Likes Likes:  0
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Historical evidence for frequency of practice?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    8
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default Historical evidence for frequency of practice?

    Hi all, please forgive the somewhat awkwardly worded title of my post. What I"m wondering is, how often did samurai actually train in koryu in the Edo period? My understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a koryu practitioner) is that training in most koryu is very two-person oriented and partner dependant; that is to say, the emphasis is on partner practice much more than solo, unlike something like karate, where there are solo kata and practicing them is considered an important part of training. So, I'm wondering how often they actually trained, and what implications that may have for training in these arts today. It often seems taken for granted that they were training all the time, but do we have any actual evidence one way or the other? How much training was compulsory for Edo period samurai, and how much optional? I wonder if its not like a lot of police officers today, basic crash course in hand-to-hand combat at the academy, then nothing ever required again, but many seek out additional martial arts practice; annual qualifying in marksmanship required, some do the bare minimum to meet that, some are at the range practicing every week.
    Jason Ginsberg, L.Ac.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,394
    Likes (received)
    84

    Default

    Jason

    Actually a pretty good question.........many samurai actually had "jobs"...kinda like State employees today.

    My guess is that like any other skill at a certain point you require less actual training/drill time to maintain a resonable level of competence.......so not having a "practice partner" might not be such a problem....besides, nothing says you can't...once you have the skills/teachings beaten into you in partner exercises simply practice them in solo kata fashion....hard to imagine that nobody would do that.

    In terms of how much people trained.......again guessing but seems resonable to conclude that it depends on exactly whom your asking....to use your Police example.......I know LEO's that train pretty much everyday....as if their lives depended on it....because they sometimes do.......and I know people that...given their actual jobs....that train just to keep the required level of skill up.........good oberservation on your part and makes sense to me.

    In terms of what the implications for training today might be.....well as I was told the story, back in the day with Funakoshi the "standard" was pretty much the same as today--4 years or so training to Shodan.......BUT that was predicated on DAILY training, 5-maybe 6 days per week in classes that lasted, in some cases as much as 2 hours...with a degree of rigor that is often unaccpetable to many people today.

    Course they didn't have MTV, cell phones etc

    Possible that instead of counting just the "time" one trains it might be a good idea to look at how perceptions of "training" might have been very different back in the day.

    Good question, hope you get some better answers than mine.
    Chris Thomas

    "While people are entitled to their illusions, they are not entitled to a limitless enjoyment of them and they are not entitled to impose them upon others."

    "Team Cynicism" MVP 2005-2006
    Currently on "Injured/Reserve" list due to a scathing Sarcasm pile-up.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Kagoshima
    Posts
    124
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    In Satsuma all samurai boys over the age of 6 participated in goju kyoiku (郷中教育), essentially local district schools spread throughout the domain.

    They were required to study confucian classics, history, morality, and a number of other educational subjects, as well as physical recreation and martial arts.

    Martial arts practice took place daily between 4pm and 6pm and was conducted by older boys (over 12 years) probably under the supervision of an adult (maybe early 20's). After practice finished the children would play a number of violent and physically taxing games, such as 'kosan iwase' (say stop!) which involved basically beating up one boy and piling on top of him until he gave up or passed out.

    After the goju finished the boys could visit an adult teacher for additional martial arts practice if they desired, though it appears that this cost some money.
    Alex Bradshaw

    bradshaw.jp

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    8
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Hi all,

    Thanks for the responses, Chris thanks for the kind words, you make some good points, and I'm glad someone besides me finds this interesting. Alex, that's exactly the kind of info I was looking for, really interesting, and I didn't even think about how early childhood education might lay a foundation for later martial training; that would certainly have some interesting implications. Thanks! Hope we get soe more replies, I think with more information some interesting conclusions could be drawn.

    -Jason
    Jason Ginsberg, L.Ac.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Sagey Plains, WY
    Posts
    900
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    I like Chris' line from his post:
    Possible that instead of counting just the "time" one trains it might be a good idea to look at how perceptions of "training" might have been very different back in the day.
    In my job, I don't spend much time training horses or practicing horse-riding or horsemanship. I just ride. I'm sure that some so-called "hobbyists" who have the time and the money are better than I am at riding a horse. And I am envious of their skill. But since the kind of riding I do is fairly intense albeit sporadic, I'm sure it has some things they are not as accustomed to, such as terrain, decision making, stock-sense and so on. I am not saying it is a better way at all, but that it is a different perspective. While it is always pleasurable, it isn't at all pleasure-riding. I think that when you do things as a job rather than as a extra-curricular event, so to speak, there is a difference.

    Of course there are others in my job who are better riders than I and spend more of their time with it I suppose.

    Shooting is another example. Actually, I wish I had more time to develop these skills, but I guess they just come along through doing it over the years. Only so many hours in the day. There would be quite a difference between me and a nineteenth century rancher, sheeptender or cowboy again, maybe analogous to sendoku jidai and edo samurai. Those much-maligned, inferior, wussy edo samurai actually were living in quite different culture with the rise of bureaucracy and merchant class. I don't see them as soft. Takeda Shingen may not have lasted long with the nineteenth century strictures. Shooting off the mouth here (which I have a bit too much practice in).

    Anyhow, it was a thought based on Chris' quote. Not very helpful to the original poster I suppose.
    J. Nicolaysen
    -------
    "I value the opinion much more of a grand master then I do some English professor, anyways." Well really, who wouldn't?

    We're all of us just bozos on the budo bus and there's no point in looking to us for answers regarding all the deep and important issues.--M. Skoss.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •