# fighting techniques of the ninja



## Aiki Lee (Mar 21, 2011)

I have heard that Koto ryu and Gyokko ryu were practiced by the Togakure ryu ninja. I was wondering if any of you out there knew if there is truth to this or if it were myth or an incorrect assumption.

I've heard from instructors that they were told that Gyokko ryu and Koto ryu were taught alongside each other but never combined together into one art. Why do you suppose this is?


----------



## DuskB4Dawn (Mar 21, 2011)

interesting post Himura Kenshin. the title of the post is misleading. I thought it was about how ninjutsu taijutsu is different and the style and approach compared to other martial arts. than i would say ninjutsu focus alot on timing and fast attack that disrupts enemy balance and movement.

about Koto ryu and Gyokko ryu. i read they are related. I don't think Togakure ryu practice koto or gyokko ryu. it would be unlikely. but then again Im no expert on ninjutsu history so i cant say I know for sure.


----------



## EWBell (Mar 21, 2011)

Gyokko Ryu and Koto Ryu should be viewed as peanut butter and jelly, in that they just go together.  While they are separate ryu-ha, Koto Ryu actually evolved out of Gyokko Ryu.  Takamatsu Sensei taught that Koto Ryu Koppo-jutsu, Gyokushin Ryu Koppo-jutsu, Gikan Ryu Koppo-jutsu, Iga Ryu (which includes Togakure Ryu) and Koga Ryu all descended from Gyokko Ryu.  Also, the weapon known as the Kyoketsu Shoge came from Gyokko Ryu originally.  

Togakure Ryu in and of itself would probably not be a great hand to hand system, as it seems to focus on escape and diversion, more than straight up fighting.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 21, 2011)

I apologize if the the thread title was misleading.

I am aware that togakure ryu has less of a focus on unarmed fighting, which is why I am told they also practice gyokko ryu and koto ryu.


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 21, 2011)

Okay, ready? Here we go....

Gyokko Ryu is said to have been founded by Hakuunsai Tozawa, also founder/Soke of Hakuun Ryu Ninjutsu, from knowledge brought to Japan by Cho Gyokko/Yo Gyokko from China. One of Hakuunsai's teachers was Hachiryu Nyudo, the inventor/developer of the Kyoketsu Shoge. The given founding date is about 1162.

The tenth Soke of Gyokko Ryu was Sogyokkan Ritsushi, his students included the founders of Gyokushin Ryu Koppo (Ninpo), Gikan Ryu Koppotaijutsu (both found in the Bujinkan), and Izumo Ryu (Hontai Gyokushin Ryu) Koppojutsu (no longer extant). It has been said that Gyokushin Ryu has no formal techniques of combat itself, instead the Ryu uses the physical forms of Gyokko Ryu to instill combative wisdom and skill. It has also been said that Gyokushin Ryu focuses on sacrifice throws (Sutemi Nage), and there are certain combative approaches distinct from Gyokko Ryu associated with this system. My personal take on that is that Gyokushin Ryu Ninjutsu contains no combative forms, instead using Gyokko Ryu for that purpose, however Gyokushin Ryu Koppo does contain, at the least, combative concepts and principles, including the aforementioned sutemi nage and things such as nagenawa (a rope used similar to a lasso). I don't think there are actual "kata", though.

Koto Ryu was founded in 1542 by Sakagami Taro Kunishige, who was the twelth Soke of Gyokko Ryu (he re-organised Gyokko Ryu into Kosshijutsu from Shitojutsu as well). It was based on Gyokko Ryu and the knowledge brought to Japan from China via Korea by Chan Busho (for the record, Chan Busho was said to have once killed a tiger with a strike in Korea, using Koto Ryu methods. This is where the Koto Ryu gets it's name from).

One concept when dealing with the origin of Koto Ryu from Gyokko Ryu is to look at what the differences are. Gyokko Ryu looks at a "shuffling" method of movement (keeping the same foot in front), as evidenced in the Ge Ryaku no Maki (Muto Dori kata). This form of footwork is less mobile, and slightly slower than stepping, but far more stable, making you harder to attack due to being off balance, and is therefore far more common in systems that deal with one-one-one dueling-style methods. Considering that the form of warfare at Gyokko Ryu's time (for the higher ranking samurai) revolved around personal combat, issuing challenges and fighting single persons, it makes perfect sense. Koto Ryu, on the other hand, demonstrates through the Hekito Gata (Muto Dori kata) a "stepping" footwork. This is more consistent with a melee, all-in style of battle, which was what was found during the Sengoku Jidai, when Koto Ryu was founded. So the new information (from Korea via Chan Busho) added to changes in requirements leant themselves to a new martial system. However, that did not mean that the Gyokko Ryu was abandoned. 

The Gyokko Ryu and Koto Ryu were taught and transmitted together from that point onwards, including the training of Gyokko Ryu methods against the "attacking" patterns of Koto Ryu (found throughout the Chuden and Okudan Gata). The fact that Koto Ryu contains no kick defences may indicate that such ideas were simply found in the Gyokko Ryu, and added little value to methods. Both systems fill the "holes" in the other. 

Togakure Ryu was said to have been founded by Nishina Daisuke/Togakure Daisuke, and is based on his training in Shugendo, his combative training as a vassel of Kiso Yoshinaka's army (he was 16 at this point, by the way), and the teaching of Hakuun Ryu Ninjutsu from Kain Doshi/Kagakure Doshi. In terms of physical methods, the Togakure Ryu is very sparce, dealing with little more than escapes from grabs, weapon attacks, and enemies advancing with weapons. In other words, the small Taijutsu aspect of Togakure Ryu deals with what to do if you're captured (held, grab defences), spotted (advancing enemy guards, armed with swords or spears), or attacked (typically with swords or spears) when out on an espionage-style mission. It has long been said that Togakure Ryu relies on Koto Ryu and Gyokko Ryu for it's Taijutsu, and while it is true that the Taijutsu of Togakure Ryu (specifically) is very similar in movement, it also has it's own "flavour" there. What I feel is meant is that if a Togakure Ryu ninja was involved in a more "combatively active" mission, they would use the Gyokko and Koto Ryu teachings there, rather than have their own seperate form. The actual Togakure Ryu Taijutsu methods seem to me to be a later addition to the Ryu, when the school became more "active", which was said to be the 16th Century, rather than the 12th (founding date of 1185 for the Ryu itself).

So, to give a brief (very brief!) outline....

China's Imperial Court ------Yo Gyokko---------Hakuunsai Tozawa (Gyokko Ryu Ninjutsu) (Hakuun Ryu Ninjutsu)--------Sogyokkan Ritsushi (Gyokko Ryu Shitojutsu) (students founded Gyokushin Ryu, Gikan Ryu, Izumo Ryu)--------Sakagami Taro Kunishige (Gyokko Ryu Kosshijutsu) (Koto Ryu Koppojutsu)------Current generation (Hatsumi, Tanemura)

China's Imperial Court--------Chan Busho (Korea)------Sakagami Taro Kunishige (Gyokko Ryu Kosshijutsu) (Koto Ryu Koppojutsu)----------Current generation (Hatsumi, Tanemura)

Ikai----Hakuun Doshi/Hakuunsai Tozawa (Gyokko Ryu Ninjutsu) (Hakuun Ryu Ninjutsu)-----Kain Doshi-------Togakure Daisuke (Togakure Ryu Ninjutsu)-------Current generation (Hatsumi, Tanemura)

So you can see that these arts are all quite closely connected, and have all been fairly influential on each other. Gyokko and Koto Ryu both passed through Momochi Sandayu at one point, and he has also been linked with Togakure Ryu (not as a head, but as having studied the system). The idea of Togakure Ryu using the physical methods of more "combative" arts, such as Gyokko Ryu and Koto Ryu, with a small amount of specialist methods for their espionage requirements fits with the idea of what ninjutsu is.


