What happened to News from Japan?

[CKohalyk]

Just got back after my New Years break and I see the News From Japan Forum is gone. What happened?


CK

[Soulend]

Robert Rousselot is no longer a member of e-budo, though I don't know why. I see that the forum is back now though, moderated by Joseph Svinth.

[CKohalyk]

I see that it came back.

What happened to Robert? He is no longer registered. Did he quit, or was he quit?

Are we still allowed to b _ _ _ _ about Japan?

[Qasim]

I too would like to know what happened to Mr. Robert Rousselot. He just today on Martial Talk said that Koryu jujutsu IS NOT a battlefield art. When he stated that, the first thing that came to mind was, "Would he have said that here on E-Budo?"

[CKohalyk]

In defense of the above statement Qasim, it depends on what you consider the definition of "koryu" and "jujutsu" to be. Tenjin Shinyo Ryu is a widely accepted Koryu Jujutsu system, but not a battlefield art. Takenouchi Ryu contains kogusoku techniques (koshi-no-mawari) that is most definitely battlefield, but may not be considered jujutsu. Yagyu Shingan Ryu would be a good example, in my opinion, of pure jujutsu (as defined without weapons) in a battlefield setting (as they are wearing armour). Plus they were founded by the early 1600's which satisfies the most conservative definitions of "koryu."

What was the context he was referring to when he made that statement?

Anyways, where did he go? Mr. Lindsey?

[Qasim]

Originally posted by CKohalyk
What was the context he was referring to when he made that statement?

Anyways, where did he go? Mr. Lindsey?

These are his own words.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sho...&pagenumber=14

Koshi No Marwari to be sure, but of course anything prior to the Meigi Period. Techniques used in the Daimyo's home where one wasn't allowed to carry the katana or settings where the armor was not meant to be worn would not have been effective on the battlefield.

Note his responses which were broad to say the least and were based solely on his opinion not fact.

[CKohalyk]

I think he (Robert) has a good point. JJ was ultimately an "auxiliary art." I can't recall any mention of a JJ practitioner taking out anyone on the field in any of those books you mentioned, or any of the countless others I have read.

I do believe that natural selection had a strong impact on the growth of various MA, but I wouldn't think the bushi of old would have easily abondoned an auxiliary that could potentially keep them alive (look at mysticism. We still have that today, and it played a relatively small funtion in keeping a man alive on the field). Older schools did have jujutsu within their curriculum, but they were relatively small in comparison to both other curricular sections within the school itself, and the jujutsu curriculae of later schools. Takenouchi Ryu started off with something like 25 techniques, NONE of which were unarmed. Now they have over 600 total techniques, with whole sections (hade kenpo, midare, etc) of unarmed curriculum.

Thus I can understand Robert's stance.

Anyways, if you want to pursue this discussion I say we move it to the JJ forum where it belongs.

See you there,

CK

[Qasim]

The question was not whether it was primary of secondary, it was whether it was a battlefield art. As you pointed out and Serge Mol's book also points out, Koshi No Mawari were techniques used against armor.

These techiques were used to defeat an opponent who under normal circumstances was safe from a weapon attack. Breaking of bones, joints, and striking vulnerable points (chinks in the armor so to speak). Can we have this moved to the Koryu forum?

[CKohalyk]

I have two reasons for bringing up the fact that JJ is an auxiliary art.

1) to explain Roberts point of view - Robert seems to equate "battlefield" with "battlefield tested." Since JJ (depending whether you including small arms in your definition) has a pretty scarce record of accomplishment on the battlefield, Robert feels that he can state JJ is not a "battlefield" art. I personally think since JJ was "battlefield oriented," or designed for the battlefield, there are vast differences between it and other H2H arts. The mentality of JJ is much different than say, Aikido, or even modern JJ.

2) to explain why we still have it today - If it isn't being used effectively on the field, why do we still have it? The answer to this question is "You never know." Hence the reason why they trained in it, even though back in the day it wasn't as developed as it was today; because swords/spears/horse were more important. Just like the military today. Also, don't forget basic training back then was a mere fraction of what we have today. From the battlefield we begin to see more use in civilian (ie law enforcement) life, and more variation/expansion in technique.

Anyways, I am saying that JJ WAS part of the battlefield curriculum, even though it wasn't utilized as much as other arts. We study it today because it is an important insight into history, and into real combat-mindset. These arts were made for and deemed good enough for combatives on the battlefield by battlefield participants, thus I think we can call them "battlefield arts" even if we can't call them "battlefield tested" with much authority.

