# Yoshin Ryu and Vital Point Striking



## Makalakumu (Apr 19, 2009)

I am currently checking out a Dan Zan ryu dojo and I discovered that they are descended from this school.

Yoshin Ryu

According to this article, this school is noted for its vital point striking.



> This line of Y&#333;shin-ry&#363; is noted for a curriculum including _kyusho-jitsu atemi_ (vital points striking) and the development of internal energy, teachings most likely influenced by Chinese sources. It is believed that these teachings were eventually absorbed by many other jujutsu traditions.



Is vital point striking common in other jujutsu systems?  Where does it come from?  Is it related to the vital point striking found in Karate, in the Bubishi in particular?


----------



## Aiki Lee (Apr 21, 2009)

I can't speak of the bubishi, cuz I've never read it. As far as I know many martial arts systems have some kyusho skills. The art of gyokko ryu comes to mind specifically. I do believe some naha-te karate systems have kyusho skills.


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 22, 2009)

Hi,

You do seem to like asking the same questions in various threads, don't you? Okay, I'll give a slightly more in-depth answer here...

Japanese martial arts, particularly the older systems, generally tend to have very little focus on striking at all, prefering grappling skills over striking (note: this is not what the modern usage of the term "grappling" implies, which is primarily ground-work, instead, grappling in old Japanese arts tends to refer to stand-up limb controls, chokes, and throws). This is mainly because the origins of many of these arts is as a secondary skill set for use on the battlefield if/when the weapons being used were lost or broken. Being on a battlefield, the opponents would be wearing armour, which has a tendancy to limit the ability to strike effectively (as well as increasing the rick of injuring your striking hand/foot etc), while at the same time providing numerous hand-holds not readily available when unarmoured.

As time went on, the focus on grappling continued, even when armour was no longer worn as battlefield combat was severly reduced during the Tokugawa Shogunate. This has remained the norm for Japanese arts until the Okinawan systems of karate were introduced first by Funakoshi Gichin, giving rise to the first "Japanese" system of karate, Shotokan.

Karate, on the other hand, was developed not from Japanese arts, but have a much greater influence coming from the Chinese combat methods. In China, armour tended to be a great deal lighter, sometimes made from very tough leather which would stop the blunter weapons, rather than the metal plates of Japanese yoroi. As a result, Chinese arts tend to feature striking a great deal more than grappling, and obviously a great deal more than the Japanese systems.

Okay, so that should pretty well cover the development of such aspects, and go some way to explain why a Japanese art may focus on both striking weak points, and the generation of "internal energy" similar to Chinese systems. It really does speak a great deal about the history of the particular system. And why arts such as karate are similar in their approach.

As for it being common, as I pointed out, most Japanese arts would not focus on striking at all, so in that regard, no. But the knowledge of weak points of armour (shoulder joints, under the right arm etc) are common in the older arts, and these points often do correlate to kyusho points. It just may be a limited list compared to something like the list found in the Bubishi.

There have, however, been a few exceptions to this idea. Within the various Ninjutsu organisations, there are samurai jujutsu arts as well as ninjutsu systems, and some of these have quite detailed kyusho lists. The two most notable within these schools are the Koto Ryu Koppojutsu (which is a school that is said to have been originally developed in India, then moved through to China, and Korea before making it's way to Japan, and is rare in that it is primarily a striking art), and Takagi Yoshin Ryu Jutaijutsu (a very Japanese art that focuses on grappling, but developed during the Tokugawa Shogunate, and therefore includes a more complete list of the weaker points on a human body as they are more accessible without armour). As well as these schools, arts such as Takenouchi Ryu include quite good lists as well.

The way the lists are presented changes from school to school, and this should be noted as well. The list may be very detailed, with exact locations and angles given, or could be very vague, just a list of names (usually not the same as other schools use, but may be) with no real detail about where the point is or how to strike or pressure it.

Finally, Himura, the Gyokko Ryu tends to use the Koto Ryu list, rather than have it's own distinct one. The idea of Gyokko being an art of striking nerves, muscle and organ, whereas Koto strikes the bones is kind of wrong, and they both strike both. The difference is in the apporach to the targets. Remember, koppo literally translates as "bone method" (giving the concept of working with your harder portions of your skeleton against the weaker parts of the opponents, but also a way of breaking down someone's balance and structure), and kosshi translates as "bone finger" (which gives a focus on using the tips of the fingers to attack, but also the idea of focusing on the smaller, weaker aspects of a whole in order to bring about victory).

But really, we are all built very much the same, and the list from one art will be as viable as the list from another. The Bubishi is a very good list, as are the ones from Koto Ryu and Takagi Ryu, as are indeed many others you may find out there. If you're interested, though, there is a list left by Seiko Fujita which is purportedly the kyusho list from Wada-ho Koga Ryu Ninjutsu, and is also a very good list (incredibly similar to the Koto Ryu list, for the record).


