Corroborating Sources???
I don't know if this is going to help or hurt but I throw it out FWIW.
Musashi carries a lot of weight here simply because of his rep AND the fact that he also wrote his philosophy/tactics/strategy down. I am thinking this is what is feeding the comments--- he wouldn't have written it down if it was not a proven tactic, yes? For my part, then, it should be relatively easy to validate this by noting whether other folks speak to this. For instance does Otake (Deity and the Sword) mention such approaches? How about Obatas' translation of the Heiho Okugisho? How about Stevens' biography of Tesshu? Certainly there must be some validation of the role of grappling in sword work (and its nature) in these works. Now Obata (pgs 26 through 32) identifies what I would call grappling techniques, both standing and seated. But this does not solve the question as to whther these were theoretical or were proven tactics. My sense is, going back to the idea of "probability", that were a person in these situation it would be acknowledged that the defender has "nothing to lose" for attempting these moves and everything (Life?) to gain if he is successful. Does this make sense?
Best Wishes,
Bruce
Bruce W Sims
www.midwesthapkido.com