Anyways, can we move this over to Koryu or JJ?

CK

[MarieB]

Originally posted by CKohalyk
What happened to Robert? He is no longer registered. Did he quit, or was he quit?

make that 3. i would be curious to know what happened to Robert Rousselot.

[PRehse]

Robert got tired of the hassel. He took the all or nothing approach. I'll see him this week-end, I tell him he's missed.

The vast majority of Koryu came into existence during a period of lasting peace and all underwent and continue to change. Some slow, some faster, depending on the head master, the times, what have you.

The primary weapons before that were projectile weapons (arrows, bullets and rocks), spears and (apparently out of fashion by the time the Tokugawa's rolled around) the naginata. Even some of those Koryu using armour were founded after battles were no longer fought, call it nostalgia.

The sword on the battle field was a weapon of last resort and jujutsu (hand to hand) even less important. A good case can be made that the flowering of sword techniques (even though deuling was strictly prohibited) was the direct result of the Tokugawa peace just as the flowering of jujutsu techniques was a product of the Meiji restoration when the wearing of swords was banned. I understand that the TSKR sword kata for example is very much expanded from its early days.

I actually find the division of koryu and gendai to be a little false. All were based on earlier arts, all contain a link between student and teacher and in some instances the years dividing a koryu from a gendai is less than a generation.

[MarkF]

I actually find the division of koryu and gendai to be a little false. All were based on earlier arts, all contain a link between student and teacher and in some instances the years dividing a koryu from a gendai is less than a generation.

I don't think it is false, it is pure horse-pucky. Many a well-respected researcher finds a change over time, and due to most of the reasons stated, but as no one decided, until recently, that there is a single year in which this happened, I just don't buy it, or actually, I don't find it important if it does exist. Koryu, as a term to describe budo, is a rather new one. One can't use the -jutsu to -do because they both have been around for centuries, and even if it isn't purposely used, people do want to keep the separation. Seems a bit arrogant, doncha think? Why do people think Daito-ryu, for example, a koryu? It may or may not have been practiced as it was during the lifetime of Sokaku Takeda, and before him, but _Aiki jujutsu_ would be a gendai form of jujutsu, or DR aiki budo. Shindo Yoshin Ryu, especially that of the Takamura-ha, would then be gendai as well. Yanagi Aiki bugei would also be considered the same.

The difference between bujutsu and budo is a semantic one. It is on a continuum of time, the language changed a little, and that is pretty much it.

I also agree jujutsu, the battlefield type, probably contained few techniques due to the use of armor. I also agree that the sword was of little use, comparatively speaking. I do find, however, that more likely, all or most koryu developed as a result of protecting the employer, not on a battle field per se. Even women learned the naginata as a last resort to protecting the retainer, and he, in turn, attempted to fight for himself as best he could, if the need arose.

So what is left? Could it be that all the challenges between styles begat all the fundamentals similar to one another, by these challenges? Was kyujutsu simply a bugei which only existed for battle? No one thought of competitions in archery back then? If not, what did they do during the times of peace? Yabusame anyone? Sumo is likely, but so is shooting arrows at a target.

BTW: I can't seem to get things to work for me in moving this thread, but one could start a thread in koryu on the same subject, leaving a link to this one. I know it isn't the same, but it could work.


Mark

[PRehse]

Hi Mark;

It's already happened see the link above. I just cut and pasted your post into the new link.

[MarkF]

Hi, Peter,
We are moving in the same time frame. I posted just after you in the koryu forum to leave the link to this one, in case anyone wants to catch up.


Mark

[Patrick McCarthy]

Hi folks,

I am guessing that Robert was on the end of one of the moderator's animosity. I think it was the Canadian guy. Hey, I have certainly had my own problems with Robert, too, and we go back a long way together, but we’ve always managed to work our way through our difficulties. I like Rousselot and know him to be a serious karateka, if not sometimes overly frustrated with the ridiculous crap that goes on in the country where he resides (speaking from experience). I don’t know about the rest of you but I’ve enjoyed his candid reports, honest (if not sometimes scathing:-) opinions and boisterous dialogue, even if it doesn’t always meet with the moderator's likes or dislikes. Big deal! I don’t visit this site because of guys who live in the box; I visit it because of subscribers like Rousselot, and all the others, not afraid to voice their genuine opinions, and stand up for what they believe in even it is at the risk of ruffling someone else’s feathers.

Robert, get your ass back here and ignore that guy.

Anyone else?

Patrick McCarthy