Koryu - 400 years of hobbiests with no combative experience? Not really.

[Ellis Amdur]

Not infrequently, in the unending debates about the nature of koryu, and whether it is "for real," someone mentions that although the ryu may have once been valid training methods that had techniques effective in combat, they have lain in degenerate dormancy for over 400 years, with no reality testing whatsoever, and those who practice are, at best, collectors of antiquities.

This is, however, not really accurate. Without even making the effort to do any research, I can think of many ryu which had members who went to war, survived, and returned to practice, quite content with their chosen ryu, and quite possibly vivifying it with some of their combat experiences. For example, members of the Kashima Shin-ryu participated in various conflicts including the Satsuma rebellion. One member of the Araki-ryu was Jirocho, a Robin-Hood type Yakuza who had many episodes of hand-to-hand combat, another participated in the Seishin-gumi (an outfit like the Shinsengumi) and fought in the internicine wars that ushered in the Meiji period.

It is sure that many warriors from many ryu participated in these battles at the end of the Meiji period.

In addition, quite a few fighters had a lot of taryu-jiai experience, particularly jujutsu ryu. Shihan of the last generation of both Kiraku-ryu and Tatsumi-ryu were described to me as being very strong in shiai. One of the former won a three-way tournament between judoka, Araki-ryu members and Kiraku-ryu members.

Finally, many many of the elderly men of the last generation of koryu - either deceased or still aging gracefully, were fighters in WWII. Those that survived again returned to their ryu. (BTW - one of the major reasons, not often cited, for the decline of koyru is that the generation who were young in the 40's mostly were killed on the battlefield. There was a gap between the elder generation and current - what was missing was the middle. Thus, in many ryu, a few young men - often middle-class, studied from very old men who passed on what they could to the very small group of individuals who remained interested.)

I well agree that combative experience in WWII, for example, was far different from that of the 1600's. But the point I'm trying to make is that there were far more men than is usually imagined who were familiar with the rage, terror and chaos of war - still passing down koryu in modern times. And until this generation, there were also far more who chose to also find some way to compete, be it in taryu jiai, or simply in judo or kendo.

The phenomena of koryu antiseptically apart from anything but insular kata, practiced by individuals without experience in combat or competition, is perhaps a modern one - and is not common to all koryu schools either.

Best

Ellis Amdur
www.ellisamdur.com

[Mekugi]

Originally posted by Ellis Amdur
The phenomena of koryu antiseptically apart from anything but insular kata, practiced by individuals without experience in combat or competition, is perhaps a modern one - and is not common to all koryu schools either.

I was talking about something similar to this on another thread, specifically regarding the reconstruction of kata "lost" to a ryu.

Do you think that "hiring paramilitary and marines" to help reconstruct the kata would accurately effect the combativeness feeling of the kata?

Myself, I have known Marines and Soldiers with copious amount of combat experience (one was my room mate for about 3 years) and I wouldn't trust them to screw in a lightbulb.

-Russ

BTW...that was a tasty bit of writing up there. Thanks!

[Joseph Svinth]

Russ --

You must know folks from the kinder, gentler era, as back in the day (definitely into the 1970s), they used to train Marines to screw in whorehouses rather than lightbulbs.

Of course, that probably just proves Ellis's point. Back in the 1970s, John Keegan pointed out that the current generation was different, because there was no draft and there had been no major wars since 1953. For the US, this occurs slightly later, of course, but the principle still applies, if you move the end date to the early 1970s.

That said, if you really want to see what works in unarmed combatives, my recommendation is to quit looking at the soldiers, or even the LEO. Instead, look to the shift nurses and interns at hospitals for the criminally insane.

[Mekugi]

Originally posted by Joseph Svinth
That said, if you really want to see what works in unarmed combatives, my recommendation is to quit looking at the soldiers, or even the LEO. Instead, look to the shift nurses and interns at hospitals for the criminally insane.

Ya know, ya have a point here. Marines should screw in houses of ill repute....umm, what did I quote again...OHH yeah.
AHEM...
Paramedics would be one to talk to as well, I suppose. I spent countless hours talking to an ambulance driving friend of mine over coffee about car wrecks and the most common and fatal injuries they have seen (other than being thrown from the vehicle, head trauma and internal bleeding being on the top two) and it was an enlightener. I suppose that applies to this instance as well. Kind of morbid, but it makes for some very interesting stories and conversation.

