Likes Likes:  0
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6
Results 76 to 85 of 85

Thread: Weapons free-exchanges in Japanese koryu?

  1. #76
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    126
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Mekugi
    Not really his first. Mister Kano was a member of Kito ryu before TSR and I do believe he recieved his Menkyo in TSR after he formed Judo. Perhaps an anal retentive point, but there is a difference in the timeline.
    Russ/Mekugi,

    Check your sources again, bro.

    Kano began training in the Tenshin Shinyo Ryu in 1877, and he didn't become a member of the Kito Ryu until 1881.

    Peace,

    David
    Last edited by Nanban Bushi; 6th August 2004 at 13:26.
    David Black Mastro


    "The Japanese are the most warlike people in this part of the world. They have artillery and many arquebuses and lances. They use defensive armor for the body, made of iron, which they have owing to the subtlety of the Portuguese, who have displayed that trait to the injury of their own souls." --Gonzalo Ronquillo de Penalosa, commenting on well-equipped wako in the Philippines, 1582.

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,392
    Likes (received)
    83

    Default

    Nanban


    Dude, this is why these discussions get all nasty.

    Your spinning. And you are either doing it on purpose, or you really don't know.

    I try and explain how your spinning you just do more spin.

    I mention that rapier was not trained vs flail--you present a SINGLE example of ONE manual that shows ONE illustration.

    That only only shows that ONE guy in ONE rapier school in ONE location, IN ONE PERIOD OF TIME, MAY have traiend vs flail.

    A-Unless you can show that it flail train was endemic to Italian, Spanish, English, French, etc rapier.

    Then you lose-simple as that.

    B-The other examples you gave were AGAIN, just more proof of my point that you only train vs wepaons your likly to meet.

    C-Even if your right (whcih your not) what AGAIN, what was done "back in the day" has NO bearin gon CURRENT practice--Which is regulated to practice ONLY with saber vs saber, epee vs epee foil vs foil.

    So you lose this one as well.

    Your both incorrect AND mixing your time periods.

    Your point in asking if kata exsited for the katana vs Chinese Dao.

    They Chinese Dao was not really a weapon the Japanese had to face on any large scale--weapon just was not used much in mainland Japan.

    Again non-point dressed up to look like a weakness of the JMA appraoch.

    You present a weapon that has no specific kata vs it. Then ask a retorical question designed to make it appear a weakness.

    When the weapon in question WAS NOT USED IN JAPAN--in ANY major sense.

    More spin, I show how current "free play" is really anything BUT.

    Its a heavily regulated sport--that is has very specific rules as to target area.

    Your corect as far as you nit-picking goes in that the rules for the foil, epee, and saber are differnet.

    BUT IT DOES NOT NEGATE THE FACT THAT RULES PREVENT TRUE "FREE PLAY"
    to use your own quote.

    "That only applies to the foils, as the target is everything from the waist up"

    Yeah, so you CAN'T make ANY ATTACK below the waist in foil.

    So what you REALLY saying is that I KNOW A FOIL IS NOT ATTACKING MY LEGS, GROIN etc.

    How can it be true "free play" is there are KNOWN limts as to what my oppt can do and VERY specifc rules that stop them from doing specific things??

    That just does not make sense.

    As you, yourself say.

    "The issue of not getting hit in the calf applies to foil and saber but not epee."

    Ah, dude that EXACTLY MY POINT--its not "really" free play when you and your oppt are NOT "free' in what they can do.

    Thanks for pointing that out so clearly.

    Back to Dr. Bs quote.

    If, as you say, and I quote.

    "The info is apparently available"

    Then please post it.

    This is the quote you based your entire question around.

    You should have all availabe infomation pertaining to it.

    As I have asked multiple times now--with no response from you.

    You have a quote involving unkn men, or unkn level of skill, from ukn ryu, with unkn methods of training (we don't know if they trained kata or not) in a match of unkn rules, with unkn results, unkn number of matchs, unkn how the information was gathered.

    It just does not pass muster as a soild point.

    Honestly not trying to hack you off.

    You just are not dealing the questions and issue raised.


    Chris Thomas

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,392
    Likes (received)
    83

    Default

    Nanban

    In re-reading my post above I may used a tone that was harsher or more unfriendly than I intended.

    I mean no disrespect or animus.

    Just trying to get to the heart of what is and is not significante to the discussion.

    Your points pertaining to the specifc rules and differences between saber, foil, and epee are correct--they are just largely irrelvent in terms of supporting your contentions.

    And in a very real way illustrate my points exactly.

    Chris Thomas

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    126
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by cxt
    Nanban


    Dude, this is why these discussions get all nasty.

    Your spinning. And you are either doing it on purpose, or you really don't know.

    I try and explain how your spinning you just do more spin.


    Okay, Chris--no offense, but I've just about had it with your nonsense.

