Why is Iaido practised from kneeling?

[Dan Harden]

I am not sure if anyone has touched this yet, so please forgive me if in the 12 + pages I missed it.

Idori/seiza is a good way to get up if one is knocked over and one still has their sword in the belt. Makes sense to me. Doesn't have to be in a formal setting and it sure seems practical.

Pardon me if this is repeating someone else’s thoughts...

-R

********************

Well well
Combative rationale? I thought we weren't going there?

1. That certainly makes ten years and thousands of hours of practice worth it.

2. Combative rationale- chances of recovery from that compromised position in a field of armed men would be slim, in a duel it would be far more rational to just do the most logical thing one would do on their knees with a competent swordsman in front of them-die. Sword is very fast. The odds of reversing the tables at that point would be slim to none-unless of course- one were doing kata.

3. Is it logical to say that since that is the smallest of chances in a myriad of other more probable possibilities that one should train in those other more probable possibilities far more extensively? Thus leaving the greater effort to paired forms, standing Iai, cutting and the use of other weapons one would have at their disposal and then a training method for use with knife or wakazashi in sieza? Leaving the tiniest remainder of ones efforts to possible recovery from a fall?
Maybe not



Attempt at humor
My neighbor trains people in horsemanship. Her methods are to teach them everything there is to know about equipment and etiquette, they spend hours talking about tack and saddles and the history of English and western, the methods for training both people and horses etc. They just love, and seem to adore the tack.
They talk about the details of tack for hours.
I saw her running a group of people through exercises where they kept getting up off the ground. I asked her what they were doing. She said the first lessons are in etiquette, the next 5 years are for learning what to do after a fall. Then they get to ride occasionally, but when they get together, most of their time is spent learning to get up after a fall.
They talk about the details of horses and actual riding for hours.
Next in the middle level techniques they practice mounting, slowly at first, but then they practice getting up after a fall for hours.
Did I mention they rarely use a real horse yet at this level?
Much later in their training they learn to mount faster and they are very carefully brought through the methods to actually ride a real horse. But then again, they are admonished to never forget their firm basics and even the most advanced riders are encouraged to continually practice getting up from a fall. Its strengthens their hips and legs. They had this real big shot they called him a master rider show up last week I think 60 people showed up. They spent most of their time falling and getting up with their saddles. He told them not to forget the basics!

My other neighbor has people riding from the first day. They use real horses a lot and they ride through all sort of adversarial and difficult terrain and conditions. He forces them to really work a horse and then to work a horse with others about. I asked him about falling training? He said “What? I teach people to ride and stay mounted!"
I don’t know which method it best for creating horseman, But don't bring it up!!! I did once- they argued for hours.
The guy who teaches the people riding argued that if your training in HORSEmanship you should be using real horses and really riding most of the time. The women trainer said her method of falling training had been used for centuries who could argue with that? My other neighbor reminded her that the majority of other trainers were teaching for centuries as well. After a while the women trainer said "You'll never understand this method and the high level horsemanship techniques are a secret anyway!" Falling training is the way we teach you to ride better."
My other neighbor said "Better than who? Better then what?"
Then she said "Who really needs a horse any more-we have cars." and walked off in a huff.


I saw her the other day all alone with her saddle falling and getting up.
And he was out back with a buddy of his in our woods riding a horse.


All I know is I'll never bring it up again-they both got so mad.
Cheers
Dan

[Cady Goldfield]

As someone who has been riding since she was 4 years old... a good 43 years ... and who is both classically and rough trail trained, I can attest that this is a brilliant analogy.

Some of us learned to fall by actually learning to RIDE, and dealing with being thrown or falling off as a process of RIDING.

I see a directly applicable connection to sword...

Toooooo cool. Dan, I bow in your general direction.

[Charles Mahan]

Originally posted by James Williams
Charles,

Especially at this early stage of your martial arts training more walk and less talk would be in order. The fact that you do not percieve how you come across to those on this forum, such as Ellis, Dan, Big Tony, and Brian, who have far more experience, knowledge, and ability, is a case in point.

James

So despite Tony's assurances that it is ok for me to participate in public discourse, you would have me refrain as well. I thank you for your concern regarding my training regimen, but I get in fairly regularly and often. I understand pretty well how I seem to come across to those who disagree with me. Nobody likes it when someone else rocks the boat, but be careful who you lump into that list. Dan wrote in to defend me in his way, when Tony jumped on me. So did many others.

The facts are quite simply that I was purely defensive in my rhetoric concerning the benefits of Seiza training integral to MJER specifically and common in Iai in general. That is a fairly common rationale behind my posts, not only on this thread but others. Now while I'm sure you know far more of your respective arts than I do, I like to think that I know enough about MJER, a good portion of it's Kihon, and training methods to be a viable member of this type of discussion. Do I feel qualified to comment on the efficacy of other systems which I have not trained extensively in? No. Have I actively campaigned to keep others from doing the same? Yes. Perhaps you missed it. I defend Do arts in general on a regular basis. Have I ever attacked jutsu arts? Ever? Have I ever even implied bad things about another koryu art? Ever? Can you provide me with an example?