Always,

Russ

[Hissho]

Russ-

You missed my point.

My comment was not that any marine or combat vet would be able to accurately reconstruct a kata due to their combat experience.

Consider Draeger, or as I noted, Bristol. Do you think that the fact that they had been/have been in harm's way on a regular basis may given them insight that someone without the same experience would not have? Do you think that, humans being humans, and battle being battle, that despite certain anachronisms, they might not be able to understand, as Ellis put it, the "rage, terror and chaos of war" in a way that allowed them deeper insight to critical aspects of psycho-physical organization that a traditional battlefield school teaches, when grounded properly in the foundations of the particular ryu, and when reliving aspects of their combat experience through their training?

Would that kind of insight not, in fact, be more useful and practical when it came to grasping the combative application of a particular teaching - and reconstructing it, or even passing it on?

If it would not be, I am curious as to an explanation why you think so?

As Ellis points out, the experience of combat in WWII, or to put a modern spin on it, Afghanistan or Iraq, is going to be completely different from that in 1600 - but there are plenty of men that had that experience and the benefits of what it taught them.

Personally, I think those are the guys who would understand far better critical components of martial arts originally created by combatants, for combatants, than someone who has only trained but never "been there," even their own students.

I think Ellis is stating the same thing. He is simply stating it is not completely absent in the koryu.

It is not completely absent in Judo, karate, aikido or any number of other disciplines either. A pure sport judoka just back from Iraq is going to know far better what "combative intent" is than will a college student in Japan practicing a battlefield ryu but never having been in a fight. My comment, as far as koryu is concerned, is that just because its koryu doesn't mean that it is therefore de facto combatively effective training - or that it will automatically produce combat ready students. That is really up to the student.

If I read Ellis right, I think we are in agreement. He noted men returning from combat and vivifying their ryu with their combat experience - kinda my point. He mentions koryu removed from anything but insular kata as a modern phenonmenon - NOT the case in the old days made plainly obvious in his descriptions of the combat and competitive experience they had over and above their dojo training. And not the case with all koryu today.

David Hall once wrote that he felt even in Japan only a handful of instructors really understood the combative application of what they teach - my own take on it would probably be similar to Ellis' - they were probably the guys that came back from WWII or otherwise gained real combative insight. Dr. Hall also wrote that these guys were hard to find, but that the search was definitely worth it.

The very fact that people advertise someone like Col. Bristol as being uniquely qualified to comment on the combative application of a ryu is because of his experience and insight into both. Not simply because of one or the other. His having the two together are what makes his perspective unique, and more useful to the fighting man wanting to know what koryu might offer him.

I was commenting on what some people seem to perceive as an if=then proposition. IF it's koryu, it MUST be battlefield tested, and therefore still a practical combative method. Not the case, and I can venture a guess from past experience that Ellis does not believe this either.

The same holds true for "battlefield" Chinese arts or for "Isreali Commando" methods today.

[Mekugi]

Kit,

My answer is no.

Reason? The principles are the same, however, being able to use a similar principle with a rifle doesn't mean one can use that same principle with a sword. For instance, just because I have a motorcycle license doesn't mean I know how to ride a Jetski.

Hope that made sense.

Always,

-Russ

[Arman]

Russ,

Well, actually, you may be right about the difference between a rifle and a sword from a technical/mechanical level, but perhaps not so right from a combative psychological level. Take a look at www.hoplology.com, and you might find a different perspective than the one you espouse.

Here is a part of what they say:

"The Goal - One Mind Any Weapon

Most modern training systems take a compartmentalized approach to training the individual in non-natural, fabricated fighting skills. Such training generally covers only very specific weapons and techniques related towards and driven by those weapons. Handgun use, for example, is typically considered a completely different set of skills from any other weapon, even other firearms. Instruction in handgun use rarely, if ever, is related to non-firearms combat, such as with blades, sticks (batons), or empty-hands. As a result, each of these areas tends to be taught (and learned) as separate and distinct skill sets. Unfortunately, this is a proverbial !!!-backwards perspective on human combative behavior and performance.

In any combative confrontation, the weapon does not do the fighting; the human wielding the weapon is the combatant. Any weapon can be nothing more than a tool to be used more or less efficiently in whatever situation the user applies its use. The tool does not need training, nor does each tool require a distinct set of behavior and performance skills for the user to engage in combat. Tools do need training in their efficient operation, however, that is not training in or for combat; that is merely training in the simple basics of operating that particular tool."