----------



## DuskB4Dawn (Mar 22, 2011)

when i read the title fighting techniques of the ninja. I thought you were talking about the style of fighting of ninjutsu. about what makes ninjutsu distinct and unique.
than i heard gyokko ryu and koto kyu i thought here we go again another one of those threads :/


----------



## Sanke (Mar 22, 2011)

DuskB4Dawn said:


> when i read the title fighting techniques of the ninja. I thought you were talking about the style of fighting of ninjutsu. about what makes ninjutsu distinct and unique.
> than i heard gyokko ryu and koto kyu i thought here we go again another one of those threads :/



If that's the case, you may be in the wrong place  from what I've gathered, a lot of people here already know what makes Ninjutsu unique and different, and are more interested in the history behind it and it's various schools. But being new here myself, that could just be because i follow a lot of threads that Mr. Parker posts in, and those tend to just go in that direction naturally...


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 22, 2011)

Thanks Chris! I can always seem to count on you for an informed response. 

The comment on Gyokushin ryu was interesting too, its relationship to gyokko ryu sounds similar to the one shared between kumogakure and togakure ryu.


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 23, 2011)

Yeah, it's pretty similar to the Kumogakure/Togakure link. Kumogakure is also thought to have no actual combative waza itself, although it does have certain approaches (I refer to it as "the art of disappearing"), including the psychological effects of wearing Oni masks in combat, and the use of armoured sleeves (both of which imply to me non-battlefield methods, as it is not the use of a full suit of armour, however there is some protection offered there, the use of specialist weapons designed for scaling walls and trees (Kama Yari, Ippon Sugi Nobori), and so on. The Taijutsu is said to be similar to the Taijutsu of Togakure Ryu, although they are both classified differently (Koppojutsu for Kumogakure Ryu, Kosshijutsu for Togakure Ryu).


----------



## DuskB4Dawn (Mar 23, 2011)

it is interesting what you said about gyokko ryu and koto ryu footwork
i find gyokko ryu has a more defencive feel. from a standing position and the backwards in 45 degree angle.
and koto ryu more of a attacking feel. and attacking while you are moving forward.
i tend to favour gyokko ryu footwork more. feels more stable and koto tends to change feet more often.
Togakure ryu i dont know. i am not up to that yet. sounds like alot of fun!

my sensei once when explaining gyokko ryu and koto ryu said gyokko ryu is more like what a palace guard would use. and koto ryu for siege warefare. like escaping from a castle and running forward into enemy.
I wonder how you would descibe Togakure ryu?
thanks


----------



## Indagator (Mar 23, 2011)

Can't speak for other orgs or really outside of my own experiences at all, but I have noticed a certain heavy leaning within Bujinkan instructors who have been involved since a certain period of time, towards the philosophical principles of Togakure Ryu - to the point of extending physical/combative principles from the kata of other ryu into a point where they can be interpreted within the philosophical principles of Togakure.

This is simply my small experience, I would say my .02 but tbh it's prob more like a 100th of a cent LOL.


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 23, 2011)

DuskB4Dawn said:


> it is interesting what you said about gyokko ryu and koto ryu footwork
> i find gyokko ryu has a more defencive feel. from a standing position and the backwards in 45 degree angle.
> and koto ryu more of a attacking feel. and attacking while you are moving forward.
> i tend to favour gyokko ryu footwork more. feels more stable and koto tends to change feet more often.
> ...


 
Okay, there's a few things to cover here... to begin with, I am your Sensei, so the separation between what "your sensei" told you and asking how I would describe Togakure kinda confuses me.... after all, it's not as if you don't know who's on the other end of this keyboard!

In terms of the footwork of the two Ryu-ha in question, both prefer slightly different angling concepts, but I wouldn't necessarily say that Gyokko is that much more "defensive". It prefers coming in from an angle, and utilising a more "circular" approach than Koto's straight line movements, but the idea of "defensive" or "offensive" is more in the mindset of the kata (and Ryu) itself. Even at the very beginning, with Koku and Renyo, you're being taught to "attack" the incoming limbs of an opponent, and the evasive actions are more to be in the right position to come in at the angle Gyokko prefers.

In terms of prefering one or the other, so far you have had a taste of each. It's good that you're starting to become more aware of them, and finding where you're comfortable within the art, but realistically you've had 6 months of Gyokko, and now 3 months of Koto so far... that's all. It's really not enough to get any more than a brief taste. Oh, and Koto is plenty stable, in fact it relies on being completely stable when striking while the opponent is unstable (again, what Koppojutsu is about, attacking the structure of the opponent, such as their stance and stability). Togakure Ryu you'll see from July onwards.

In terms of Gyokko being what a palace guard would use and Koto for siege warfare, that's not quite what I said there.

Gyokko Ryu's history says that the skills were originally developed at the Chinese Imperial Court, where they were developed by a Princess (or Lady in Waiting), or possibly smaller statured Palace guard. This is why it moves the way it does, not relying on strength, but instead moving around to better positions in order to maximise your power, and minimise the opponents ability to react. That's not the same as saying it was for a Palace Guard, though.

Koto Ryu includes stories about it's practitioners operating as small "disruptor" groups, and acting as anti-siege combatants, rather than being involved in siege warfare on the other side.

Togakure Ryu and how I would describe that, well, Togakure Ryu has a very limited Taijutsu aspect, mostly focused around escape if discovered on a mission. There are no striking defences whatsoever, just grabs, advances with weapons, and weapon attacks. Movement tends to be low, stable and resistant all at the same time, and almost all kata follow the same basic concept: Try to keep distance in order to escape, if that doesn't work, then suddenly rush in past the opponents attacks and defences, quickly apply the technique, then distract to create distance to escape. That'll make more sense later this year for you.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 23, 2011)

I have not seen much from the weapons training in Koto Ryu or Gyokko ryu, how do you see their philosophies reflected in that aspect of training?


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 24, 2011)

Gyokko Ryu and Koto Ryu don't have any weapons syllabus anymore (that has been publicly shown, at least), however each have certain weaponry that have been associated with them.

Gyokko Ryu, as mentioned, is associated with a range of flexible weaponry (Kyoketsu Shoge, Kusari Gama), as well as Bo, Sword, and Knife (Tanto). Koto Ryu also has a reputation for Bo, Sword and Knife, with aspects of the swordsmanship said to include a posture known as Mangetsu no Kamae (similar to Hoko no Kamae, but with the sword held in one hand, to either reflect the sun into an enemies eyes, or, if it's raining, to catch the water in the bo-hi and flick it into the enemies face to distract them), the use of a left-hand grip (to seem like you don't have any skill with a sword), and an anti-siege tactic of cutting the enemies achilies tendons as they attempt to climb over a wall.

A number of years ago there was a range of bojutsu kata being taught that were claimed to be Gyokko Ryu, and there were some DVDs that show it, but they are actually a set of Kukishin Ryu that weren't recognised (not too dissimilar to when Asayama Ichiden Ryu was being taught as "Gikan Ryu" as Tanemura's notes had been used, and the kata weren't named, so the assumption was made...).