As Tony has already expressed his wish that I stay out of these discussions, only to recant that wish later, and now that you have seconded that wish, I will refrain from posting on Bugei's forum at all. This however is a public forum and my right to post here is as great as yours, so long as I keep my posts civil, my rhetoric calm, and my arguements logical and tolerant. I have done so as a rule. As I do not have much experience with other schools I have always kept my participation limited to those things that I do have some experience with. Namely Iai and MJER in particular. Do I think I am qualified to be an expert on the subject? No. I am barely an intermediate student. Am I qualified to express an opinion regarding subjects which touch on the efficacy of the subjects I know? Yes. Are you required to agree with me? No. In fact I encourage those who disagree with me to layout their arguements in as much detail as I have tried to do. All I ask is that you keep your language generally neutral and tolerant.
Statements like "Seiza is a meaningless waste of time and if your 90 year old 9th dan disagrees your both wrong" (an amalgamation of some of the statements in this thread).

This whole attitude that I have seen expressed of "How dare you question the assumptions and prejudices of the budo celebrities about a koryu(MJER) in which they do not train in regularly?" I find to be quite atrocious. As there appears to be no chance for reasonable discourse to take place in public forums such as this regarding budo, then it is likely that I will not post as often anyway, and so you will get your wish.

James I don't suppose you could specifically quote me somewhere where I am being judgemental concerning other styles? I've asked a couple of times before, because this claim from reasonable people upsets me immensely. I have spent the last couple of years asking people not to do the same regarding Iaido. If I have somehow taken to doing that, I'd really like to know. Send it in a PM if you don't feel comfortable posting it to the list. Please provide an explanation of exactly why you found it offensive.

[Daniel san]

I appologize for adding one more bit of length to this thread.
Who are ya'll talking to? Are you preaching to the choir, or are you actively talking to those who are less in knowledge? As far as the majority of E-budo members, I imagine most of us are less than masters. Therefore, we are all listening to everyone. You people with knowledge are the virtual sensei that we listen to, (and can usually verify by doing a search), when we are not training. We who are less in stature understand that there are many different styles and ways of doing things. Many of you can be dogmatic about your style. That is your right. I hate seeing people talk down or bad about someone because they happen to think that their style is correct. It is. For them. We get that. If Jesus, Buddah, and Mohammed were in an argument here we would listen. Respecting that each one probably thinks he is He. We at home know what is right for us. We can discern when someone is making a statement based on what they know to be true for themselves. Frankly, I appreciate it. I don't really care if some of you are dogmatic,(sometimes rabidly dogmatic ). It's helpful. The more teachers a person has the more well rounded the student becomes.
When I first came here I thought iaido would teach me how to cut. It wasn't until I spoke with one of you that I came to see the differences in styles. I wasn't even aware that iaido used a (beautiful) aluminum sword. What I came to wonder, from having listened is why is there not a style that starts off with iaido, proceeds to cutting, then sparring, and then probably back to iaido at the highest level(when one is too old to take a hit to the head)?
In my humble opinion you are all right, even in your dogma. So, stop attacking one another. You have the respect of your online students, please deserve to keep it. This message is a paraphrased conversation I had with someone who does not post and I thank you for reading it.

[James Williams]

Charles,

Whether or not you post on public forums is not the point. You so do not get the point that I am not sure that anything that I can say will enlighten you. If you look back over this very long thread, and many others, you will find a very large number of posts by someone who is relatively new to JSA with experience in one ryuha, writing and giving opinions out of proportion to his knowledge and experience. Internet forums can be fun, sometimes very good information can be shared, however this is not the real world. One day you may meet some of the people that you have been discoursing with and their opinion of you will already be formed. You might want to give consideration on what that opinion is and if it is the one that you want.

What is your cutting experience? Some of the people that you are having strong opinionated discourse with cut a great deal and with some degree of ability.


Have you been to/lived in Japan, and do you read and speak the language?
Some of these same people have lived, are living, and both read and speak the language.

Having you trained in different JSA ryuha? Many who are contributing to this thread have broad experience in this aspect.

Have you served in the military, been in harm's way, and are you a competent, experienced fighter? Some here that you are discussing with have and are.

I do not know the answer to all of these questions and I do not know you. Judging from what you write, how much you write, and the way you write, I would say that the answer to most of the above questions is no. As a relative newbie, in a world that some take seriously and with combat intent, it might behoove you to walk a little softer and talk a little less. Some of the gentlemen that you are telling things to have things to say that you might be better off listening to. These forums, if used properly, can be a font of information both new and diverse. The education obtained can be worth more than the opinion given.

This is counsel that I give my own students. I try and make sure that they understand that when words are put out for the world to read that they have consequence. Perhaps this is something for you to consider.

Regards,

James

[dbeaird]

Originally posted by Dan Harden
Dan

And oh....your ice comment?

Get up off your knees-they won't hurt.
Whadda ya doin with a sword in your hand on your knees anyway???

Sorry.....I just couldn't resist.
But you knew that didn't ya.

Seriously though
Do it all, its all good

Cheers
Dan

Well we did do some seiza for warm ups, but it was the tatahiza that did my knees in. I've just started that, and my knees aren't used to bending that much. As I'd mentioned before, if it hadn't been for the long training in seiza, I think tatahiza would have put me in a wheelchair.

Thanks for the post Dan, I do hope we get the chance to meet soon, I have had the good fortune to meet Diane, but sadly I hope I didn't give her a deer in the headlights look. Sadly I won't be able to make it to San Antonio this year, but if the fates are willing I'll be there next year.