[EXCERPT FROM WWW.HOPLOLOGY.COM]

IOW, the combative principles inherent in koryu may very well be just as useful in modern combative situations. Which is the basic foundation, I believe, of the ICS training methodology discussed above.

Best regards,
Arman Partamian

[Mekugi]

Hi Arman,

In the past I was a member of the IHS, however, that faded as I stopped recieving newsletters. Now I am sure that my membership has expired.
I have read this before, and do believe it was in Hoplite. THe passage is well written and makes sense. That being said I would like to keep this away from kicking peoples butt and focus on reconstructing koryu kata. That is unless you think all koryu kata are "a fight" and every time you do them you don't need riai and you can just whallop the person until they stop moving. That's effective, right? Is it Koryu as well? Well, I don'T think so. That is a rather shallow view of the whole thing and not what I am trying to say. I we (I) are talking about is reconstructing koryu kata (this is continued from Chris' posts on antoher thread). It doesn't matter if John Doe has 200 confirmed sniper kills in the field, his practice of kata and his understanding of the kata has nothing to do with that. Period. He may gain insight from his training and vice-versa; not unlike a person can gain insite into calligraphy from practicing the sword. All skill levels are different, everyone is simply different and insights will vary for better or for worse, regardless of their insight into kicking the living hell out of someone or beiong able to rain hell on a platoon of foreign soldiers with an subgun.
I am not butying into the generic "everyone that has "combat" experience and studies koryu MUST have some kind of insight greater than the master who has been at it for 30 years" blanket. I am not buying into it because I simply believe it will not hold up or true for everyone.

always,

-Russ

Originally posted by Arman
Russ,

Well, actually, you may be right about the difference between a rifle and a sword from a technical/mechanical level, but perhaps not so right from a combative psychological level. Take a look at www.hoplology.com, and you might find a different perspective than the one you espouse.

Here is a part of what they say:

"The Goal - One Mind Any Weapon

Most modern training systems take a compartmentalized approach to training the individual in non-natural, fabricated fighting skills. Such training generally covers only very specific weapons and techniques related towards and driven by those weapons. Handgun use, for example, is typically considered a completely different set of skills from any other weapon, even other firearms. Instruction in handgun use rarely, if ever, is related to non-firearms combat, such as with blades, sticks (batons), or empty-hands. As a result, each of these areas tends to be taught (and learned) as separate and distinct skill sets. Unfortunately, this is a proverbial !!!-backwards perspective on human combative behavior and performance.

In any combative confrontation, the weapon does not do the fighting; the human wielding the weapon is the combatant. Any weapon can be nothing more than a tool to be used more or less efficiently in whatever situation the user applies its use. The tool does not need training, nor does each tool require a distinct set of behavior and performance skills for the user to engage in combat. Tools do need training in their efficient operation, however, that is not training in or for combat; that is merely training in the simple basics of operating that particular tool."

[EXCERPT FROM WWW.HOPLOLOGY.COM]

IOW, the combative principles inherent in koryu may very well be just as useful in modern combative situations. Which is the basic foundation, I believe, of the ICS training methodology discussed above.

Best regards,
Arman Partamian

[Ellis Amdur]

Couple points which possibly all or some of the writers might find themselves in agreement.

1. I do not believe that combat experience in Afganistan would make one, de facto, qualified to "revive" a sword kata whatsoever. But - I do believe that one well-educated in the principles in a ryu who ALSO had combative experience may possibly have critical insight in how one reacts when terrified for one's life in combat, or swept by rage, or in that cool state beyond either which would be a contributing factor in how they practice AND how, if given such responsibility, they would craft a revived kata. Without going into details, I have seen two factions of the same ryu both attempt to revive kata from detailed notes. The members of faction A, who have, to my knowledge, no experience of shiai, much less combat, despite years of training in the kata, created/revived kata which were, from my knowledge of the principles of the same ryu, idiotic. The instructor from faction B, who had both shiai experience, and pretty extensive combat in melee situations with hand-held weapons, took the same kata and revived them in radically different fashion - they had integrity and they were much more congruent with the other extant kata of the ryu.