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 24, 2011)

Thanks Chris, I was unaware that Koto ryu and Gyokko ryu don't really have a weapon syllabus. So far my experience with them is from koto ryu shoden and gyokko's joryaku no maki and the kihon happo. Most of my weapon training at this point comes from kukishin and eishin ryu.


----------



## Indagator (Mar 24, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> the use of a left-hand grip (to seem like you don't have any skill with a sword), .


 
Lol I can't help but think of that scene from The Princess Bride when you say that hehehe.


----------



## skuggvarg (Mar 26, 2011)

So there are no weapons in Gyokko Ryu and Koto Ryu? Only sword in Togakure? Really? Thats really strange dont you think. Even waza to defend against short and long sword but no waza on how to handle said weapons... Hmmm / Skuggvarg


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 26, 2011)

skuggvarg said:


> So there are no weapons in Gyokko Ryu and Koto Ryu? Only sword in Togakure? Really? Thats really strange dont you think. Even waza to defend against short and long sword but no waza on how to handle said weapons... Hmmm / Skuggvarg


 
Hmm, you may want to re-read what I wrote there, there was no indication of Togakure only having sword in it's densho; there is also Senban, Shino Dake, Shuko, Metsubishi in the Taijutsu scroll, and Yari and Ken as attacking weapons. When it comes to Koto and Gyokko not having weaponry, I believe you were part of a thread on MAP covering this? 

To fill in the details, it was asked whether or not Gyokko might actually have a sword syllabus (as some claim to teach it) and the issue of "well, where did the attacking partner learn to use a sword for the Ge Ryaku muto dori kata then?" came up. This, however, was a rather irrelevant question, as the thought is that Gyokko probably lost whatever weaponry kata it had, leaving only the Taijutsu (Kosshijutsu) left. There is also the distinct possibility that the sword handling was taken care of by learning, or training in other systems (the Hagakure has reference to Daimyo rewarding their samurai for attaining ranking in different martial skills, such as archery, swordsmanship, spearmanship, gunmanship etc, indicating that training in seperate areas may have been common, at least in some domains, and that the skills would cross over - ie the skills of handling a sword from another system would make it's way into the attacking methods of Gyokko training. This is also supported by the traditional way of training, where the attacker is always the more senior person, and therefore would be the more experienced, and the more likely to have picked up such skills).

Next is the possibility that the only swordwork that survived was that of the attacking methods, with little other emphasis being placed on swordsmanship. By a similar token, you don't have to be a TKD blackbelt to train against a roundhouse kick, although having basic understanding of how to throw one is needed (just not real perfection). The next thing to remember is that the attacking methods throughout the Bujinkan are rather uniform, especially for a system made up of so many different methods and arts. Basically, the main attacks used are based primarily on the Kukishin weaponry methods, with only a few looking at the other methods used in other schools (the slight difference in Jodan no Kamae in Koto Ryu, rather than the way the posture is found as Dai Jodan in Kukishinden Ryu, and so on).

Incidentally, the Hontai Yoshin Ryu have done something rather interesting along these lines.... It was starting to be noticed that the skill of the swordsmen in their muto dori gata was not really putting the students against any real pressure, as the understanding of swordsmanship was lacking (due to it not being a real "studied" weapon, as such). As a result, the Ryu integrated the Iai methods of Toyama Ryu, including paired kata, in order to get the swordsmanship up to speed. In the Bujinkan traditions, there is the Kukishinden Ryu Happo Biken for that, so it's not necessary to have another one for Koto, another one for Gyokko, another one for Takagi Yoshin etc. So if the arts have lost their kata (their weapon syllabus, not their entire usage or the entire presence of such weapons in their methods), there is no real need to add them back in, as the Bujinkan really is covered in that way. By the same token, there is no need to have spearmanship taught in Togakure Ryu (although the Kama Yari is one of the secret weapons of the Kumogakure Ryu, and spears are used as attacking weapons in a few Togakure Ryu kata).


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 26, 2011)

Wait, are there techniques for fighting with the shino dake in togakure ryu? Isn't that the breathing tube?

If so, is its use akin to using a hanbo?


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 26, 2011)

No, there are no combative forms for the Shinodake, but there are teachings for it (again for clarification, non-combative). It is one of the Sanpo Hiden of Togakure Ryu, though, which also includes the Senban and Shuko.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 26, 2011)

That's what I thought. Thanks for clarification.


----------



## skuggvarg (Mar 27, 2011)

> In the Bujinkan traditions, there is the Kukishinden Ryu Happo Biken for that, so it's not necessary to have another one for Koto, another one for Gyokko, another one for Takagi Yoshin etc.


 
True that. However, Kukishinden Ryu and Takagi Yoshin Ryu were schools Takamatsu sensei learned outside the Toda traditions. It would be strange for such old schools as Gyokko Ryu and Koto Ryu (who has been in the same family for many generations) to not have methods for the most common weapons used at the time. If it was lost it should then have been lost in the transition from Toda to Takamatsu, right?

I have my strong beliefs this did not happen. Several weapons have been mentioned, for example spear, staff, sword, short sword, knife, jutte, kusari fundo and so on. How they are organised in the written material for each school is another question, one I think none of us can answer with any certainty.

Regards / Skuggvarg


----------



## Chris Parker (Mar 27, 2011)

Hmm, that's an interesting hypothesis (the weapon kata being lost between Toda and Takamatsu as the Kuki and Takagi lines were transmitted separately from the Toda lines), but I don't think it really works. To begin with, having sword attacks within a Ryu does not by any means indicate that there was ever even a sword syllabus to begin with (for the record, I am not saying that they didn't have them, just that the leap is not supported by the reality of Japanese martial traditions. See the reference to Hagakure earlier for that). There could very easily only be basic sword handling as found in those Muto kata.

And it may be remembered that Shinden Fudo Ryu was the "official Ryu" of Toda's dojo, and that contains aspects of Iai, which certainly gives sword handling methods without Toda needing to have just not transmitted the swordwork of Gyokko and Koto to Takamatsu. Add to that Toda being an instructor of Biken for a governmental academy, and the idea that any weapons associated with the Gyokko or Koto lineages were lost between Toda and Takamatsu is not supported.

When it comes to your beliefs about things not being lost, I am assuming you are refering to Kacem's teaching of "Gyokko Ryu Tojutsu" here, yeah? For the record, and this is only going on the clips that Will puts on you-tube, I see nothing there that indicates to me an actual transmission (the kata, such as they are, just don't act or feel like any kata from any system I have come across, at best they look like explorations of Gyokko principles and teaching concepts expressed through sword movements), especially not a transmission of what would be expected of kata from an old system (such as Gyokko Ryu or Koto Ryu). As said, though, that is from the clips posted, although I am rather skeptical of anything other than the aforementioned exploration. At best, I feel that there are some concepts of swordsmanship that have remained in the systems, but there is no sword section/kata transmission of these systems. And, frankly, that is not uncommon or unusual in Japanese.... just because you may expect something to be there (as it "makes sense" to you) is no indication of whether or not it actually is, or even should be.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Mar 27, 2011)

Could the sword methods have come from Togakure ryu's syllabus?
I'm interested to know why there isn't more "official" weapons training in koto ryu or gyokko ryu. Being older traditions I would have thought the original practitioners and his inheiritors would have found it necessary for the times.