[Ellis Amdur]

Classification being division, one of the many ways to divide bugei are those which focus primarily at far ma-ai and those that are quite comfortable in close. Examples of the former abound, but one would be Toda-ha Buko-ryu. The primary weapon is the naginata, but a number of other weapons are also used. One is primarily on one's feet, but there are moments in the oku-waza where either the attacker or defender drops to one knee. In the attacker's (shitachi) case, I am quite sure that this is training to continue to fight after a slip. In the defender's (uketachi)case, it is giving the naginata wielder training in how to kill a downed enemy. (TSKSR also has some forms with "slips," for example, where the naginata man hits the ground and still cuts the incoming swordsman).

In the latter case (close ma-ai), you have schools such as Araki-ryu, Kiraku-ryu, Sho-sho-ryu, etc., - all the schools that are the roots of jujutsu. There is a tremendous amount of weapons practice - on one's feet, but there is also a lot of practice - usually armed, but sometimes not - on one's knees. These "grappling combat" schools use iidori are preparation, not for a rare contingency, but something that was surely quite common - hitting the ground together - or singly. There is a set of kata which is specific training for a standing man, unarmed, to subdue, kill, etc., one on his knees. The use is obvious - in the midst of a melee, gone on for a time, all dissolved in chaos, one's weapon breaks, and there is someone wounded, perhaps armed, perhaps not. One takes his life and weapons, by running in, kicking them in the head, grabbing them around the throat from behind, etc.

There are other sets for close combat with tanto - kogusoku - and these are done on the knees. Lots of reasons, already outlined previously. Again, the idea that one will be able to keep one's feet was believed to be so unlikely, that these schools made grappling, standing or on the ground, a primary focus.

Now, among all this is iai. In Araki-ryu's case (BTW, I don't mean to slight Steve Delany's line, A-ryu gunyo-kogusoku. We are very very distant family - separated from the second generation, and we share no waza, kata names, etc. His line is unique, with a different mokuroku than all of the other lines of Araki-ryu known). Anyway, in Araki-ryu's case, there are seven iai forms, called Bakken. They are done on the knees - iidori - There is no attempt to keep the body upright, if leaning forward will get you a few more inches to reach to cut. Often the forms go from ground to feet. Some are clearly principle - based, rather than narrow scenario based. They cover a number of the contingencies where one might be on one's knees, which I have already listed. As for the "hitting the ground, slippage" idea, we do believe this quite possible. The kata are practiced with two-people at times, and the method of training is the one person is on their knees, for whatever reason and the second running forward from some distance. The idea is not that one squares off, knees against feet, in a duel - ready, set go! It's, again, that for whatever reason, one is in that configuration, and you are trying to get your sword out, strike/cut and continue to do so back on your feet.

There is a set that directly follows this called Ryogu no Dan, which has a grappling/iai set, kodachi against long-sword, on the knees in iidori, and half the time,the kodachi wins, and half the time, the tachi/katana wins.

We also have kenjutsu forms, called ryotachi, that start from a mutual iai-configuration, but I believe this is more to set up timing and spacing (all of this is called "awase"), rather than training in duels, even though that's how it looks.

There are many many situations where a slip would simply mean death. Araki-ryu does have kata that specifically follow up a throw (simulating a slip as well) with the standing person finishing the other off, with the one on the ground trying to interpose their weapon, or cut a leg to avoid this.

Historical facts

1) The iidori grappling was "reversed" with increasing frequency, from the person with the advantage winning to the defender winning. This occurred in mid-Edo, and is the transition from torite-kogusoku to jujutsu. (In these schools, the one on the knees regularly beats the one on his feet - Tenshin Shinyo-ryu, Daito-ryu, are examples of this).
2) The iidori/iaigoshi sword drawing was transitioned into seiza sword drawing, in mid-late Edo, the transition to iaido. A number of new rationale were created in such schools to explain this change - some of these rationale are true, others are abstract, created in dojos, several hundred years from when the members of the ryu last saw combat. Increasingly, in many schools, the kumitachi forms were slighted and the solo iai-forms emphasized, but this may be a very recent phenomena
3) Crouched over postures became increasingly straight, and training more linear. Oldest schools, although there is only one opponent in a kata, are, in fact, training against multiple opponents. (This is too involved to get into here, but in essence, each separate waza in a kata, can be seen/experienced as against a different opponent). Later systems, from early Edo onward, focused increasingly on dueling. BTW, this is not a slight of any kind, putting the "battlefield" over the "dueling ground." It's just fact - something that few of the schools of that period would argue with. In fact, such schools as TSKSR were considered backwater, archaic koryu in mid-Edo, because they focused on unused weapons, and on something no longer a major concern (the battlefield) rather than specializing on the modern concerns of one-on-one conflict. (This is not to say that TSKSR was not be great in such a situation, but in the edo period, most other weapons were largely abandoned, and the sword, in one on one duels, was the primary focus of the largest portion of ryu. Posture became increasingly upright, shomen-giri rather than kesa-giri became emphasized.

Final historical fact:
In mid-Edo, most bushi were inept fighters, and did not train very much at all. There are many contemporary accounts decrying this. There were thousands of farmer revolts, and very often, the farmers drove the bushi away with hoes and picks. The bushi would retreat to the castle, get out their guns ("Japan gives up the gun," my foot!) and return to slaughter the farmers with firearms. Much of what we see in koryu today - in Japan as well as abroad - is an outcome of hundreds of years of subtle and not so subtle changes. This is a natural phenomena, which could have only been "forestalled" had there been continued conflict (Japan was largely free of this for 300 years), or if people were obsessively maintaining the kata, both spirit and technique, or testing and refining their kata for the purpose of combat. TSKSR would be an example of the former, and Kashima Shin-ryu, under Kunii sensei, would be an example, I believe, of the latter.