    For starters, it's very revealing how you describe how things can "get all nasty"--I've simply been presenting my case, and I can only surmise that you're having a difficult time debating with me, so then you get hostile. You've done it throughout this thread, aside from your first post and our all-too-brief truce.

    I would like to remain civil towards you, but you're making it extremely difficult to do so. The nature of your posts suggests that you have no regard for anything I have said, and you're becoming condescending again.

    I think you're simply getting PO'd because I have countered you time and again on this thread, despite the fact that you threatened to "shred" me in this debate/discussion. As I said, you started off like anyone else with your first post, but then became progressively dismissive, condescending, and obnoxious. Perhaps that's just how you deal with things when the debate doesn't go your way.


    I mention that rapier was not trained vs flail--you present a SINGLE example of ONE manual that shows ONE illustration.

    That only only shows that ONE guy in ONE rapier school in ONE location, IN ONE PERIOD OF TIME, MAY have traiend vs flail.

    A-Unless you can show that it flail train was endemic to Italian, Spanish, English, French, etc rapier.

    Then you lose-simple as that.


    No.

    You rashly claimed that rapier was not trained against flail, and I provided a PERIOD EXAMPLE to the contrary.

    That means that you are wrong, and YOU lose.

    Your bluster will not eradicate Sutor's 17th century manual, so just deal with it.

    Simple as that.

    Case closed.


    B-The other examples you gave were AGAIN, just more proof of my point that you only train vs wepaons your likly to meet.


    That's right, and the Continental Asian weapons I mentioned qualify.

    Depending on the time period, the dao-and-shield is something that Japanese soldiers would have run into quite a bit.

    C-Even if your right (whcih your not)


    Why, because you say so? Gimme a break...

    what AGAIN, what was done "back in the day" has NO bearin gon CURRENT practice--Which is regulated to practice ONLY with saber vs saber, epee vs epee foil vs foil.


    There's enough "common ground" between the older material and the modern stuff, where functional adjustments can be re-introduced into the modern practice. It's pretty easy to do.

    So you lose this one as well.

    Your both incorrect AND mixing your time periods.


    Not at all.

    Your point in asking if kata exsited for the katana vs Chinese Dao.

    They Chinese Dao was not really a weapon the Japanese had to face on any large scale--weapon just was not used much in mainland Japan.


    But it was used on the Continent, and I'm sure that the troops in Hideyoshi's Army who fought against the Ming Chinese and Koreans from 1592-98 would disagree with your assement.

    Indeed, they had to deal with daos-o-plenty.

    And thus I cite another historical example. I'm still waiting for you to do the same.

    Again non-point dressed up to look like a weakness of the JMA appraoch.

    You present a weapon that has no specific kata vs it. Then ask a retorical question designed to make it appear a weakness.


    I never said that the lack of a "katana vs. dao kata" was a "weakness"--what I was getting at, actually, is that the absence of such a kata might be an indicator that some sort of free-play was perhaps more common than is generally thought today.

    When the weapon in question WAS NOT USED IN JAPAN--in ANY major sense.


    But that does not mean that Japanese warriors didn't have to face it. The Japanese did fight elsewhere, as I'm sure you know. I already mentioned the Imjin War, and we also have cases of Japanese mercs fighting for the Dutch in the Spice Islands, in the early 17th century. In addition, there were also wako, who were active on the Korean and Chinese coasts, as well as in the Philippines.

    More spin, I show how current "free play" is really anything BUT.

    Its a heavily regulated sport--that is has very specific rules as to target area.

    Your corect as far as you nit-picking goes in that the rules for the foil, epee, and saber are differnet.


    LOL--thanks for the backhanded compliment.

    My "nit-picking" is simply a desire to be accurate, something which you obviously don't take seriously, since you have done nothing but present inaccurate generalizations throughout this thread. I know I've already mentioned that, and I'm not trying to re-escalate tensions here, but I'm not going to simply let you walk all over me, especially when I have made a good case.

    BUT IT DOES NOT NEGATE THE FACT THAT RULES PREVENT TRUE "FREE PLAY"
    to use your own quote.

    "That only applies to the foils, as the target is everything from the waist up"

    Yeah, so you CAN'T make ANY ATTACK below the waist in foil.

    So what you REALLY saying is that I KNOW A FOIL IS NOT ATTACKING MY LEGS, GROIN etc.


    {Nanban shakes head in dismay...}

    Once again, sir, you get my quotes wrong!

    You CAN attack the groin in foil--it is a legal target. That's why a foil jacket goes down to the crotch, and that's why a cup is recommended!

    How can it be true "free play" is there are KNOWN limts as to what my oppt can do and VERY specifc rules that stop them from doing specific things??

    That just does not make sense.


    The limited target helps one to develop point control. There are training formats in certain eskrima styles which use a similar approach.