----------



## skuggvarg (Mar 27, 2011)

Chris,


> To begin with, having sword attacks within a Ryu does not by any means indicate that there was ever even a sword syllabus to begin with


It does indicate that those who practise said waza know how to handle a sword. It goes without saying that you had to know how to. In case there was no sword waza in Gyokko and Koto Ryu (and only very little in Togakure ryu), those who mastered these schools would have had to study some other form of swordmanship. This has not been confirmed at least and I find it far more likely (just from a logical perspective) that it was contained in the schools.



> And it may be remembered that Shinden Fudo Ryu was the "official Ryu" of Toda's dojo, and that contains aspects of Iai, which certainly gives sword handling methods without Toda needing to have just not transmitted the swordwork of Gyokko and Koto to Takamatsu. Add to that Toda being an instructor of Biken for a governmental academy, and the idea that any weapons associated with the Gyokko or Koto lineages were lost between Toda and Takamatsu is not supported.


 
Well, only for the last Toda. Shinden Fudo Ryu was a rather recent add to the family. Before that it was Gyokko, Koto, Togakure Ryu mainly. He was not taught Shinden Fudo Ryu from his father. The other sentence Im unsure what you mean (my bad english comprehension skills I suppose) but if you by Biken mean that he taught sword (like so many others are saying) I think you are wrong. I have some complementary information on that which indicates he taught other things. The "Bikenshin ryu"-mistranslation has been covered before.



> When it comes to your beliefs about things not being lost, I am assuming you are refering to Kacem's teaching of "Gyokko Ryu Tojutsu" here, yeah?


 
The tojutsu is just one aspect of it. There has been discussions before about Gyokko Ryu bojutsu (and yeah Im not thinking about the stupid misunderstanding of Kukishin related waza) as well as Kusari fundojutsu, juttejutsu, et cetera.

Best regards / Skuggvarg


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 1, 2011)

Sorry, missed this over the last few days....



Himura Kenshin said:


> Could the sword methods have come from Togakure ryu's syllabus?


 
Highly doubtful, considering the way Togakure Ryu's swordwork moves, the specific weaponry utilised, and so on.



Himura Kenshin said:


> I'm interested to know why there isn't more "official" weapons training in koto ryu or gyokko ryu. Being older traditions I would have thought the original practitioners and his inheiritors would have found it necessary for the times.


 
Hmm, perhaps you might be looking for something that isn't there.... we'll see if the next answers help your understanding there....



skuggvarg said:


> Chris,
> 
> It does indicate that those who practise said waza know how to handle a sword. It goes without saying that you had to know how to. In case there was no sword waza in Gyokko and Koto Ryu (and only very little in Togakure ryu), those who mastered these schools would have had to study some other form of swordmanship. This has not been confirmed at least and I find it far more likely (just from a logical perspective) that it was contained in the schools.


 
Well, yes, it does go without saying that there would at least be some understanding of how to handle a sword, but to then take that as an assumption that there must have been a sword syllabus is frankly a pretty big leap. The use of sword could very easily be just the methods transmitted through the attacking forms of the kata themselves, without having a seperate syllabus. Shinto Muso Ryu, for instance, has a seperate Ryu incorporated into it (Kasumi Shinto Ryu) in order to develop the swordsmanship for the Uchidachi side of things.

Koto Ryu is said to have had it's own sword syllabus at one time, but that has been lost. I think I said that earlier, actually, so making the claim that it never had it isn't really accurate.

Once again, though, it may be logical (to you) that Gyokko Ryu and Koto Ryu have sword syllabus', but that really doesn't mean anything in the scheme of things. Remember that the Ryu-ha themselves are labeled as "Kosshijutsu" and "Koppojutsu", which can incorporate weaponry concepts and techniques, but are not weaponry systems. And to try to label them as such, or expect them to be such, is to miss the point of the Ryu-ha themselves.

Here's another example. Tenjin Shinyo Ryu is a Jujutsu system. In fact, it's one of the base systems that Judo was developed from. And it labels it's entire syllabus as Jujutsu, with no weapon component. Now, incorporated into that Jujutsu syllabus are weapon defences, weapon retention kata, and even some basic use of some weaponry (short sword/nobete). But there is no sword syllabus, no sword kata, no sword system involved in the art. If you want to have a greater level of skill with a sword, then you would be expected to study a sword system. This is no different back in time as well, where you would study a Kyujutsu Ryu-ha, a Sojutsu Ryu-ha, and a Bajutsu Ryu-ha. They could all fit into each other (if the Kyujutsu Ryu-ha includes Yabusame, then the Bajutsu Ryu-ha could very easily have a lot of cross-over).

Next thing to think about is exactly what you are logically expecting these systems to be. The common thing is to think that an old system will be designed purely around use on a battlefield, and the techniques are geared up with that reality in mind. Unfortunately, that is just not the case. To begin with, if that was the case, there would be spear techniques, horsemanship, archery, possibly naginata, and little else. There would not be the plethora of unarmed techniques and methods, let alone systems devoted to unarmed combat (such as Koto Ryu and Gyokko Ryu). So to think that logically there should be a sword system is a flawed logic; if that type of logic is applied, then you shouldn't expect the unarmed to exist, and, frankly, the sword system would be highly unlikely as well.



skuggvarg said:


> Well, only for the last Toda. Shinden Fudo Ryu was a rather recent add to the family. Before that it was Gyokko, Koto, Togakure Ryu mainly. He was not taught Shinden Fudo Ryu from his father. The other sentence Im unsure what you mean (my bad english comprehension skills I suppose) but if you by Biken mean that he taught sword (like so many others are saying) I think you are wrong. I have some complementary information on that which indicates he taught other things. The "Bikenshin ryu"-mistranslation has been covered before.


 
No, I wasn't refering to "Bikenshin Ryu", there's enough contestation over that existing. From what I gather, "Biken Shinryu" was a nickname of Toda Sensei, from Shinryu Masamitsu Toda, based in him teaching sword methods at a governmental (Shogunate) academy; I have heard the theories about Toda teaching more than sword (Biken refering to the sword held in the hand of Fudo Myo-o, and used to spiritually "cut away" evil things), but sword has always been mentioned.



skuggvarg said:


> The tojutsu is just one aspect of it. There has been discussions before about Gyokko Ryu bojutsu (and yeah Im not thinking about the stupid misunderstanding of Kukishin related waza) as well as Kusari fundojutsu, juttejutsu, et cetera.
> 
> Best regards / Skuggvarg


 
I have heard of these weapons being related to, or associated with Gyokko Ryu, however I have never come across any weaponry kata for any of them that are officially a part of the system. And that includes the Tojutsu that Kacem is teaching, from everything that has been shown on the you-tube clips.


----------



## skuggvarg (Apr 1, 2011)

> From what I gather, "Biken Shinryu" was a nickname of Toda Sensei, from Shinryu Masamitsu Toda, based in him teaching sword methods at a governmental (Shogunate) academy; I have heard the theories about Toda teaching more than sword (Biken refering to the sword held in the hand of Fudo Myo-o, and used to spiritually "cut away" evil things), but sword has always been mentioned.


 
I think you mean "Biken Shinryuken" since his surname was shinryuken, not shinryu? What I gathered he did not really teach sword but something else associated with the word "Biken". Takamatsu Sensei wrote something about it in his autobiography...
If Toda sensei did teach sword as you wrote, can you elaborate which ryu-ha?