----------



## seasoned (Apr 22, 2009)

Nice job Chris Parker, we ask for chicken, and you serve up Fillet Mignon. Very informative indeed. Thanks.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Apr 22, 2009)

Chris Parker said:


> Hi,
> 
> Himura, the Gyokko Ryu tends to use the Koto Ryu list, rather than have it's own distinct one. The idea of Gyokko being an art of striking nerves, muscle and organ, whereas Koto strikes the bones is kind of wrong, and they both strike both. The difference is in the apporach to the targets. Remember, koppo literally translates as "bone method" (giving the concept of working with your harder portions of your skeleton against the weaker parts of the opponents, but also a way of breaking down someone's balance and structure), and kosshi translates as "bone finger" (which gives a focus on using the tips of the fingers to attack, but also the idea of focusing on the smaller, weaker aspects of a whole in order to bring about victory).
> 
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 22, 2009)

Chris Parker said:


> Hi,
> 
> You do seem to like asking the same questions in various threads, don't you? Okay, I'll give a slightly more in-depth answer here...



Sometimes certain questions are good enough for threads of their own, so I'll spin them off and start a new conversation.  Thank you for playing in both.  I appreciate your knowledge.

Regarding the Bubishi, Patrick McCarthy translated this book for the first time in the 90s for an English reading audience.  In 2008, he published a new edition that has a whole bunch of information in it beyond what was in the Bubishi.  This is done in order to give the reader some background on the subject.

Anyway, the material he provides about vital point striking is interesting.  He interviews a number of Chinese sources and presents a history of the method.  Then he goes to show that a number of the kata we practice, kata with names like 13, 24, 36, 54, 108, are describing methods of vital point striking.

One of the things claimed in the book is that the same vital point striking method that made its way from China to Okinawan, also made its way to Japan.  The sensei were so impressed by the method that it was included into a number of arts.  I beleive Yoshin Ryu is specifically mentioned.  

So, I am curious if the points are the same, if the methods are the same.  I wonder if the Japanese could have innovated vital point striking on their own?

Again, thanks for the conversation.


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 23, 2009)

Himura Kenshin said:


> The targeting of these two schools are both very precise, but the list used is that of Koto Ryu. It could be argued that Koto focuses just as much on pressure-point striking as Gyokko does, as there are a number of kata which strike to Kimon (not bone), U Sai (not bone), Matsu Kaze (not bone) etc... In fact, when teaching Koto Ryu, I usually make the point that although the kata themselves are (seemingly) a lot simpler than, say, Kukishinden Ryu, the principles of timing, distance, and exact targeting found in the system make it a far more difficult art to truly master.
> 
> The reason the Koto Ryu list is used, by the way, goes back to the origin of Koto Ryu itself. Sakagami Taro Kunishige was the head of Gyokko Ryu at the time, and according to some theories had found that the battlefield had changed so much that Gyokko Ryu was no longer as effective as it had been. He was introduced to the knowledge brought from China via Korea by Chan Busho, and applied his own understandings, developing Koto Ryu. From that point on, Koto Ryu and Gyokko Ryu were taught together, to the degree that the Gyokko Ryu used to train their techniques against the "attack" techniques found in the Chuden and Okuden sections of the Koto Ryu scroll. Gyokko Ryu then adopted the superior knowledge of Kyusho from Koto Ryu, in much the same way that Takagi Ryu took the Kukishin weapon systems (and Kukishin Ryu took the Takagi Ryu jujutsu) after those two arts came into contact.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 23, 2009)

maunakumu said:


> One of the things claimed in the book is that the same vital point striking method that made its way from China to Okinawan, also made its way to Japan. The sensei were so impressed by the method that it was included into a number of arts. I beleive Yoshin Ryu is specifically mentioned.
> 
> So, I am curious if the points are the same, if the methods are the same. I wonder if the Japanese could have innovated vital point striking on their own?
> 
> Again, thanks for the conversation.


 
One of the origin stories I have heard for kyusho involves the origin of Tai Chi. According to this story, there was an Imperial doctor who was very knowledgable in the areas of acupuncture and acupressure, and was a teacher of their methods. In conjunction with being a doctor, he was also a highly skilled martial artist (not uncommon in the higher classes, and certainly not uncommon for a doctor. If you hurt your training partners, it helped to be able to fix them too...), and began to be curious about a more "martial" approach to the points.

He knew that by affecting the points in different ways would stimulate, or stop, the flow of energy. So he arranged to have access to the prisoners in the jails, and began to experiment on them. He experimented with various striking fists, from various angles, with various strengths, and took notice of the results. Some points would do nothing unless the right angle was used, in which case it would make the area go numb. Others were effective with almost any contact (try the groin for validation on this one...). But he also knew that that was only half the equation. He also designed methods of recovering from these strikes, ways to get the energy going again (in Japanese arts, this is known as Kappo, or Katsu, depending on the school), and for the most part, he was successful with this. But there were other points for which there were no recovery. These became known as "Irretrievable Death Points".

