Something just occurred to me, which has been dealt with before, but which bears a little more discussion, so I thought that I would start a new thread, just to see what happens. I know that there are a lot of differing opinions on this, but it still seems to me that many of the discussions regarding "koryu vs. gendai" revolve around what is still a somewhat muddy definition (in the minds of some, anyway) of what a koryu is.
To start off this topic, I offer the following:
One of the elements of a genuine koryu, in the opinion of some, is that there is no sporting element, that is, there are no contests held according to any set of arbitrary rules. Rules, by their very nature, limit what can and cannot be done in terms of technique, usually with the effect that at least in theory the art is not as potentiall deadly as it would be otherwise.
The question then becomes: what about various arts, created long before the usual Meiji Restoration cutoff date, which have such rules? For instance, in kyujutsu, there was a popular competition which took place during the Edo period called the toshiya. In this competition, archers would sit at one end of the verandah of the Sanjusangendo hall at the Rengeioin temple in Kyoto and attempt to shoot as many arrows as possible past the opposite end of the verandah, 120 meters away. This was complicated by the eaves of the roof, which were only 5 meters off the floor; the archers were thus shooting down a tunnel 120 meters long and 5 meters high. Various schools of kyujutsu, such as the Heki Ryu Bishu Chikurin-ha, Kishu Chikurin-ha, Oukura-ha, and Sekka-ha competed. In the course of this competition, which covered many decades, archery equipment and techniques underwent far reaching and profound changes, to the point that many of the schools which competed came to concentrate exclusively on success in this competition, which was, in addition to being a contest of strength and skill, quite a spectacle, complete with crowds of spectators, judges, arrow counters, attendants, etc., etc. Insofar as the object was to shoot as far as possible, arrows were light and techniques were developed that would allow the archer to shoot according to the requirements of the particular situation, which differed from a battlefield and battlfield archery, where the object was to shoot a heavy war arrow with enough force to penetrate armor.
Likewise, the Ogasawara and Takeda Ryu established strict protocols and guidelines for the conduct of horseback archery well prior to the Edo period. While these practices were viewed as training for battle, they were independent activities in and of themselves, bound by a complicated set of rules.
Anyway, what think you? Koryu or not? Definitely and obviously koryu in my opinion, but, for the purposes of discussion I pose the question.
I would specifically like to invite the comments of the Skosses, to whose opinions I usually defer on matters such as this. I know that their opinions are well documented elsewhere, but if they would address this issue in this forum, I would appreciate it.
Earl