted by tommysella
I read somewhere that Nagaoka was the one that came up with kosotogake...Exactly.

On the mats, at the Kodokan, as a result of randori.

You can find the story in Kudo's Dynamic Judo (or Judo in Action).

rsamurai2

29th December 2001, 03:02

i have a theory for what it's worth. has anybody thought that it may have been a mistake. saigo ment to throw him one way but with the body movements, adrenelin and fatigue it came off as a variation to what he intended to do. we have all done this in randori and in shiai. we are trying to do ippon or osoto and it worked, but diferently than we intended. and this is why we can't pin down the exact throw. it was a fluke. now this isn't discounting saigo in any fashion, just on how the technique was executed.
just my two cents.

Brian Griffin

29th December 2001, 11:15

I was double-checking some references, and I can't locate my source for Samura Kaichiro having fought in the 1886 match.
If the birthdate I found is correct, he would have been much too young to have participated.
Please excuse the oversight.

**************
:idea:
...On second thought...

Just because I can produce no evidence for my earlier claim, doesn't mean it couldn't have happened that way.

Besides... I suspect that the existing information, including the official printed information available through the Kodokan, may be flawed--although I won't tell you how or why.

Also, the fact that a book has a birthdate in it does not necessarily make the issue open and shut. Just because it is in a book is no guarentee.

Unfortunately nobody can know for a fact - there is not enough believable evidence to say. I don't think we'll ever know.

:smokin: Yeah...that's the ticket!

Maybe Samura did fight that match. When he was six-years old!
Maybe he used secret techniques he may-or-may-not have learned, when a man who may-or-may-not have illegitimately sired him taught him a martial tradition that may-or-may-not have ever existed!

No, I don't have any actual evidence for any of this speculation. Why do you ask?

But, it is only my "educated guess"--just "one likely possibility." Feel free to disagree. Believe what you want - it's a free world! ;)

MarkF

29th December 2001, 14:49

Going with the "variant" argument, I can point out two throws which look exactly the same, and also show what separates them, not only as different throws, but totally different mechanics to get there. So if this is thrown into the mix, then everyone does what they do slightly different than the other, and may even be doing a completely different and distinct throw based on, well, basic priniciple[s] of the throw.

I haven't seen the Japanese version of Yokoyama's Judo Kyohan, but wasn't it first published in 1906 (the english version in 1914)? The more I look at the photo graphic of the throw (and dismissing the fact the 'taker' is looking at the camera) I think he, Yokoyama, would have known just what the throw is. The differences, or variants, are very, very common, even person to person in the same dojo. Major revisions are almost a necessity. Also, the jujutsu technicians of the day, including anything aiki, did not use "linear" footwork, instead creating balance by spreading the legs, not to include the fact that raising one foot off the floor and sweeping with the leg. Foreign motion to most. Not so with judo players of the day. And not so with TSR and others, but actually using it in a fighting manner feels a little strange for most, even today at least at the first few goes it does.

Denying it existed because it is the stuff of legends doesn't remove it from the playing field, IMO.

Mark

Brian Griffin

3rd January 2002, 08:56

Originally posted by MarkF
I haven't seen the Japanese version of Yokoyama's Judo Kyohan, but wasn't it first published in 1906 (the english version in 1914)?Nope.

(1) The text refers to changes in nage no kata having “been put into practice since the summer of 1907” -- so it was written after that.
(2) The gokyo described in the text consists of 41 techniques. Tsurikomigoshi (added about 1911) is not included -- so it was written before that.
(3) The translator's preface to the English edition refers to five years elapsing since the translation was finished. The preface is dated December 1st, 1914.

The Japanese edition had to be 1908/9. The English edition was published 1915.

Paul Steadman

15th January 2002, 14:20

G'day,

I think that the Kodokan's victory over the jujutsu schools just proves that the Kodokan was a fantastic and brilliant school for producing tournament fighters who train for superiority in rule-bound, limited and safe (indoor) controlled (reffereed) combat sports.

I wouldn't take on a judoka at a IJF or Olympic tournament for any amount of money. They'd wipe the tatami with me. Jujutsu wasn't designed for application in judo style tournaments.

I wonder what would have happened if that famous Police Jujutsu tournament was held outside in a gailing downpour on harsh terrain with all jujutsu waza & weapons being allowed?

By the way, the Japanese police currently train in judo and kendo as a form of physical education or PT to build up esprit-de-corps and fitness. Judo and kendo are not the official or applied unarmed and weapons methods of the Japanese police service. As most allready know- taihojutsu including toshu-goshinho/tori-te, keibo soho, keijo soho etc are the practical methods by which the Japanese police train for in defensive-tactics and weapons training. And these methods, my friends, stem from the old jujutsu schools, not from judo.

Regards,

Paul Steadman

Brian Griffin

15th January 2002, 17:18

Originally posted by Paul Steadman
I think that the Kodokan's victory over the jujutsu schools just proves that the Kodokan was a fantastic and brilliant school for producing tournament fighters who train for superiority in rule-bound, limited and safe (indoor) controlled (reffereed) combat sports.
The 1886 contest was a jujutsu match, among jujutsu schools. The rules and venue were set by the Tokyo Police, not the Kodokan. The purpose of the contest was to choose the strongest jujutsu school. They did.

I wouldn't take on a judoka at a IJF or Olympic tournament for any amount of money. They'd wipe the tatami with me. Jujutsu wasn't designed for application in judo style tournaments.
There weren't any "judo style tournaments" in 1886.

I wonder what would have happened if that famous Police Jujutsu tournament was held outside in a gailing downpour on harsh terrain with all jujutsu waza & weapons being allowed?Everybody would have gotten wet, and a lot more people would have been hurt a lot more seriously. Given the Kodokan's dominance of that match, there's no real reason to think the outcome would have been substantially different. Unless of course, by "weapons" you mean the use of sniper rifles ;)

By the way, the Japanese police currently train in judo and kendo as a form of physical education or PT to build up esprit-de-corps and fitness.Yeah...that's it. Couldn't have anything to do with fighting, or hitting people with long sticks. Just a big self-esteem support group.

Judo and kendo are not the official or applied unarmed and weapons methods of the Japanese police service. As most allready know- taihojutsu including toshu-goshinho/tori-te, keibo soho, keijo soho etc are the practical methods by which the Japanese police train for in defensive-tactics and weapons training. And these methods, my friends, stem from the old jujutsu schools, not from judo.Please continue to ignore the role of the Kodokan in creating taihojutsu in the first place. It will help you feel better.

Kit LeBlanc

15th January 2002, 21:58

Brian,

My hat is off to you.

Paul,

What, pray tell, is your problem with judo? Why don't you think it can be effective in combative situations? In how many real life situations have you used your classical jujutsu? Judo? Otherwise you are parroting a somewhat tired classical jujutsu line, which, unfortunately, was pretty much played out after the 1886 Police matches, and the subsequent 1906 coming together of jujutsu masters to devise judo kata.

I have and continue to use judo while armed, and armored, and in dealing with a variety of levels of resistance against suspects attempting to assault me and/or escape. It works for me. And guess what, I can CHOOSE what level of injury I want to inflict on my aggressors! Maybe you just aren't doing it right....

In fact, I found that Judo/BJJ were overall a BETTER study than koryu grappling when I had to use this stuff against people that weren't from my dojo, didn't know they were supposed to fall down when I tried a technique, and didn't assume that a certain strike, or lock, or whatever was supposed to be "disabling." Go Figure!!

Originally posted by Paul Steadman
G'day,

I think that the Kodokan's victory over the jujutsu schools just proves that the Kodokan was a fantastic and brilliant school for producing tournament fighters who train for superiority in rule-bound, limited and safe (indoor) controlled (reffereed) combat sports.

Oh...like all the traditional schools that were engaging in dojo smashing and interschool training, fighing under the same agreed upon rules (admittedly nothing like modern judo rules), and all oftentimes calling themselves "judo."

[i]

I wouldn't take on a judoka at a IJF or Olympic tournament for any amount of money. They'd wipe the tatami with me. Jujutsu wasn't designed for application in judo style tournaments. [/B]

Be careful. I wouldn't be all that enthused about taking one on in the street...they just might wipe the street up with you too. Jujutsu kata are nothing like really fighting with a determined adversary. Judo shiai is at least a little bit more realistic...

[i]
I wonder what would have happened if that famous Police Jujutsu tournament was held outside in a gailing downpour on harsh terrain with all jujutsu waza & weapons being allowed?[/B]

Well, the judoka, (1) probably being more physically fit, because they train harder than koryu jujutsuka do for the most part, and (2) probably having much more realistic and much quicker entries and finishes to their technique because they use their stuff regularly against resisting opponents, and (3) probably because they have much more refined defenses against legitimate full speed attacks from opponents, and (4) probably because they retain many elements of classical jujutsu in the curriculum in kata form,

would no doubt kick some serious a$$!

[i]
And these methods, my friends, stem from the old jujutsu schools, not from judo.

Regards,

Paul Steadman [/B]

The selfsame schools that judo stems from, my friend!

Paul, you are welcome at any time to visit the Obukan in Portland OR. I will be happy to work with you comparing and contrasting Kodokan Judo to classical grappling methods, and explaining, from personal experience, why both have to be modified for real world close combat encounters, and why Judo develops the infinitely more important ATTRIBUTES necessary for real world fighting than kata-only systems.

Amazing...Judo is the butt of criticism by both the Brazilian jujutsu world and the classical jujutsu world. Sour grapes, no doubt. When you have established yourself as the one to beat, the one to be criticized, isn't that proof enough that you are probably doing something right?

Ellis Amdur

15th January 2002, 22:06

The idea that the Kodokan, in its specialization on unarmed combat, was an anomaly in Meiji Japan, shows a misunderstanding of jujutsu's history. There was a general trend towards specialization in unarmed fighting among most jujutsu schools by the late Edo-period. Already, many schools were de-emphasizing weapons practice. I would refer to an article in the Kashima Shin Ryu newsletter, by either Bodiford or Friday, which describes how most Meiji Jujutsu schools had taryu shiai - unarmed.

Rather than bemoaning the rise of the Kodokan as somehow, "unfair," jujutsu schools today claim, as bragging rights, that one of their shihan, two or three generations ago, beat a Kodokan man, in a "fair one." (Don't know of too many in this generation who can claim a similar accomplishment). Takenouchi Ryu (with all of it's great weapons training) was famous in Eastern Japan in the Meiji period as being the strongest ryu at UNARMED grappling (with some degree of rules - most taryu shiai among any and all ryu did not, reportedly allow atemi.)

Late Edo and early Meiji Japan was on an "express train" towards modernization. All over the country, young men were excited at the idea of all the 19th and then 20th century could bring. The weapons side of jujutsu ryu was already a subject of far less interest, because, a) it was kata b) it was considered unrealistic - young men of the period, particularly among jujutsu ryu, which was less aristocratic - lots of peasants and merchants - hankered after guns and technology. Thus, Takenouchi Ryu, despite it's strength ebbed, because it was through the unarmed grappling that one could definitely prove one's superiority. The Kodokan, through Kano, with a specific emphasis on technical excellent, and a willingness to refine technique as much as was needed, outstripped its direct competitors - who were, in less scientific ways, WORKING TOWARDS THE SAME ENDS (the Kodokan not only had rivals among koryu, but also among other new, syncretic jujutsu ryu who didn't stand the test of time or competition).

Then, the Kodokan gaining more and more prominence, through both victories in competition, and in a rational teaching method which allowed it to spread rapidly, took the lead in codifying, (with consultation among old ryu, mind you), rules for further competition. Other ryu's members participated in these competitions. Most of the older judo shihan in outlying areas of Japan were also jujutsu shihan. But they couldn't keep the latter going among their students. Young men became less and less interested in the old jujutsu kata, particularly those with weapons, because they seemed to contribute less towards victory in free-style hand-to-hand competition, than more randori practice - which soon became synonymous with judo itself. That is why the older ryu died or attenuated - young men found little use in their methods.

On the flip side, some jujutsu ryu, veered towards an emphasis on competition with weapons, and cut away the grappling kata. For example, one Araki Ryu school, the Annaka han Araki Ryu, over a period of thirty years, eliminated their entire curriculum and became a kendo school, with some Araki Ryu sword kata to maintain some "roots". This paring away continues even today. I know of one very prominent school, mostly known for weaponry, that seems to be abandoning its unarmed grappling kata - there is so little interest. Another school had devolved to a mere kenjutsu school about 30 years ago. It was through the persistence of one non-Japanese member that the aging shihan has revived practice of bo, naginata, and an extensive grappling kata curricullum. (BTW, this is one school that had as a proud history, this particular shihan's victory over a strong Kodokan man).

It is conceivable, though useless, to speculate, that one could have created forms of competition in which methods of older ryu were less irrelevant (the emphasis on ippon throws de-emphasized groundwork to some degree - Oh yeah! BJJ!!!! :), and also sacrifice techniques as well - witness how, at least on a softer surface, how an ippon throw is irrelavant in a MMA tournament.)