This is also the origin of Dim Mak, the Death Touch (dramatic music sting!), which has since been exagerated to the point where if someone brushes past you at 3am in a full moon, and touches your left hip, you will die 4 days later with no trace... Not really the way it works, I feel. Although certain points are said to be more effective if applied at the correct time, they will all work no metter when they are applied (the theory on the timing is said to be about the effect the moon has on our personal body cycles, which certainly has a basis in anatomy. If you don't think we have cycles like that, ask your girlfriends/female friends and see how they react...).

This knowledge became the basis of the martial art of Tai Chi Chuan, eventually proving itself so powerful that it was required to be "disguised" in it's slow form as it was being banned by the ruling classes. If you spped up Tai Chi, then you will see a lot of these points being utilised.

This is a legend. It is probably, at best, based in some historical truths. But it is fun, and shows the possible origins of kyusho, starting in China, and from there spreading out to neighbouring nations. As for them being the same, I would say greatly related, but there will be some variation. As I said in a previous post, the differing clothing of the various cultures influenced which points would take prominence. And, yes, the Japanese could have developed it on their own (and probably did have their versions before the Chinese knowledge arrived in Japan), but as China was looked to as the source of pretty much all knowledge in early Japanese history, I would think that the Japanese would adopt the Chinese out of preference. As for Karate and it's variant, that was primarily Chinese to begin with, so that's an easy one.

Oh, and if it's not already evident, I'm enjoying this conversation as well. Always like good questions.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Apr 23, 2009)

When I said you can use kyusho to take an opponent's kazushi I meant that you can use strikes, not just pushing in with your fingers. I tell you it is really hard to continue attacking when you've been hit with pinpoint accuracy into your weak spots.

I've been doing this long enough to tell when a PP strike is working only because the attacker isn't committed and when it is _really_ working.

In the case of that judoka in the choke hold; only pushing in on kyusho points is likely not effective, they should be combined with other methods to make a technique more effective. 

I've been struck in some kyusho points that have both knocked me out, or at least rendered a part of my body in awful pain and severely weakened.

So yeah, I don't think it is very effective to only press on these targets, they must be struck with powerful blows.


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 24, 2009)

Yeah, Himura, I agree totally that these points need to be hit hard to have any effect. But I still wouldn't rely on them. When you experienced then, I can pretty much guarantee that you weren't adrenalised (or at least not fully), so the effectiveness would be felt to a much greater degree. And, yes, just pressuring in most cases isn't enough. Sometimes it is, but not in the middle of a fight.

The big thing here is the difference between a dojo experience and a fight, as I'm sure you understand. I've been hit, pushed, pulled, torn, scratched and more in ways that cause absolute agony in the dojo, but outside it's a different situation. If these were so powerful against an adrenalised opponent, they would fill a greater part of MMA, RBSD etc. 

So, in the end, I personnally really like kyusho knowledge and training, but it has to be tempered with the reality of when you should, and when you can use it.


----------



## Aiki Lee (Apr 24, 2009)

It is possible to resist the pain in some cases, but in others being struck there results in bodily damage which can not be ignored regardless of whether or not a person is adrenalized. If I strike a person's arm in the gap between their tricep and bicep and rupture tissue then the strike is effective even if they are hopped up on drugs or whatnot. Even if they are so determined that they ignore the pain that's where breaking the bone alignment comes in. I'm not saying they_ will_ go down; I'm say they _could_. Still I would never go into a battle believing that one hit to a pressure point would defeat a person; we gotta stay in the fight till its over and likely they'll keep coming. Which is why I believe striking PP can result in a good set up for throws.

So I think you and I agree that pressure point fighting is not enough by itself to constitute an effective combative system. Where you and I seem to disagree is merely whether or not striking pressure points will be felt by an adrenalized person. I believe they will because I strike through the PP, through the muscle and nerve tissue, into the bone. I think it would be very rare to fight a person who is physically resistant to such pain.

But I agree it is possible. In such a case I agree with you that PP tactics are likely not your best bet, but that's why as competant MAtists we have more than one tool in our tool box, neh?


----------



## Chris Parker (Apr 25, 2009)

Yep. All agreed. I think the difference here is that I define kyusho as more the nerve striking/pressure point stuff, and the more "just damage them" stuff as simple targeting (eg. kicking out the knee... not exactly kyusho, but very damaging and effective no matter what drugs the other guy may be on!).

As for a set-up for a throw, that I believe is one of the best uses for these tactics. It isn't really damaging, the same way a broken collarbone is damaging, but gives you the moment you need to effectively throw. This is actually a major part of what I am presenting in class this week (so any of my students who happen to read this are getting a sneak preview here...).


----------