    Modern fencing's bouting is still very much a useful exercise, regardless of the weapon used. It develops a real sense of timing and distance, that--contrary to your claims--CAN be applied to more combative forms of swordplay (as well as other weapons use, like knife fighting). I'm sorry that it didn't work for you, but it's worked for plenty of other folks.

    BTW, no commentary on Ray Floro?

    As you, yourself say.

    "The issue of not getting hit in the calf applies to foil and saber but not epee."

    Ah, dude that EXACTLY MY POINT--its not "really" free play when you and your oppt are NOT "free' in what they can do.


    Yeah, yeah, yeah, I've heard that all before...

    Thanks for pointing that out so clearly.


    Anytime.

    Back to Dr. Bs quote.

    If, as you say, and I quote.

    "The info is apparently available"

    Then please post it.


    Dude, I don't have the book in question, but I'm gonna try to track it down.

    However, considering that you train in JSA, I would think that, if anything, it's something you would seek out on your own.

    This is the quote you based your entire question around.


    I based my question around Dr. Bodiford's post. His post alone apparently wasn't good enough for you. So sorry.

    You should have all availabe infomation pertaining to it.


    "Pot--meet Kettle."

    I think it's really funny that you're faulting me for not posting one source, when I have constantly cited sources thoughout this thread (whereas you have not).

    As I have asked multiple times now--with no response from you.


    I'm doing the best I can--do you want me to make the book in question appear out of thin air? Wait, I'll bust out my magic eskrima stick and get to work...

    You have a quote involving unkn men, or unkn level of skill, from ukn ryu, with unkn methods of training (we don't know if they trained kata or not) in a match of unkn rules, with unkn results, unkn number of matchs, unkn how the information was gathered.


    Well, the RESULTS aren't unknown--that's why this thread exists.

    It just does not pass muster as a soild point.

    Honestly not trying to hack you off.

    You just are not dealing the questions and issue raised.


    Chris Thomas
    Whatever, dude.

    Like I said, you have presented nothing but generalizations throughout this thread, you have misquoted me time and again, & I now realize that you were serious when you said that you would "argue with an echo".

    Indeed, that's all you want to do--argue aimlessly, as opposed to debate and discuss. I still intend to continue with this thread. If you have useful material to contribute, then by all means do so, but I'm not going to sit here and waste time going back and forth like this. You haven't acknowledged any of my many pertinent points, so what's the use?

    And so, I give you the last word--which is all you appear to want anyway.

    Peace,

    David
    David Black Mastro


    "The Japanese are the most warlike people in this part of the world. They have artillery and many arquebuses and lances. They use defensive armor for the body, made of iron, which they have owing to the subtlety of the Portuguese, who have displayed that trait to the injury of their own souls." --Gonzalo Ronquillo de Penalosa, commenting on well-equipped wako in the Philippines, 1582.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    126
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by cxt
    Nanban

    In re-reading my post above I may used a tone that was harsher or more unfriendly than I intended.

    I mean no disrespect or animus.

    Just trying to get to the heart of what is and is not significante to the discussion.

    Your points pertaining to the specifc rules and differences between saber, foil, and epee are correct--they are just largely irrelvent in terms of supporting your contentions.

    And in a very real way illustrate my points exactly.

    Chris Thomas

    Chris,

    I just read this as I posted my latest post.

    Fair enough--I appreciate your effort at diplomacy--let's just agree to disagree then. I don't see us getting anywhere at this point.

    Peace,

    David
    David Black Mastro


    "The Japanese are the most warlike people in this part of the world. They have artillery and many arquebuses and lances. They use defensive armor for the body, made of iron, which they have owing to the subtlety of the Portuguese, who have displayed that trait to the injury of their own souls." --Gonzalo Ronquillo de Penalosa, commenting on well-equipped wako in the Philippines, 1582.

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Tokyo
    Posts
    768
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Nanban Bushi
    And that is precisely why I brought up the Korean flail, and the Chinese dao-and-rattan-shield combo--they are weapons that the samurai had to face from time to time. Expecially in the case of the latter, one would think that some sort of kata would have been developed (assuming that kata was--as is generally believed--the primary method of training), in order to teach Japanese warriors how to cope with a shield (since the Japanese generally didn't use such implements themselves).
    Looking at the centuries-long history of samurai, from the lonely, poor farmer samurai off in the boonies, to the aristocrat-bureaucrat in the big city, and everyone in between, from civil war after civil war, through closed-nation policies and finally forced internationalization, the percentage of samurai who would be facing foreign enemies with non-Japanese weaponry was incredibly small.
    (And in many cases, Japanese armies got schooled, specifically because of their lack of adaptation -- more an issue of military strategy than any particular weapon.)
    Which brings up a good point; a need to separate the training of armies and foot-soldiers versus the training of samurai in traditional ryu. Not all samurai were soldiers, and not all soldiers were samurai.
    I think of it like dinosaur fossils; think of the sheer number and different types of dinosaurs that must have existed all those years ago, and think of how few fossils we have today.
    There were hundreds if not thousands of koryu that are now gone, simply gone. Died with the last son, vanished with some bureacrat's brushstroke, blown up in Manchuria or Nagasaki, defeated on the battlefield against a rival village's lord, locked away in the corner of grandpa's mind, his grandkids too concerned with playing soccer to care...