2) And yet, I was present when the remarkable and delightful old gentlemen of the Jukendo federation, who had seen hand-to-hand combat in WWII were reminiscing. One recalled a match he had with Sawada Sensei, (woman) instructor of Tendo-ryu naginata. He said, in far more graceful language, "Not only did she kick my a**, but she scared the heck out of me too." Sawada Sensei had done lots of shiai, and trained with remarkable intensity, but, to my knowledge, never experienced combat, yet she, per this old gentleman who had seen the real thing, was the "real thing."

In sum, I believe that the curriculum stands on its own, but if corrupted over time, a diligent trainee/teacher "of thirty years experience" who has had real-life experience as well, will likely know critical information about what the kata means (or has lost) that most 30 year trainees without such real life experience might not understand. I'm not saying this is an absolute - witness Sawada Sensei - but it's quite likely.

This aint rocket science. if I were examining or learning kata from a kata-based jujutsu ryu, I'd rather have a teacher who knew the kata AND had done judo/wrestling, etc., than one who only practiced the kata.

Final point - it is also true that the innate conservatism of Japanese (and actually many of all cultures who study a tradition) might make them blind to deficiencies within their school - even with combat experience.

In sum, I'm dealing with "might" "likely" "have a tendency to" "not surprising it", not absolutes.

Best

Ellis Amdur

[mikeym]

Ellis Amdur wrote:
This aint rocket science. if I were examining or learning kata from a kata-based jujutsu ryu, I'd rather have a teacher who knew the kata AND had done judo/wrestling, etc., than one who only practiced the kata.

Mr Amdur,

How much do you feel that this works in reverse? Would a student training in a kata-based art lose the benefit from cross-training in judo or wrestling if their instructor had no such experience?

Thanks,
- Mike

[Mekugi]

In an attempt not to step on my tongue, I would say that yes, 1 & 2 are relevant and valid arguments and that Chris' writings have valuable points as well.

However, there is the case where lets say ....Judo has too much of an influence on a ryu and it completely infiltrates it's heart and soul. Now the interpretation of the kata are altogether peppered with Judo waza here and there and more tidbits enter in every year. The combative person, understanding the feel they get from competition and "the real thing" realizes that it's closer to what they experience in "the field" and is now technically completely oblivious as to what the kata really are communicating. The result is merely no more than gokkyo henka. Attempts to reconstruct the kata, are then futile because a person that "has been there and done that" in the form of combatives will not be able to ascertain the inner principles and the core of the ryu they are studying.
Let me use an outrageous and fictitious example:

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that every practitioner of Shinto Muso Ryu jo is killed off by a freak virus that only attacks people using white oak jo. The only people remaining are the ZNKR practitioners who were using red oak jo and they decide to re-construct the ryu. Given that, do you think they could possibly do it? I mean, they have plenty of randori experience and a great amount of study in the seiteigata, right? Now all's they would need is a person who is versed in live stick fighting and killing people to add the proper flavor.

Regardless of it's outward silliness this is what I am getting at in my argument. It's a two way street, and what goes in may not always come out right.

Hope that made sense. I'm scratching my head wondering if I understood what I have just written.

Always,

-Russ

[Hissho]

Russ-

I can see where you are coming from, actually. I think we have broadened the topic from simply re-creating kata with this thread, and I realized I was posting in more general terms on the Hatsumi thread as well.

I, too, have sometimes questioned the all too ready comparison of sword-to-gun, but I do recognize that people with far more experience than I in both do see connections. I think the key is having that dual experience rather than waxing philosophically about it when only really grounded in one. Musashi's writing often makes the rounds of the gun community, for example, with mixed results.


I am more in agreement with Ellis' last post. I think, too, that we are talking about serious students here. I am not trying to say that a guy with combat experience who studies XYZ-ryu will have a deeper understanding of it with two years in than a thirty year master.

I do believe that the same guy after five or ten years of serious study will have a deeper understanding of certain aspects - or maybe it is better said will have greater "psychological access" to those things, than the thirty year master without the experience. That will reflect in how he processes increasingly advanced teachings from the master who is passing them on, and may result in what is a nearly imperceptible difference in how he does things that in fact makes a huge difference in what comes across.

But back to Russ, of course there will always be individual differences and capacities that do make all the difference.

[Ellis Amdur]

Mike -

If I understand your question correctly, the student who has either had or is concurrently training in a "competitive" grappling system has an enormous advantage in learning a kata based art, and should be able, within the kata, to function that much better.