> Koto Ryu is said to have had it's own sword syllabus at one time, but that has been lost. I think I said that earlier, actually, so making the claim that it never had it isn't really accurate.
> 
> Once again, though, it may be logical (to you) that Gyokko Ryu and Koto Ryu have sword syllabus', but that really doesn't mean anything in the scheme of things. Remember that the Ryu-ha themselves are labeled as "Kosshijutsu" and "Koppojutsu", which can incorporate weaponry concepts and techniques, but are not weaponry systems. And to try to label them as such, or expect them to be such, is to miss the point of the Ryu-ha themselves.


A quick look at the "Saigo no ninja" DVD shows a densho titled "Gyokko Ryu Ninjutsu". There is also Gyokko Ryu Koppojutsu as has been discussed before. It certainly says something about the school but perhaps not anything about it limitations. As you well know Kukishinden Ryu Dakentaijutsu contains quite a bit more than just dakentaijutsu.

I strongly believe the taijutsu parts of many ryu-ha grew extensively towards the end of the Edo period. Surely many also dropped the classical weapons with the start of the Meiji period and the ban on weapons. The focus in Bujinkan today is taijutsu, no doubt. To anyone who examines the taijutsu however it is more than clear that its foundation is armed combat.

Regards / Skuggvarg


----------



## Aiki Lee (Apr 1, 2011)

Chris Parker said:


> Highly doubtful, considering the way Togakure Ryu's swordwork moves, the specific weaponry utilised, and so on.
> 
> 
> Hmm, perhaps you might be looking for something that isn't there.... we'll see if the next answers help your understanding there.


 
I don't have much experience with Togakure ryu at this point, so it was pretty much a random stab in the dark.

I have no problems with there being no sword syllabus in these other arts, but like you point out a little later in your post I had a colored and incorrect assumption that older martial arts were all weapon based in some form and used against opposing armies on the battlefield.



Chris Parker said:


> Well, yes, it does go without saying that there would at least be some understanding of how to handle a sword, but to then take that as an assumption that there must have been a sword syllabus is frankly a pretty big leap. The use of sword could very easily be just the methods transmitted through the attacking forms of the kata themselves, without having a seperate syllabus. Shinto Muso Ryu, for instance, has a seperate Ryu incorporated into it (Kasumi Shinto Ryu) in order to develop the swordsmanship for the Uchidachi side of things.
> 
> Koto Ryu is said to have had it's own sword syllabus at one time, but that has been lost. I think I said that earlier, actually, so making the claim that it never had it isn't really accurate.


 
I guess my assumption that there _should_ be a sword syllabus came from my thought that if you having training in how to defend against swordsmen, then one should likely study the sword himself. But, I see that fallacy of that now that I think about how many modern arts have knife and gun disarms and those martial artists don'tnecessarily learn marksmanship or how to properly fight with a knife. So I gues it isn't necessary after all. 



Chris Parker said:


> Once again, though, it may be logical (to you) that Gyokko Ryu and Koto Ryu have sword syllabus', but that really doesn't mean anything in the scheme of things. Remember that the Ryu-ha themselves are labeled as "Kosshijutsu" and "Koppojutsu", which can incorporate weaponry concepts and techniques, but are not weaponry systems. And to try to label them as such, or expect them to be such, is to miss the point of the Ryu-ha themselves.


 
I suppose I had assumed that Koto ryu wasn't always refered to as only koppojutsu and that term would have been applied later after a sword syllabus might have been lost. Perhaps that is not the case after all.



Chris Parker said:


> Next thing to think about is exactly what you are logically expecting these systems to be. The common thing is to think that an old system will be designed purely around use on a battlefield, and the techniques are geared up with that reality in mind. Unfortunately, that is just not the case. To begin with, if that was the case, there would be spear techniques, horsemanship, archery, possibly naginata, and little else. There would not be the plethora of unarmed techniques and methods, let alone systems devoted to unarmed combat (such as Koto Ryu and Gyokko Ryu). So to think that logically there should be a sword system is a flawed logic; if that type of logic is applied, then you shouldn't expect the unarmed to exist, and, frankly, the sword system would be highly unlikely as well.


 
You have a point here. If it were meant for  battlefield it would probably be based more on those other things you listed above. With that in mind, I have two questions.

1) I am aware that the sword was not necessarily the weapon of choice during war, but are there not sword styles devoted to fighting in armor? Wouldn't that mean they were meant to be used on the battlefield?

2) If koto ryu and gyokko ryu were not meant for ancient battlefields, then what were the primary reasons for studying them originally? Were they for personal protection? Sorry if you answered this already, I guess I'm just not entirely sure what these arts were developed for.


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 2, 2011)

skuggvarg said:


> I think you mean "Biken Shinryuken" since his surname was shinryuken, not shinryu? What I gathered he did not really teach sword but something else associated with the word "Biken". Takamatsu Sensei wrote something about it in his autobiography...
> If Toda sensei did teach sword as you wrote, can you elaborate which ryu-ha?


 
I've actually come across both, not sure if people were just being lazy, although it really should be noted that this is still primarily a theory in each case I have seen it. In terms of Takamatsu's comments on "Biken" in his autobiography, they basically say that it refers to the skills of sword, short sword (kodachi), and jutte, with jutte (and tessen) being the highest order, or skill. So that, to me, would still incorporate swordsmanship. As well as that, pretty much every record or story I have seen claims Toda Sensei as a teacher of sword methods. 

In terms of the specific Ryu-ha, that seems to be a point of great contention...  The original version had it that the Ryu taught was Bikenshin Ryu, although as no other records of that Ryu have been found the theories range from it being a misunderstanding (as listed above) through to it being simply what Toda was teaching, formulated by him and not passed on. This may be the closer version to the reality, I feel, in that Toda was teaching swordsmanship at a Shogunate academy, but most likely a fairly simple form, rather than a detailed Ryu-ha. Basic cutting, principles, tactics, and so on.



skuggvarg said:


> A quick look at the "Saigo no ninja" DVD shows a densho titled "Gyokko Ryu Ninjutsu". There is also Gyokko Ryu Koppojutsu as has been discussed before. It certainly says something about the school but perhaps not anything about it limitations. As you well know Kukishinden Ryu Dakentaijutsu contains quite a bit more than just dakentaijutsu.


 
Hmm, I remember going through that with Antony CUmmins, and correcting his translation of that particular section. What the Densho actually says is "Gyokko Ryu Kosshijutsu" with a side-line "Ninpo". It does not say "Gyokko Ryu Ninjutsu", though (for the record, I am looking at the timemark 10:38-11:06 here on the Takamatsu DVD Saigo no Jissen Ninja). As far as "Gyokko Ryu Koppojutsu" is concerned, I am far from convinced.

All the talk of "Gyokko Ryu Koppojutsu" I have heard have come from, how do I put this, a certain faction of the Bujinkan. And the only reference that I have been able to find (other than discussions where some claim it as fact) is a Bujinkan page which talks about Gikan Ryu coming from a slightly different line of Gyokko Ryu (one from Cho Gyokko, rather than one associated with Ikai. The big problem I have there is that the Bujinkan line (not aware of any other, except for those that have split from it in the last few decades) is the only one around, and it is the Cho Gyokko line (Ikai is more associated with Togakure Ryu), and the teachings of that school state that it was originally refered to as Gyokko Ryu Ninjutsu, then Shitojutsu, then Kosshijutsu. Never Koppojutsu.