Many, if not most, other schools, particularly in modern times, became social clubs - this was accelerated by alliance in larger organizations, such as the kendo and iaido organization.

One useful way to classify koryu:

1) a. Sogo Bujutsu with an emphasis on standing technique, sword being central - TSKSR, Kashima-Shinto-ryu being examples
1) b. Sogo Bujutsu with an emphasis on close combat, with multiple weapons - Takenouchi-ryu being an example
1) c. Old arts, battlefield oriented, that focused on one weapon - Hozoin-ryu yari, Muhen-ryu naginata, Yagyu-ryu kenjutsu

2) a. Mid-edo kenjutsu - increasing emphasis on one-on-one unarmoured conflict - duels - Itto-ryu being a perfect example
2) b. A shift in grappling to goshin-jutsu - defensive grappling/counters to superior force, decreasing emphasis on weaponry - Tenshin-shin'yo - ryu
3) c. Older schools which specialized and developed with the times, becoming increasingly complex and/or altered from older times. Tendo-ryu naginatajutsu ----the profound changes in Hayashizaki-ryu into MJER would be another.

3) a., b., c. - Modern arts - judo, kendo, iaido, etc.

NOTE: Older ryu joined these organizations and then accepted their rules. Jo joined the kendo federation, and got kendofied. Iai schools joined the iai and kendo federation and got incredibly altered. Naginata schools joined the naginata federation and swing what were once heavy weapons like toothpicks. Jujutsu schools mostly just got absorbed into judo.



Ellis Amdur
www.ellisamdur.com

[dbeaird]

Originally posted by James Williams
Charles,

Whether or not you post on public forums is not the point. You so do not get the point that I am not sure that anything that I can say will enlighten you. If you look back over this very long thread, and many others, you will find a very large number of posts by someone who is relatively new to JSA with experience in one ryuha, writing and giving opinions out of proportion to his knowledge and experience. Internet forums can be fun, sometimes very good information can be shared, however this is not the real world. One day you may meet some of the people that you have been discoursing with and their opinion of you will already be formed. You might want to give consideration on what that opinion is and if it is the one that you want.

What is your cutting experience? Some of the people that you are having strong opinionated discourse with cut a great deal and with some degree of ability.


Have you been to/lived in Japan, and do you read and speak the language?
Some of these same people have lived, are living, and both read and speak the language.

Having you trained in different JSA ryuha? Many who are contributing to this thread have broad experience in this aspect.

Have you served in the military, been in harm's way, and are you a competent, experienced fighter? Some here that you are discussing with have and are.

I do not know the answer to all of these questions and I do not know you. Judging from what you write, how much you write, and the way you write, I would say that the answer to most of the above questions is no. As a relative newbie, in a world that some take seriously and with combat intent, it might behoove you to walk a little softer and talk a little less. Some of the gentlemen that you are telling things to have things to say that you might be better off listening to. These forums, if used properly, can be a font of information both new and diverse. The education obtained can be worth more than the opinion given.

This is counsel that I give my own students. I try and make sure that they understand that when words are put out for the world to read that they have consequence. Perhaps this is something for you to consider.

Regards,

James

James,

Charles is my senior at the dojo where I train, he's impressed me from the first time I met him with his dedication and good sense. So, obviosuly I'm not an unbiased observer here but I'd like to make a few points anyway:

As I'd mentioned earlier, telling someone to shut up and listen to their betters is not polite, nor is it a reasonable request on a public forum. Someone who exhibits this disrespect is not likely to be heeded when they administer other advice on etiquette.

Charles is very forthcoming about his experience in Martial Arts. He doesn't claim to be anything that he is not, nor does he offer criticism of things he hasn't done. He does try to defend his position using his own experience and knowledge and does so very well. I admit that I find it amusing at times when someone senior avoids answering his questions with ploys and "advice" such as "more walk, less talk". Charles may not have walked as far as others, but if you look back I think you'll find he's not as far back as you might think and he's gaining fast. That's a personal opinion of course, just from someone who knows the difference between experience and time served.

I think there's been confusion in this thread about who actually said what and since most of the principles have agreed that bygones will be bygones and at the end of the day we're all on the same bus, we've moved on to try and bring the topic back to substantive discourse rather than opinions on the quality of the opinions of others.

Charles and others have made appologies on this thread over slights and perceived slights. The dignified thing to do in such a situation is to accept those appologies freely and to move on with the discussion at hand. It's obvious that at one point this thread had dissolved into something none of us liked, we've overcome that and now have, I think, a better understanding of one another and an exchange of substance. My advice to you, (from a junior in the JSA, but not I think a junior in life experience) is to direct your posts at the argued topic rather than the arguer. I believe that the membership here is able to form opinions based upon their own experience and the posts they see. Please give us all a little credit, we know most of the people who post, if only by reputation.

[dbeaird]

Originally posted by Ellis Amdur

Final historical fact:
In mid-Edo, most bushi were inept fighters, and did not train very much at all. There are many contemporary accounts decrying this. There were thousands of farmer revolts, and very often, the farmers drove the bushi away with hoes and picks. The bushi would retreat to the castle, get out their guns ("Japan gives up the gun," my foot!) and return to slaughter the farmers with firearms. Much of what we see in koryu today - in Japan as well as abroad - is an outcome of hundreds of years of subtle and not so subtle changes. This is a natural phenomena, which could have only been "forestalled" had there been continued conflict (Japan was largely free of this for 300 years), or if people were obsessively maintaining the kata, both spirit and technique, or testing and refining their kata for the purpose of combat. TSKSR would be an example of the former, and Kashima Shin-ryu, under Kunii sensei, would be an example, I believe, of the latter.