So, it wasn't that the Kodokan took over In SPITE OF the older ryu - they willingly joined. Note that, in my experience, most older shihan (above 60) proudly have written on their name card - X ryu, shihan, Kodokan judo, sandan . . .(when they received it, sandan was really significant).

Finally, in my opinion, the young generation of jujutsu instructors in Japan who have no judo experience, are almost without exception, far weaker AS JUJUTSU practitioners, than those with judo experience - including their weapons skills!!!. (Maybe if their schools had strong randori practice like they did several generations ago, they wouldn't "need" judo, , but most confine practice to kata).

Perhaps my biggest regret in my martial arts career is that I only started judo in my 30's, and only had five or so active years training in Japan. Had I started in my twenties, and not wasted my time in a number of far less useful martial arts, my Araki Ryu would be far stronger. (Sure, if Araki Ryu had been a huge school with 100's of practitioners and free-style randori - equivalent, therefore, to the Kodokan - that would have sufficed - but it didn't - and therefore, I'm very grateful for the chance to have trained judo as so many of the previous Araki Ryu shihan proudly did. I just wish I'd done lots more.)

with respect

Ellis Amdur

Kit LeBlanc

15th January 2002, 22:18

Ellis,

Thanks for that. I owe you a great debt in my own understanding of this subject...most of it comes from you, but you already know that, don'tcha? :D

This one goes right along with one that you posted on Budoseek recently (that BTW made it over to the Underground).

Any chance you might put it all together and add it to the list of topics covered in your upcoming "Old Schools" book? That would be really cool, especially coming from a koryu guy!!

Kit

Ellis Amdur

16th January 2002, 00:53

Kit -

Thank you for the good words.

Man, just when I thought I could get on to other projects! I've been swearing up-and-down that OLD SCHOOL (currently in layout phase), is going to be the last thing I formally write about martial arts (what else to say?), and having it safely away in the hands of my editing/desk-top pub. guy let me think that I was finally finished.

A JJJ/judo/BJJ/modern JJ/MMA sort of essay is not out of the question, though no promises. The e-budo/budoseek posts, though, are off the top of my head. I know I don't have the time to do the subject true justice - that would require a lot more research than I've time for - including some primary Japanese source material. It's worth a book in itself - that one definitely is not going to be written by me - too little time for things I want to do more, including practice my own stuff! (Parenthetically, Mol did a tremendous research job in his book on jujutsu, but for me, it lacked the most fundamental thing - any sense, in either text or photos, that jujutsu could be a living, virile, rolling around in the muck endeavor).

Anyway, I might be able to get it together, so to speak, to write an essay that might serve as a useful jumping off point for the next generation.

Come to think of it, I've got an old essay somewhere by an eighth dan Kodokan teacher who was the last generation lineage holder of a line of Araki Shin Ryu (like the Borg, we were everywhere), and as I recall, the essay was about how koryu contributed to his judo. Don't recall if he said anything profound, but that might be a useful jumping off point.

By the way, when it comes to hand-held weapons training, I believe that one can truly hone one's skills with kata training. However, that, to me, includes the instructor breaking the kata and "finishing" the other when they are off the mark, taking a single move and practicing it at increasing levels of intensity including random variations, and very occasional randori-like training, using a variety of different limiting parameters to focus on one aspect (anything from courage to speed to timing to technical expertise). Total freestyle would either be too limited (pulling one's strikes, so to speak, with metal edge or oaken weapon) or making the weapons so light and the padding so heavy that one would not move in a realistic fashion - like kendo, which is far different than kenjutsu (approaching a sword WITHOUT fear is an unnatural act, and wouldn't insure safety either- I, only once, very carefully used my shinken in kata against the wooden naginata wielders in Buko Ryu kata - it not only changed their kata that day, but from that day on - just the realization that there is something to be very afraid of. they were taking things for granted - which is, endemic in most kata training, done, to my way of thinking, improperly).

One way to think of proper kata training is like scenario training - patterning skills at a high enough level of intensity that it becomes a familiar, natural response when needed. Live fire drills are deemed essential in the military - but the bullets are aimed above the crawling men, not at them. (I remember participating in a hostage negotiation training in the mountains, as the psych consultant, bouncing along in a personnel carrier with the SWAT guys, and suddenly, there's an explosion - the old guy who set up the training (no lie, a Vietnam vet, retired sheriff, living as a long-haired recluse in a mountain cabin in Whatcom County! The only "old mountain master" I ever met), blew up the base of a Douglas fir with a remote controlled charge, and it dropped across the road ten feet in front of us! That, to me, was breaking the kata - any more "realistic training" and we would have just been squashed bugs. A warning to watch out for the unexpected would have gotten bored shrugs. But it certainly brought home the point about adequate intelligence (any military records on the hostage taker?) and zanshin (blithely going up the road without checking it for safety).