Of course, the supporting claim has some basis in the fact that Koto Ryu, Gikan Ryu, Izumo Ryu, and Gyokushin Ryu, all of which are classified as Koppojutsu, all trace themselves in major ways to Gyokko Ryu (all within a couple of generations of each other). However, I personally feel that that can be answered simply by recognising that the reason a new art is developed is that it is altered significantly from the parent art, or it is adapting to suit the new environment, and in that regard, Koppojutsu (being more "in vogue" at the time, perhaps, or just being better for the new environment) would naturally be the way the new art would express itself. It does not mean that Gyokko Ryu was ever Koppojutsu, nor that it ever had it. This is not dissimilar to Shinto Muso Ryu Jojutsu coming from Katori Shinto Ryu, despite Katori not having a Jo syllabus, really.

To be frank, my personal feelings on people looking for all these "secret" parts of the Ryu-ha are that they have completely missed the point of these systems. There is no indication, nor is there any need, for there to be anything more than the Kosshijutsu within Gyokko Ryu in it's current form. And that is more than enough for a lifetimes study, really. Constantly looking for the secret parts of the system actually distracts from learning it properly (such as looking for the "Tojutsu", or "Koppojutsu" of Gyokko Ryu).

Oh, and finally, no, the Dakentaijutsu scroll of the Kukishinden Ryu contains Dakentaijutsu only. And the reason I say that is that the Ryu itself categorises the entire section as Dakentaijutsu, so no matter how anyone wants to categorise it themselves, it is Dakentaijutsu. Again, similar to Tenjin Shinyo Ryu containing some methods of weapon use and retention, the entire syllabus is still refered to as Jujutsu, no matter what the make up of the particular kata itself.



skuggvarg said:


> I strongly believe the taijutsu parts of many ryu-ha grew extensively towards the end of the Edo period. Surely many also dropped the classical weapons with the start of the Meiji period and the ban on weapons. The focus in Bujinkan today is taijutsu, no doubt. To anyone who examines the taijutsu however it is more than clear that its foundation is armed combat.
> 
> Regards / Skuggvarg


 
Yeah, the Edo period was a time of major development for many Ryu-ha, particularly Jujutsu (and Jujutsu-like) systems. But if it was really that much development, then I'd expect to see the methods much more like the Takagi Ryu, with many kata, geared around a much larger range of situations, and so on. And I'd say the Bujinkan's Ryu-ha's taijutsu methods are based (primarily) in armoured combat, which does imply the use of small weaponry, but not that it is founded in armed combat. Slight distinction there.



Himura Kenshin said:


> I don't have much experience with Togakure ryu at this point, so it was pretty much a random stab in the dark.
> 
> I have no problems with there being no sword syllabus in these other arts, but like you point out a little later in your post I had a colored and incorrect assumption that older martial arts were all weapon based in some form and used against opposing armies on the battlefield.


 
Well, that's the thing, they were, for the most part. You're just taking it too literally, and thinking of a single aspect of it.... 



Himura Kenshin said:


> I guess my assumption that there _should_ be a sword syllabus came from my thought that if you having training in how to defend against swordsmen, then one should likely study the sword himself. But, I see that fallacy of that now that I think about how many modern arts have knife and gun disarms and those martial artists don'tnecessarily learn marksmanship or how to properly fight with a knife. So I gues it isn't necessary after all.


 
Yes, training to defend against a sword attack should involve training in sword methods, but that doesn't mean that the system in question necessarily, or even ideally taught sword methods itself. That would likely be left to the other training of the individual warrior in question. 



Himura Kenshin said:


> I suppose I had assumed that Koto ryu wasn't always refered to as only koppojutsu and that term would have been applied later after a sword syllabus might have been lost. Perhaps that is not the case after all.


 
It's possible that the Koto Ryu may have always been refered to as Koppojutsu (I haven't come across any other terms, other than Karani when the skills were in India), which may have been an all-inclusive term originally, but later came to represent only the Taijutsu tradition. Alternately, Koppojutsu may have only refered to the Taijutsu portion, with different terms for the other sections (think Kukishinden Ryu having all it's different section with it's different categorisations). 



Himura Kenshin said:


> You have a point here. If it were meant for battlefield it would probably be based more on those other things you listed above. With that in mind, I have two questions.


 
Before we get to the questions, let's take a quick look at this concept of "meant for the battlefield", shall we?

Many old systems frankly teach things that you would not want to rely on in a real pitched battle, in terms of physical skills (unarmed combat being one). However, they are martial arts, and were definately designed with warfare in mind. The aspect of warfare that they were designed for, however, is not combative use per se. They are designed to instill strategies and tactics, and combative methods are used to pass those lessons on. If we look at the first couple of kata in Gyokko Ryu to illustrate this, you may see where I'm coming from with this.

The first is Koku, and this kata teaches you to attack an incoming right punch, then attack an incoming right kick, and finally to apply a strike with your thumb to a hidden target. Tactically, this is teaching you employ your army/soldiers by having them attack to the enemy army from different sides, weakening their position and ability to attack you, then to come in with your own offensive attack at an unguarded and unprotected section of their camp.

Next is Renyo, which teaches methods against a right punch, a right kick, and finally a right grab (this is interesting, as it's teaching you to handle all common methods of attack - striking, kicking, and grappling - but all on the same side [the right], which shows the kata as not being a truly "combatively reflective" method). The responce teaches evasive action, counter-kicking, a controlling hold, and handling a resistant opponent, forcing you to change your grappling hold. Tactically, this builds on the previous kata by teaching you to avoid direct confrontation with the enemy, giving you the options of being purely defensive, or counter-striking, through to a powerful offensive resulting in your forces capturing the enemy. It then teaches that if the enemy attempts to evade capture, to watch them and catch them as they escape.

In short, there's a very good reason most of the old systems refer to their art as "Heiho"....



Himura Kenshin said:


> 1) I am aware that the sword was not necessarily the weapon of choice during war, but are there not sword styles devoted to fighting in armor? Wouldn't that mean they were meant to be used on the battlefield?


 
I'll put it this way. You're going out onto the battlefield. All of your enemy will be using 9 foot long spears. You can either use a similarly ranged weapon, or you can use a two-and-a-half foot sword. Your call.

Realistically, sword is a brilliant teaching tool. It enables teaching tactics and strategies, angling and timing, mindset and purpose, and more in a faster, better, more readily accessible format than pretty much anything else. The next best is an unarmed form of learning, which is safer. Both of these also have the great advantage of not needing a lot of room to develop skill and instill the lessons in, as opposed to spear or naginata.



Himura Kenshin said:


> 2) If koto ryu and gyokko ryu were not meant for ancient battlefields, then what were the primary reasons for studying them originally? Were they for personal protection? Sorry if you answered this already, I guess I'm just not entirely sure what these arts were developed for.


 
The arts were developed to pass on the lessons, strategies, and tactics of the Ryu (meaning those that the founder felt were important and relevant). As for reasons for studying them, that ranged pretty much the gammut, same as today. They could be studied for strategic insight, for an understanding of personal limitations, for social betterment and skills, for methods of testing yourself, both internally and against others, or because that was just what you studied in your personal group (clan, fiefdom, job etc).

Hope this has helped your understanding of these arts (and all old Japanese arts, really).


----------



## Aiki Lee (Apr 2, 2011)

Thanks again for your input!

On an interesting note, if we want to look at koku and renyo, this is what we get out of them for the sake of our practice.