Many, if not most, other schools, particularly in modern times, became social clubs - this was accelerated by alliance in larger organizations, such as the kendo and iaido organization.


Ellis Amdur
www.ellisamdur.com

What a fantastic post Ellis, thank you. I'd like to discuss all of it, but the piece quoted above kind of struck a chord with me. So I'd like to make a few comments and see what the general public has to say about them.

As you'd mentioned above, the average warrior was untrained or had minimal training. So it can be assumed that the people who did have training, particularly extensive martial arts training were the rich, or more specifically the idle rich who had time and money to train. In essence, the martial arts were not for the samurai class as a whole, but only for the upper echelons.

This is rather similar to the situation in Europe during the late middle ages and Renaissance where the sons of the rich could be sent off to some elite school of swordsmanship, but the average working knight or soldier had no such benefit. During the heyday of duelling in Europe, this actually led to situations where battlefield veterans were outmatched by young nobles with no war experience, but countless hours training in the nuances of single combat.

If we accept this premise, it might be safe to say that koryu sword arts are not meant to be battlefield arts, but rather to give the elite an advantage in what personal combats they may be unable to avoid. This same elite would be the commanders and generals on the battlefield and have some insulation from the general melee. Which is not to say that battlefield combat was not also studied.

To this group we can also add the sword masters who taught the elite. Perhaps coming from a more common background, they would still hone their skills in single combat in order to build the reputation needed to obtain patronage for a school.
This might be more appropriate for a new thread, but I'd still appreciate your comments and the comments of others.

[Charles Mahan]

Thanks Dan.

To satisfy your curiosity James I'll answer those questions, although if you'd followed my posts you would know the answers to most of them as I have nothing to hide and have never pretended to be anything that I have not. As Dan has mentioned, I routinely go out of the way to qualify my experience so that other forumites can judge for themselves the merrit that my words may or may not carry.

Originally posted by James Williams

Whether or not you post on public forums is not the point. You so do not get the point that I am not sure that anything that I can say will enlighten you. If you look back over this very long thread, and many others, you will find a very large number of posts by someone who is relatively new to JSA with experience in one ryuha, writing and giving opinions out of proportion to his knowledge and experience. Internet forums can be fun, sometimes very good information can be shared, however this is not the real world. One day you may meet some of the people that you have been discoursing with and their opinion of you will already be formed. You might want to give consideration on what that opinion is and if it is the one that you want.

I have read and reread this thread many times. If you are refering to me, then I would argue, as I think I have pretty well, that I am not writing or giving opinions out of proportion with my knowledge and experience. As for the others who may have done so, they are no concern of mine. Online reputations do in fact sway first impressions. A fact of which I am constantly aware, and it is the reason I take such pains to keep my rhetoric neutral and my arguements clearly expressed and as logically sound as possible. Not that that always helps to avoid confusion. We should all remember this advice.

What is your cutting experience? Some of the people that you are having strong opinionated discourse with cut a great deal and with some degree of ability.

Since you are probably referring to tameshigiri, the answer is none. How exactly does this reflect on whether or not seiza has any training benefits, or my ability to makes statements in defense of such training? Have I ever made any claims regarding whether or not Seiza teaches you how to cut? Well I did claim that it would teach you some of the fundamentals behind the MJER method of cutting, nameley that the shoulders should stay directly over the hips while cutting. Have I ever claimed that not training in Seiza will prevent you from learning how to cut? Have I ever made any claims about any other system whatsoever? I'm usually careful to limit my comments to the Seitokai branch of MJER, because other branches do things quite differently at times.

Have you been to/lived in Japan, and do you read and speak the language?

I have not been to Japan and aside from Dojo Japanese, I only speak a very little and not very well, although my prounounciation is quite good. I can still read the hiragana and most of the furigana, but Japanese is a use it or lose it language. I've lost most of it.

Some of these same people have lived, are living, and both read and speak the language.

I train under one such person 3 to 4 times a week, and have trained with five or six other such people at various seminars off and on for several years.

Having you trained in different JSA ryuha? Many who are contributing to this thread have broad experience in this aspect.

Nope, and I'm aware of that. That does not prevent me from entering a discussion where a training method integral to MY style is being trashed rather heartily as utterly useless and devoid of any possible benefit, which was the original assertion being discussed.

Have you served in the military, been in harm's way, and are you a competent, experienced fighter? Some here that you are discussing with have and are.

No I haven't, and while some who have disagreed with me have, so have some who have agreed with me.

This is counsel that I give my own students. I try and make sure that they understand that when words are put out for the world to read that they have consequence. Perhaps this is something for you to consider.

Amen and pass the potato chips. Now if we could just convince everyone else...

[Scott Irey]

Holy Cow Dan,

That was the second funniest thing I have read in this thread. Unfortunately it is too long of a story to fit into my signature…I guess I will just have to stick with the other Dan’s line instead.