    So I think I agree with you: 'free play' in so much as there are some rules to keep the 'play' as a valid training exercise, did and does exist in koryu training, within a kata context.
    And beyond that, true 'free play' existed in the form of duels and fights. Unlike in European traditions, there weren't too many rules regulating fighting (actually, there were, but they weren't followed very much until a concerted effort to stamp out samurai violence started in the late 1700s and early 1800s) and only 3 possible outcomes to a samurai duel: you die, he dies, or both die.

    In closing let me say that I find the comment "assuming that kata was--as is generally believed--the primary method of training" incredibly condescending. There is a wealth of information in Japan -- ancient scrolls and manuscripts, oral history and family traditions passed down from father to son, official government registries and historical documents, tombstones and engravings at temples and shrines, etc. -- that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that kata was and is the, as Ellis put it "Gold Standard" for traditional koryu training.
    And in fact, despite a determined governmental policy to eradicate all vestiges of 'old Japanese tradition' including koryu, it is a testament to the strength of koryu via a tradition of transmission through kata, that several koryu survive even today.

    Regards,

    r e n

  7. #82
    Mekugi Guest

    Default

    I meant in terms of his Menkyo. Didn't come out that way when I wrote rhe post, though.

    Originally posted by Nanban Bushi
    Russ/Mekugi,

    Check your sources again, bro.

    Kano began training in the Tenshin Shinyo Ryu in 1877, and he didn't become a member of the Kito Ryu until 1881.

    Peace,

    David

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    126
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by renfield_kuroda

    In closing let me say that I find the comment "assuming that kata was--as is generally believed--the primary method of training" incredibly condescending. There is a wealth of information in Japan -- ancient scrolls and manuscripts, oral history and family traditions passed down from father to son, official government registries and historical documents, tombstones and engravings at temples and shrines, etc. -- that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that kata was and is the, as Ellis put it "Gold Standard" for traditional koryu training.
    Renfield,

    Please know that I did not mean for that comment to be condescending whatsoever, and I apologize if it came across that way (as it clearly did with you).

    My point there was simply that we don't know everything about classical JSA, just as we don't know everything about the Western arts. Even though the classical Japanese arts have been preserved on a level that their European counterparts have not, the fact remains that there are still more questions than answers, IMO. "Ancient scolls and manuscripts", "official government registries", "historical documents", & "tombstones and engravings", while all incredibly valuable, don't necessarily give the whole picture, and "oral history and family tradition" can change over time, distorting their accuracy.

    And FWIW, in the West, there are a great number of period fight manuals, as well as government documents, first-hand accounts of duels and battles, and similar sources which have always been there, but none of those things prevented the modern Western fencing community from adopting a largely false view of what the earlier Western swordfighting traditions were like. When modern fencing history books began to be written by Victorian scholars like Sir Alfred Hutton, Egerton Castle, and others, they were right about some things, and downright wrong about plenty of others--and frankly, in many cases these men should have known better. Only now, with the works of authors like J Christoph Amberger, Professor Sidney Anglo, and many others, is the record being set straight.

    Dr Bodiford's statements suggest that JSA went thru its share of changes, and there may have been changes that we are not yet aware of.

    I will comment on the rest of your post when I have more time.

    Best Regards,

    David
    David Black Mastro


    "The Japanese are the most warlike people in this part of the world. They have artillery and many arquebuses and lances. They use defensive armor for the body, made of iron, which they have owing to the subtlety of the Portuguese, who have displayed that trait to the injury of their own souls." --Gonzalo Ronquillo de Penalosa, commenting on well-equipped wako in the Philippines, 1582.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    126
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Mekugi
    I meant in terms of his Menkyo. Didn't come out that way when I wrote rhe post, though.
    I understand, Russ--thanks for the clarification.
    David Black Mastro


    "The Japanese are the most warlike people in this part of the world. They have artillery and many arquebuses and lances. They use defensive armor for the body, made of iron, which they have owing to the subtlety of the Portuguese, who have displayed that trait to the injury of their own souls." --Gonzalo Ronquillo de Penalosa, commenting on well-equipped wako in the Philippines, 1582.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Melissa, TX
    Posts
    3,162
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Looks like this thread is going nowhere.
    George Kohler

    Genbukan Kusakage dojo
    Dojo-cho

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6

Posting Permissions

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