The way tori handles uke's in initial attack with his right punch is interpreted in the Banzenkan as teaching gauging distance with the lead hand and maintaining tactile vision during the fight. What you say about attacking different sides we tend to look at from Kako and Yoku to from koto ryu, though it is clearly evident here as well.

In Renyo, we decide to focus on the unbalancing of the leg as the lesson we choose to internalize from this kata. To us it is about over extending them and taking kuzushi that way. Again the things you mention are present there as well, but I suppose we place special emphasis on the first part.


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 3, 2011)

Yep, those are definately other aspects of Koku (the distancing), after all, it's right there in the name! I wasn't exactly being exhaustive in the lessons inherrant, just giving an idea as to how they are actually designed for the battlefield... in the lessons, not the physical actions themselves.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Apr 3, 2011)

Often times I find myself thinking in too linear a fashion and forget that the lessons are often more than the physical movements themselves.


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 4, 2011)

Something that's all too common, my friend.


----------



## skuggvarg (Apr 4, 2011)

> Many old systems frankly teach things that you would not want to rely on in a real pitched battle, in terms of physical skills (unarmed combat being one). However, they are martial arts, and were definately designed with warfare in mind. The aspect of warfare that they were designed for, however, is not combative use per se. They are designed to instill strategies and tactics, and combative methods are used to pass those lessons on. If we look at the first couple of kata in Gyokko Ryu to illustrate this, you may see where I'm coming from with this.
> 
> The first is Koku, and this kata teaches you to attack an incoming right punch, then attack an incoming right kick, and finally to apply a strike with your thumb to a hidden target. Tactically, this is teaching you employ your army/soldiers by having them attack to the enemy army from different sides, weakening their position and ability to attack you, then to come in with your own offensive attack at an unguarded and unprotected section of their camp.


 
Although I liked the analogy I think this is reading a bit too much into the waza. I could accept that it teaches body mechanics that can be used unarmed or with weapons such as the sword, spear or staff, but I find it a bit far fetched that strategy for a whole army would be built upon a single unarmed waza.


----------



## Muawijhe (Apr 4, 2011)

skuggvarg said:


> Although I liked the analogy I think this is reading a bit too much into the waza. I could accept that it teaches body mechanics that can be used unarmed or with weapons such as the sword, spear or staff, but I find it a bit far fetched that strategy for a whole army would be built upon a single unarmed waza.


 
I don't know that it is that far fetched. I've seen similar strategy passed on in old Japanese arts through physical techniques before. Even things like kamae have deeper meanings than just how to distribute your weight between your legs and so forth.

Then again, maybe my instructors and I were just reading too much into it, too. Hundreds of years down the line I couldn't tell you for sure. =)


----------



## Aiki Lee (Apr 4, 2011)

I can definitely see it applied that way. Strategy that can be used one on one should be applicable to two armies engaging with one another.

Striking both sides of the body could be a pincer movement for example.


----------



## skuggvarg (Apr 5, 2011)

> I can definitely see it applied that way. Strategy that can be used one on one should be applicable to two armies engaging with one another.
> 
> Striking both sides of the body could be a pincer movement for example.


 
Sure, it can be whatever you want it to be. It all depends on what you see in the waza at your current level of understanding. This however may not be what the creator of the waza had in mind. Are you sure the guy who came up with Koku thought about troup engagement on the field or did he just survive an altercation using some similar movement?

Regards / Skuggvarg


----------



## Aiki Lee (Apr 5, 2011)

Couldn't it be both? Perhaps he took what he learned when he defended himself and applied it to military strategy.


----------



## Muawijhe (Apr 5, 2011)

Like the old cliched maxim: "Does art imitate life? Or does life imitate art?"


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 6, 2011)

skuggvarg said:


> Although I liked the analogy I think this is reading a bit too much into the waza. I could accept that it teaches body mechanics that can be used unarmed or with weapons such as the sword, spear or staff, but I find it a bit far fetched that strategy for a whole army would be built upon a single unarmed waza.


 
Now, I'd be less convinced of that, myself. I tend to think that if the aim is to give skills with a sword, or a spear, then the combative waza will use swords and spears. I watched a clip on someone's facebook page earlier today where there were some practicioners of a karate system trying to use a kata as the basis for weapon use... and, uh, no, it just doesn't work that way. Frankly, in order to learn to use a weapon, use the weapon.

[yt]zF2IJiLVglQ[/yt]

What is far more plausible to me (and, for the record, is supported by the structure of traditional ryu-ha) is that the initial years spent learning the system are a basis for the study of military strategy later on (which is the way it is done in classical Ryu-ha). The early years give dedication, understanding, insight, a feeling of the inherrant reality, and so forth, all of which are used as a basis for the deeper study of strategy.



Muawijhe said:


> I don't know that it is that far fetched. I've seen similar strategy passed on in old Japanese arts through physical techniques before. Even things like kamae have deeper meanings than just how to distribute your weight between your legs and so forth.
> 
> Then again, maybe my instructors and I were just reading too much into it, too. Hundreds of years down the line I couldn't tell you for sure. =)


 
Here's a fun quote from Hatsumi Sensei, in his Unarmed Fighting Techniques of the Samurai book, page 80: 



> It is said that Kamae is influenced by the structure of a castle.


 
If we take this to it's natural expression, kamae as a castle represents both the place from where you defend against the attack, as well as where you launch your attacks from (sending out the forces you contain in the castle).



Himura Kenshin said:


> I can definitely see it applied that way. Strategy that can be used one on one should be applicable to two armies engaging with one another.
> 
> Striking both sides of the body could be a pincer movement for example.


 
Hmm, might be taking things a little too far there! Realistically it'd represent a double attack... for a "pincer" action, look at things like Hissaku from Koto Ryu.



skuggvarg said:


> Sure, it can be whatever you want it to be. It all depends on what you see in the waza at your current level of understanding. This however may not be what the creator of the waza had in mind. Are you sure the guy who came up with Koku thought about troup engagement on the field or did he just survive an altercation using some similar movement?
> 
> Regards / Skuggvarg


 
That question is rather important (what the originators had in mind). So let's look at it realistically.

The technical makeup of the classical schools is, to be completely frank here, not designed for actual combative use. They are designed around the strategic and tactical representation of lessons inherrant in their syllabus, and the kata themselves are symbollic expressions of that. Attacks such as Renyo's "Punch, Kick, Grab", all on the right hand side, are not realistic attacks. So why would they be included in the first place? Simply because they are representing a range of different attacks (strategically speaking).

When it comes to "did he just survive an altercation using some similar movement?", I'd say no. Mainly as it just doesn't work that way. In fact, I have only ever come across one system where the techniques are said to be taken straight out of actual use, and even there it only really applies to the first range of lessons (that being the Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu and their Itto Seiho, which are said to be drawn from Musashi's actual duelling experience.. by the time you're looking at the Nito Seiho, they are far more "strategic" representations again).

Thinking that something like Gyokko Ryu is based around actual combative use, when it is primarily unarmed combat (which really has no place on the battlefield in the way that it is being used and trained there) is really just trying desperately to force it to be something it isn't, and is not applying any form of logic to your understanding of such things. The only way it can be considered battlefield-ready is to look at it as a range of battlefield strategies represented by the kata themselves (typically in preparation for the later deeper study of such things).

Think of it this way; if you were going onto an Old Japanese battlefield, would you be relying on unarmed combat?