But since you graced us all with a funny story I feel that it is only right that I try to entertain you with one of my own. I am not quite as funny as you are but it probably comes from my penchant for practicing comedy in front of the computer screen instead of to a live audience. Anyways the story goes something like this…

It seems there is a group of guys who all really wanted to become world-class chefs. They all spent a lot of time watching Julia Childe re-runs, Iron Chef, the Food Channel and such. They read any books they could get their hands on. They even took jobs as fry cooks in local diners so they could get a feel for what it is really like to be chefs.

Many of them got to be damn good fry cooks. Home fries…they were perfect golden brown, flavorful and seasoned just right, fried spring rolls…piping hot through to the center with a perfect crisp exterior...never over done, and the fish fillets…oh the fish fillets were always moist and tender on the inside crispy and flaky on the outside. These dudes were fry-cook gods, I mean FRY-COOK GODS!!

They all kept reading their books, and watching their favorite food shows and some of them even went to cooking seminars to try and fill out their repertoires and become more well rounded “chefs”. What many of them started to notice was that the chefs giving seminars spent some time on deep fat frying, but a lot more time on other areas…sauce preparation, ingredient selection, herbs and seasonings, tenderizing methods, and presentation, all the things that really are not that important to a good fry cook. I mean we all know the old adage on frying, “even a turd tastes good if it’s battered and fried”. Why worry about things like presentation, herbs and such when all you really need to know is what type of oil/lard to use, the rate it should be heated and how long to leave the item one is frying in the basket before pulling it out, and how long it should drip before serving?

So they all started sifting through the information that was presented to them, picking out and keeping only what they felt was important to becoming a better fry cook. They became disdainful of other methods such as roasting, braising, poaching and grilling, in their minds deep fat frying was not just the best way…it was “THE WAY”.

They became so zealous that they actually convinced themselves that chefs of days gone by probably deep fat fried everything and that modern revisionists had tossed in all these new fangled techniques shortly before the advent of television. They were particularly contemptuous of braising…the idea of cooking something via two methods (searing and simmering) seemed preposterous, no real chef would do something so inefficient, it obviously had no place in true culinary arts.

Now it seems that one of these great fry cooks one day ran across a brochure for le’ Cordon Blue. He was amazed to find that real old world culinary arts were being practiced and taught in the 21st century. He consulted with his buddies across the country and they decided to invite some of the master chefs who had graduated from this prestigious academy to come and help them expand their knowledge. Surprisingly some of these chefs did come as well as some of their students. Some of these chefs tried to expand the horizons of the fry cooks by trying to show that a broader understanding of various techniques as well as fundamentals such as preparation for other foods other than those of the fried variety could actually lead to a better understanding of the culinary arts as a whole.

Although some of these fry-cooks recognized that sauces could actually enhance the flavor of their fried dishes, and garnishes would enhance the presentation of their dishes making them more appetizing, they just could not see the benefits of any of the other methods of preparation. One of them actually set out to prove his point by challenging the students of some of these great chefs to come to his kitchen and poach, braise or grill a breaded fish fillet and see if it would come out as crispy golden brown as one he deep fat fried. Those who accepted his challenge…well as can be expected, they failed, and no amount of explaining would change his mind. His mantra became “you can braise that fillet –o-fish till the cows come home, but it will never be crispy golden brown”.

Now as years went by these fry cooks found that many of the chefs from the ancient culinary institution agreed with their frying technique and recognized their abilities as masters of the fry-vat. They even in some case invited these fry cooks to come and learn with them and master all the culinary arts so they in turn could become chefs of grand tradition. Alas the fry-cooks as much as they had grown to respect some of these chefs of great tradition would do no more than dabble in some of the other methods. They were still convinced that frying was the way to go (the great fried breaded fish fillet / poached breaded fish fillet cook off of 01’ had proven that to many of them) And not one of them ever went on to study the full curriculum of the ancient culinary school

Today some of those great fry cooks have decided to label themselves as chefs based on their self-evaluation of the skills they have acquired. Others have decided out of respect for the ancient culinary school that they will not publicly name themselves as chefs but they don’t seem to have a problem when their followers label them as chefs. But in truth as it stands today those grand chefs of grand tradition the fry cooks tried to emulate are still grand chefs of grand tradition, and the students of some of those grand chefs have themselves become grand chefs of grand tradition, and as for the fry cooks…well in the eyes of the chefs of grand tradition and the culinary world they are still fry cooks.

[rbrown]

First I'd like to say how great it's been to read this thread. Alot of good information, ideas etc... Mr. Amdur's (he of the aromatic freshness) last post was very educational.
After reading the horsemanship & fry cook posts I thought of another analogy that may (or may not)be relevant.
I know some people who shoot pistols. Two of them shoot "combat" style. They have glocks and HK's; they go out rain or shine, day and night. They shoot standing, crouching and prone. They go to "combat" ranges and try to inflict as much stress on themselves as possible. They are past fanatics, they are zealots. Then there's a couple who take long barreled .22's to the air conditioned comfort of an indoor range. They stand straight and tall, shoot one handed (with the other arm dangling at their side) at small bullseye targets. They are very accurate shooters and are also very dedicated. They have another friend who has a tricked out .45 with all the latest bells and whistles. He travels around to competitions and shoots metal dinner plates. He is always practicing and is a dedicated shooter.
Now who's really the true pistol shooter?? Is someone participating in a sport as legitimate as someone training for combat?? Is someone going around to competitions shooting at plates truly demonstrating the fine art of marksmanship with a pistol?? By god when Wyatt Earp (sorry I'm from Arizona) was around he didn't need no stinkin' semi-automatic piece of high tech plastic. He was a man's man and used a single action six shooter and he damn well survived numerous gun fights. So what say you one and all?? Who's really the "true" (or traditional) pistolero?? Can any of them be true pistol shooters with the weapons they are using?? Not one of those sissies is even trying to shoot with a Revoluationary War era handgun, let alone the tried and true single action Colt. What posers they truly are!!!!
My other question is how many people here in the U.S. really chose their art??? What I mean is that due to geographical location of who is teaching what art in your area, doesn't that often time dictate what art you study?? Even in Mr. Amdur's (he of refreshing fragrance)case if I remember his book correctly he wasn't planning on training in Araki Ryu. He met someone, they looked each other eye to eye the gentleman said come back and he did. Now if you want to train in Araki Ryu in the U.S. you go to Seattle. If you live as I do, in southeastern Arizona you won't be doing much Araki Ryu no matter how wonderful you think the system is.
thanks to everyone for sharing... In the immortal words of Rodney King "Can't we all just get along"?? (I believe he said that right before the tasers nailed him)