Actually, no diff. than the oldster's idea of judo, a combination of kata and randori - except with weapons, if one trains kata with proper heart, heat and intensity, the balance for the latter is much more on the side of form - and with empty hand, it should be, more on the side of randori, because the limitations imposed in unarmed freestyle are far less divergent or unrealistic than those in weapons freestyle training.. Too much freestyle with weapons, because of the limits imposed by safety concerns, turns into tag-type-sports.

With respect

Ellis Amdur

Paul Steadman

16th January 2002, 03:45

Hi All,

I suppose most people think of kata as a stagnant, robotic, boring, unthinking and non-response type of training. Probably due to numerous poor demonstrations of kata or because the kata were not understood by the onlookers.

Most of the koryu bujutsu and gendai bujutsu that I have seen or have been involved with utilise kata training and break the kata down into re-action training with unknown attacks and reactive defences.

Reagrds,

Paul Steadman

Kit LeBlanc

16th January 2002, 04:49

Ellis,

Didn't mean to make more work for you, though that would be a really cool essay, and I think you come from the exact place that kind of thing NEEDS to come from.

RE: weapons and kata...sometimes I think you read my mind, but then, I realize why I might be thinking that way. Been having several of those moments lately.

Paul,

I guess it is all in the eye of the beholder. Like with Judo. You obviously see something different than what I see. Don't view "judo" solely as a "tournament budo," and don't dismis shiai wholesale...it has something to offer. Just like kata training does.

MarkF

16th January 2002, 10:08

Ellis,

Thanks for dropping by. That was truly a good read (off the top of your head?) Wow.

I suppose if most of us could put the words together, this forum wouldn't need more than a monthly update show. I'm looking forward to reading your next (last?) book.

Kit,
As always, the sensible one. I normally wouldn't even attempt a post after reading you both, but someone had to say something (I also am on your side concerning the essay/article, what ever Ellis decides to do.)

Mark

MarkF

16th January 2002, 10:38

Brian,
Yes, you're right. I didn't have access to the book when I wrote that post, but I can always count on you to correct me.;) I suppose it was the translator's comment that it had been five years since he had finished translating the book and the date of 1 Dec 1914, thus making it six years or so since he translated it and the date in which the tanslation was published 1915.

Bridger Dyson-Smith

16th January 2002, 15:23

Messrs. Amdur and LeBlanc,

Your posts are one of the many reasons to read e-budo. Thanks for the insightful posting.

I'm with Mark on this....Wow.

Bridger Dyson-Smith

Ellis Amdur

16th January 2002, 15:33

Mark, Kit, ....and maybe one or two others -

What I think I am going to do is make a long-term ongoing project here - and regard it as a leisure time activity (when I'm sitting down at the computer to do some real work and don't want to write that next court report). I will (when, I don' know) set up a section on my web page re Japanese grappling, and amplify this topic - I can thereby consider jujutsu and its antecedents, and its children (judo, BJJ, sambo, etc.) as well, at my own pace, and if a question comes up, can eventually respond, and can correct stuff as new data comes in.

Final point: every old dojo (not just jujutsu schools, but kenjutsu schools) probably DID HAVE regular stand-up grappling practice. Sumo was not just the specialized pro sport with huge men paid to eat, lay-around and wrestle. It was probably the central masculine leisure activity (similar to Afganistan - belt wrestling was probably the only fun thing NOT outlawed by the Taliban). One of the reasons that most jujutsu schools didn't spend much time or sophistication on throwing techniques is that everyone already had a venue to learn and practice it. Sumo. We used to do it regularly in Japan and at my dojo in the states, it is a regular way to warm up and warm down. It's done both with laughter and (depending on the age of the participant - I'm beginning to creak some) a lot of intensity. The rules let you exert full force. It was such a regular thing that were I and a few other guys to have grabbed each other in my female led naginata dojo and done a little sumo at the end of practice, Nitta sensei's response would have been delighted laughter.

All this by way of saying that not only do most jujutsu schools in Japan today not have an equivalent randori practice (necessitating, for some, judo) few practice sumo anymore either. And without such practice, it's hard to either make the kata "live" or train reflexes to "jump the rails," without which ability one can't apply what one learns in kata in real life.

With respect

Ellis Amdur