----------



## skuggvarg (Apr 6, 2011)

> The technical makeup of the classical schools is, to be completely frank here, not designed for actual combative use. They are designed around the strategic and tactical representation of lessons inherrant in their syllabus, and the kata themselves are symbollic expressions of that. Attacks such as Renyo's "Punch, Kick, Grab", all on the right hand side, are not realistic attacks. So why would they be included in the first place? Simply because they are representing a range of different attacks (strategically speaking).


 
Yes, no and maybe both. I tend to believe that schools that have hundreds of waza probably havent had them all tested while schools with fever probably have a higher hit ratio. One thing I have heard several times now is that the first kata (or set of katas) often contain/s the most fundamental teaching of the system and all other kata are just variations to add in the understanding. At least one densho in the Bujinkan states that the waza contained in it is "real fighting waza". As for the attacks in Renyo, they seemed really weird to me in the beginning too. Now I wouldnt dare to say they are not realistic attacks...



> Think of it this way; if you were going onto an Old Japanese battlefield, would you be relying on unarmed combat?


 
No way! And that is my point to be frank. Our unarmed systems are based on armed combat systems. You can very easily see this in the similar movements. The way of moving the body is very similar between kenjutsu, sojutsu, bojutsu and taijutsu.

Best regards / Skuggvarg


----------



## Aiki Lee (Apr 6, 2011)

I'm not familiar with hissaku. What does it look like?

I was talking about striking both sides simultaneously, but i might have used the wrong term when I said "pincer".


----------



## ElfTengu (Apr 8, 2011)

When it is commonly accepted that Sonshi (Sun Tzu's Art of War) and Go Rin no Sho (Musashi's Book of Five Rings) can be applied at an individual, small group, massive army, or even on a modern business strategy level, and will no doubt be applied in the disant future in ways that we couldn't even imagine in 2011, then it isn't such a far fetched idea that kata can also be used in the same myriad ways.

But is the question really whether this was the intention of the creator of the kata, or whether it just happens to work out that way? There are certainly hints in at least one of the two primary examples above that strategy is the same at individual and battlefield troop movement level, even if neither strategist imagined the stock markets of the 20th century.

There are so many parallels in life outside martial arts that it probably doesn't even matter.

If it works, it works.


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 9, 2011)

skuggvarg said:


> Yes, no and maybe both. I tend to believe that schools that have hundreds of waza probably havent had them all tested while schools with fever probably have a higher hit ratio. One thing I have heard several times now is that the first kata (or set of katas) often contain/s the most fundamental teaching of the system and all other kata are just variations to add in the understanding. At least one densho in the Bujinkan states that the waza contained in it is "real fighting waza". As for the attacks in Renyo, they seemed really weird to me in the beginning too. Now I wouldnt dare to say they are not realistic attacks...


 
Personally, I feel that the idea of any of the techniques (formal kata) being "tested", as in used in combative situations, is kind of a misunderstanding really. They really aren't snapshots or video captures from some old battlefield. So I'd take that idea of any of them, those with more or fewer kata being "tested" in that way out of the equation myself, as it doesn't fit with the methodology of the kata themselves.

With regards to the first kata (or set) being the most fundamental teachings, yep, that's the way it works. The rest of them being just variations, on the other hand, is not really accurate. The lessons of the first kata (or the first set) should be the set up for the learning of the rest of the art, and the lessons contained in it, at least for the most part, should help dictate the way the rest of the art feels, but the kata found further down the list really are far more than just rehashes of the lessons in that first one.

With the Densho stating that it contains Jissen Waza (real fighting techniques), that can be taken to mean a range of things. If you talk to a soldier about real fighting, then they will have a very different understanding of it compared to a general, and these arts are not designed for a common foot soldier. Add to that the fact that the methods (physical techniques) may be valid (realistic) combative methods, however that is not the structure of the kata. In the specific case (Shinden Fudo Ryu, if I'm not mistaken, yeah?), there are a range of kata there that really don't suit a modern combative situation, and it is a stretch to say they suit even an older one. So the context, and meaning needs to be looked at as well.

And with Renyo's attack, the attacks themselves can be realistic (I'd say they really should be if anything of value is going to be taken from training the kata!), however the sequence frankly is not. It is a symbolic form of an attacking method, not a realistic sequence itself.



skuggvarg said:


> No way! And that is my point to be frank. Our unarmed systems are based on armed combat systems. You can very easily see this in the similar movements. The way of moving the body is very similar between kenjutsu, sojutsu, bojutsu and taijutsu.
> 
> Best regards / Skuggvarg


 
While I certainly agree there are a lot of similarities (there really should be for the art to work as a total system), again this logic doesn't flow. If they are based on armed combat methods, then they should deal in armed combat methods. There is a reason the systems are unarmed, really, if the aim was to give realistic combative skills (for a situation that the practicioner would be likely to find themselves in), then unarmed would be very low on the list, if it was there at all. In fact, one of my biggest issues that I see with this homogenised version of things is that the tendancy to say things like "just use your taijutsu, and use the sword in there" results in frankly terrible use of the weapon, and such things are rife, I have to say.

The reason the systems focus on unarmed tells me that they have reasons seperate from combative use on a battlefield. After all, it's not as if weapons are not easy to come by to train with, so practicality isn't an issue. In fact, if practicality was an issue, then there would be little to no unarmed methods at all, and it would all be weaponry.

Similarities between unarmed combative methods (the kata from the Ryu-ha) and weapon use are, to be frank, superficial for the most part. You cannot simply add a weapon to the unarmed methods and have weapon use, as I see far too often, primarily with the Bujinkan honestly (not surprising considering the art taught is Budo Taijutsu....), as it just doesn't work. And that gets shown over and over again, sadly.

I will say that weapon use will highlight problems with the Taijutsu side of things, but good (or even average) Taijutsu is no indication of any skill with a weapon at all, which I would expect if the above idea was right.



ElfTengu said:


> When it is commonly accepted that Sonshi (Sun Tzu's Art of War) and Go Rin no Sho (Musashi's Book of Five Rings) can be applied at an individual, small group, massive army, or even on a modern business strategy level, and will no doubt be applied in the disant future in ways that we couldn't even imagine in 2011, then it isn't such a far fetched idea that kata can also be used in the same myriad ways.
> 
> But is the question really whether this was the intention of the creator of the kata, or whether it just happens to work out that way? There are certainly hints in at least one of the two primary examples above that strategy is the same at individual and battlefield troop movement level, even if neither strategist imagined the stock markets of the 20th century.
> 
> ...


 
While I agree that Musashi (for instance) didn't envision his book being used by Wall Street businessmen, the core of these texts is strategy, not martial technique. Musashi constantly refers to learning and studying his Heiho (strategy) throughout the entire book, for example. So, yes, it is the intention of the creator, as stated in the books themselves (same goes for most old arts, as they refer to themselves as Heiho for the most part, and that is not accidental I feel...).

So yes, it was their intention.



Himura Kenshin said:


> I'm not familiar with hissaku. What does it look like?
> 
> I was talking about striking both sides simultaneously, but i might have used the wrong term when I said "pincer".


 
Not the best version (Hatsumi is shown demonstrating a version in Andy Adams' book from the 70's, and it also features on the Bujinkan Koppojutsu - Koto Ryu, Kumogakure Ryu, Gikan Ryu, Gyokushin Ryu DVD), but here you go:

[yt]Ii0jrIAC-CY[/yt]


----------



## Aiki Lee (Apr 9, 2011)

Oh, I have seen that after all. I just didn't the name.
Thanks Chris.


----------