Richard Brown

[dbeaird]

Scott, I haven't had so much fun reading a post in a long time. One of my earliest passions has been cooking. I believe when you were here for the embu you got a chance to taste some of my teriyaki chicken.

I learned to cook mostly from watching my Grandma cook. She was a real genuine Okie, moved out to California from Oklahoma during the depression and the lady could do more with a cup of flour and a tablespoon of shortening than Emeril can do BAMMing till he's hoarse. I rounded that out getting addicted to cooking shows and then some study in haute cuisine, the majority of which was learned by book. Cooking is fortunately one subject that you can learn from books unlike swordsmanship. I've yet to have any friends telling me I was holding the spoon wrong. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not as rounded as a graduate of L'Escoffier or the CIA, but I'm not a professional and can spend my time in the kitchen doing what I like, rather like one of these fry cooks I suppose.

The point I'm trying to make is I think your analogy is bang on Scott. Go look on any message base dedicated to professional cooking and you'll see the same sorts of arguments that we get here, just substitute haute cuisine for koryu and Escoffier for Musashi.

Now I learned with cooking that there comes a point where your understanding goes beyond following recipes. You begin to understand the chemical process of cooking with various ingredients and the theory of flavor combination. Prior to learning this, any attempt to truly create a new recipe can only succeed through luck. You may learn some of this in schools or from books, but mostly you learn from following the recipes (waza) of others and observing the results. I've spent the last several years perfecting creme brule' and have learned a lot doing it. If custard was a martial art, I'd almost be ready to start my own school. I don't think my creme anglaise is quite up to snuff yet.

[A. Bakken]

Mr. Ellis Amdur,

I'm sincerely curious - what are your sources and/or research methods for these conclusions? To be totally clear (there's been enough misunderstandings in this thread, hasn't it?): Even though Hyaku's signature claims that "80% of all questions are statements in disguise", I assure you that this is not the case here.

If memory serves, you spoke earlier of "degeneration". I have some troubles with such a perspective (one man's 'degeneration' is another man's 'progress', right?), but obviously lacks the knowledge/authority to offer a convincing counter-argument. However, I would not mind you expanding on your position on the subject.

Originally posted by Ellis Amdur
Classification being division, one of the many ways to divide bugei are those which focus primarily at far ma-ai and those that are quite comfortable in close. Examples of the former abound, but one would be Toda-ha Buko-ryu. The primary weapon is the naginata, but a number of other weapons are also used. One is primarily on one's feet, but there are moments in the oku-waza where either the attacker or defender drops to one knee. In the attacker's (shitachi) case, I am quite sure that this is training to continue to fight after a slip. In the defender's (uketachi)case, it is giving the naginata wielder training in how to kill a downed enemy. (TSKSR also has some forms with "slips," for example, where the naginata man hits the ground and still cuts the incoming swordsman).

In the latter case (close ma-ai), you have schools such as Araki-ryu, Kiraku-ryu, Sho-sho-ryu, etc., - all the schools that are the roots of jujutsu. There is a tremendous amount of weapons practice - on one's feet, but there is also a lot of practice - usually armed, but sometimes not - on one's knees. These "grappling combat" schools use iidori are preparation, not for a rare contingency, but something that was surely quite common - hitting the ground together - or singly. There is a set of kata which is specific training for a standing man, unarmed, to subdue, kill, etc., one on his knees. The use is obvious - in the midst of a melee, gone on for a time, all dissolved in chaos, one's weapon breaks, and there is someone wounded, perhaps armed, perhaps not. One takes his life and weapons, by running in, kicking them in the head, grabbing them around the throat from behind, etc.

There are other sets for close combat with tanto - kogusoku - and these are done on the knees. Lots of reasons, already outlined previously. Again, the idea that one will be able to keep one's feet was believed to be so unlikely, that these schools made grappling, standing or on the ground, a primary focus.

Now, among all this is iai. In Araki-ryu's case (BTW, I don't mean to slight Steve Delany's line, A-ryu gunyo-kogusoku. We are very very distant family - separated from the second generation, and we share no waza, kata names, etc. His line is unique, with a different mokuroku than all of the other lines of Araki-ryu known). Anyway, in Araki-ryu's case, there are seven iai forms, called Bakken. They are done on the knees - iidori - There is no attempt to keep the body upright, if leaning forward will get you a few more inches to reach to cut. Often the forms go from ground to feet. Some are clearly principle - based, rather than narrow scenario based. They cover a number of the contingencies where one might be on one's knees, which I have already listed. As for the "hitting the ground, slippage" idea, we do believe this quite possible. The kata are practiced with two-people at times, and the method of training is the one person is on their knees, for whatever reason and the second running forward from some distance. The idea is not that one squares off, knees against feet, in a duel - ready, set go! It's, again, that for whatever reason, one is in that configuration, and you are trying to get your sword out, strike/cut and continue to do so back on your feet.