Where there would be a problem is if the teacher, without such training, does not either understand all the ramifications of the kata they teach, or does not know how to "fine tune" the kata, and the student, with the grappling experience is told to do things which defy real "body logic." Unlike sword or spear, one really can do a lot of reality testing on jujutsu kata - and therefore, I believe that if a system does not have a freestyle component of training within it, it is imperative - absolutely - to cross-train in anything from BJJ to collegiate wrestling.

AND - I'm in kind of a rush but, I'm obviously in agreement with Kit here - AND, Russ, your example of reconstruction is dead on AND I also agree with you, here, Russ, about the contamination by the modern arts damaging if not destroying the old. Example: kenjutsu footwork and body organization replaced by kendo in a koryu kata. Your example of koryu kata being "replaced" by judo in koryu clothes (which, to give one example, might result in a vitiation of blade awareness while doing the form.)

Best

Ellis Amdur

[R_Garrelts]

Fascinating thread!

Originally posted by Ellis Amdur
Final point - it is also true that the innate conservatism of Japanese (and actually many of all cultures who study a tradition) might make them blind to deficiencies within their school - even with combat experience.

How true. It is exactly for this reason that instructors without “real world” experience are sometimes able to convince those who really should know better that even the most ridiculous techniques are tactically sound. It is truly surprising how just a little tradition can go such a long way in “selling” a technique. Sadly, it seems that all an instructor has to do is make a technique halfway believable and the majority of students will believe it regardless of how silly it might be.

All of this is just to say that, unless those with combat experience are willing to let their experiences shape their performance and understanding of an art, their hard won knowledge is useless. If they are simply people who have seen combat but (for whatever reason) lack the willingness to let their experiences have any influence on their techniques, they might as well be without such experience. (Incidentally, the same could be said of those with extensive shiai experience; if they aren’t willing to let what they learned in shiai affect their kata, shiai didn’t do them much good.)

Being an unabashedly gendai kinda guy, I don’t really have any experience with koryu kata or their recreation, but I thought I’d throw this in anyway. All too often I've seen people with extensive experience (whether shiai or combat) swallow almost total garbage "hook, line, and sinker" simply because they were unwilling to admit to themselves that what they were being shown was garbage.

Regards,

Richard

[Hissho]

Richard-

I think the reverse may also be true in some cases: people see something "combative" but if it does not fit their view of proper form, or kata, they dismiss it.

I did a little koryu with, as chance would have it, Ellis Amdur!

One of the things that Ellis did several times when I trained with him was somewhat annoying - which was I think his intention.

We would be working on a set of forms fairly extensively, and he would then teach some new forms. Coincidentally a few weeks out from a planned demonstration.

Then, ten minutes before the demo started, he would say "Changed my mind, we are doing XYZ kata instead." Now, these might be the brand new kata we just learned, or they might be some kata we had not done together in a long while (maybe he was just testing to see if we were working on the other stuff!) So while we knew he was probably going to do this to us, we didn't know what he was going to have us do.

Then of course, he would turn up the heat during the actual demo, and come at you fast and hard, using more advanced movement and more power (still within our functional range, however).

Needless to say, stress level went up, performance suffered, and things sometimes looked choppy. (Although sometimes they were better than our typical performance...)

Talking with him later, this is what he apparently wanted - he has written before on what he believes embu represents, and this kind of training fit into that overall scheme of things, I am sure.

However, I heard from several individuals at different times (including demos I did not attend) that some of those watching were surprised. This was related by people also in attendance that were acquainted with Ellis and the ryu. Comments were heard that it was "not koryu," it was "not real kata," and was not the way things should be done.

While I don't personally believe that any training, much less any kata, is an accurate replication of combat or can manifest actual "combative intent," I have experienced a good deal of modern combat simulation training on a professional level (with firearms and other training and scenario simulations).

These demonstrations I have described were closest to the combative simulations I have done. Those simulations, while still short of reality, are the closest to the stress, chaos, confusion and "choppiness" that I have experienced.

I have heard that this is not an uncommon thing for koryu teachers to do, but I haven't seen a demo where that kind of thing was in evidence. I haven't seen a lot of demos, though, so maybe its out there.

So I thought it interesting that experienced people would look at what I thought were good combative simulations - even though they may not have looked polished, or seemed like other koryu - they took issue with the fact that it was koryu at all, or that it was proper kata. Clearly there were two different ideas about training going on there.