There is a set that directly follows this called Ryogu no Dan, which has a grappling/iai set, kodachi against long-sword, on the knees in iidori, and half the time,the kodachi wins, and half the time, the tachi/katana wins.

We also have kenjutsu forms, called ryotachi, that start from a mutual iai-configuration, but I believe this is more to set up timing and spacing (all of this is called "awase"), rather than training in duels, even though that's how it looks.

There are many many situations where a slip would simply mean death. Araki-ryu does have kata that specifically follow up a throw (simulating a slip as well) with the standing person finishing the other off, with the one on the ground trying to interpose their weapon, or cut a leg to avoid this.

Historical facts

1) The iidori grappling was "reversed" with increasing frequency, from the person with the advantage winning to the defender winning. This occurred in mid-Edo, and is the transition from torite-kogusoku to jujutsu. (In these schools, the one on the knees regularly beats the one on his feet - Tenshin Shinyo-ryu, Daito-ryu, are examples of this).
2) The iidori/iaigoshi sword drawing was transitioned into seiza sword drawing, in mid-late Edo, the transition to iaido. A number of new rationale were created in such schools to explain this change - some of these rationale are true, others are abstract, created in dojos, several hundred years from when the members of the ryu last saw combat. Increasingly, in many schools, the kumitachi forms were slighted and the solo iai-forms emphasized, but this may be a very recent phenomena
3) Crouched over postures became increasingly straight, and training more linear. Oldest schools, although there is only one opponent in a kata, are, in fact, training against multiple opponents. (This is too involved to get into here, but in essence, each separate waza in a kata, can be seen/experienced as against a different opponent). Later systems, from early Edo onward, focused increasingly on dueling. BTW, this is not a slight of any kind, putting the "battlefield" over the "dueling ground." It's just fact - something that few of the schools of that period would argue with. In fact, such schools as TSKSR were considered backwater, archaic koryu in mid-Edo, because they focused on unused weapons, and on something no longer a major concern (the battlefield) rather than specializing on the modern concerns of one-on-one conflict. (This is not to say that TSKSR was not be great in such a situation, but in the edo period, most other weapons were largely abandoned, and the sword, in one on one duels, was the primary focus of the largest portion of ryu. Posture became increasingly upright, shomen-giri rather than kesa-giri became emphasized.

Final historical fact:
In mid-Edo, most bushi were inept fighters, and did not train very much at all. There are many contemporary accounts decrying this. There were thousands of farmer revolts, and very often, the farmers drove the bushi away with hoes and picks. The bushi would retreat to the castle, get out their guns ("Japan gives up the gun," my foot!) and return to slaughter the farmers with firearms. Much of what we see in koryu today - in Japan as well as abroad - is an outcome of hundreds of years of subtle and not so subtle changes. This is a natural phenomena, which could have only been "forestalled" had there been continued conflict (Japan was largely free of this for 300 years), or if people were obsessively maintaining the kata, both spirit and technique, or testing and refining their kata for the purpose of combat. TSKSR would be an example of the former, and Kashima Shin-ryu, under Kunii sensei, would be an example, I believe, of the latter.

Many, if not most, other schools, particularly in modern times, became social clubs - this was accelerated by alliance in larger organizations, such as the kendo and iaido organization.

One useful way to classify koryu:

1) a. Sogo Bujutsu with an emphasis on standing technique, sword being central - TSKSR, Kashima-Shinto-ryu being examples
1) b. Sogo Bujutsu with an emphasis on close combat, with multiple weapons - Takenouchi-ryu being an example
1) c. Old arts, battlefield oriented, that focused on one weapon - Hozoin-ryu yari, Muhen-ryu naginata, Yagyu-ryu kenjutsu

2) a. Mid-edo kenjutsu - increasing emphasis on one-on-one unarmoured conflict - duels - Itto-ryu being a perfect example
2) b. A shift in grappling to goshin-jutsu - defensive grappling/counters to superior force, decreasing emphasis on weaponry - Tenshin-shin'yo - ryu
3) c. Older schools which specialized and developed with the times, becoming increasingly complex and/or altered from older times. Tendo-ryu naginatajutsu ----the profound changes in Hayashizaki-ryu into MJER would be another.

3) a., b., c. - Modern arts - judo, kendo, iaido, etc.

NOTE: Older ryu joined these organizations and then accepted their rules. Jo joined the kendo federation, and got kendofied. Iai schools joined the iai and kendo federation and got incredibly altered. Naginata schools joined the naginata federation and swing what were once heavy weapons like toothpicks. Jujutsu schools mostly just got absorbed into judo.



Ellis Amdur
www.ellisamdur.com

[dbeaird]

Originally posted by rbrown
Who's really the "true" (or traditional) pistolero?? Can any of them be true pistol shooters with the weapons they are using??

Richard Brown

You may quote me on this, it is wisdom and truth straight from the mouths of the gods and saints:

If it loads from the back, it's a sissy gun.