# Sparring in Sword Arts



## Charles Mahan (Jul 19, 2006)

*MODERATOR NOTE:

THESE POSTS HAVE BEEN SPLIT OFF FROM ANOTHER THREAD SO THAT THE TOPIC OF SPARRING CAN CONTINUE.  ALL MODERATOR WARNINGS ARE STILL ARE IN EFFECT.

Lisa Deneka
MartialTalk Super Moderator
*

Well... Chanbara doesn't use swords, and never has at a prior point in it's history.  It uses padded weapons which don't perform much like the real thing, and from what little I've seen, doesn't really use them in a realistic way.  To top it off it's named after the Japanese term for "cinematic" sword play.  Not exactly a point in it's favor.

Don't get me wrong.  It looks like a load of fun and fantastic exercise.  But it bears little to no resemblance to the JSA world. 

If you disagree with my assertion, think about it a bit, come back and lay out your case for why I am wrong.  So far your justification of labeling it as a sword art revolves around it using a "representation of a sword" and it's being "combative".  That's not a terribly strong arguement.  The "representation of a sword" is not a terribly good substitute in terms of shape, weight, balance, performance, menace, and other general handling characteristics.  Combative is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.  You do hit people, but not with the intent to cause them harm.  It's a point tagging system.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 19, 2006)

Now how would that make it different from modern Fencing or even Kendo?  Both use non-lethal versions of the weapons to make it safe to spar with.


----------



## Charles Mahan (Jul 19, 2006)

Well.  That's true, and if you surf the forums you'll find a lot of debate on whether or not sport fencing and Kendo qualify as true sword arts as well.  I won't make the case in either way for them, but I will point out one key difference between fencing and kendo.  Both systems have evolved from real sword fighting schools.  There is a historical basis for both.  

What are the historic roots for Chanbara?  What ryu-ha provided the basis for it's techniques?  What experienced swordsman were key to it's formation?    Kendo and Fencing can be tracked back to particular schools of swordsmanship.  Depending on exactly how you define Kendo, it goes back more than 200 years.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Jul 19, 2006)

Charles Mahan said:
			
		

> Well... Chanbara doesn't use swords, and never has at a prior point in it's history.  It uses padded weapons which don't perform much like the real thing, and from what little I've seen, doesn't really use them in a realistic way.  To top it off it's named after the Japanese term for "cinematic" sword play.  Not exactly a point in it's favor.
> 
> Don't get me wrong.  It looks like a load of fun and fantastic exercise.  But it bears little to no resemblance to the JSA world.
> 
> If you disagree with my assertion, think about it a bit, come back and lay out your case for why I am wrong.  So far your justification of labeling it as a sword art revolves around it using a "representation of a sword" and it's being "combative".  That's not a terribly strong argument.  The "representation of a sword" is not a terribly good substitute in terms of shape, weight, balance, performance, menace, and other general handling characteristics.  Combative is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.  You do hit people, but not with the intent to cause them harm.  It's a point tagging system.



Well, let me say first, I wasn't trying to justify it as a sword art.  I was inquiring into the reasoning behind you not including it as a JSA.  Like I said before, I"ve used the equipment, which is well worth the price, but have no exposure to actual Chanbara.

But, it seems to me, many of your arguments against it being a sword art would also apply to Kendo.  Now, I'm not suggesting that Kendo isn't a sword art, however there are many similarities between it and Chanbara.  The shinai isn't a very accurate representation of a real sword, and it is a point tagging system as well.  

It just seems to me that Chanbara could be a good training tool for people who can't or don't want to spend the money on expensive Kendo armour.  And the gentleman who heads it here in the U.S. seems to know his stuff when it comes to Iaido.  But I could be very wrong about that, as I only have a passing knowledge of that art. But he does seem to stress good basic kihon in what I've seen of him.

Please don't take this post in the wrong way, I have nothing but respect for the JSA's and really would like to learn more about them.

JeffJ


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Jul 19, 2006)

Charles Mahan said:
			
		

> Well.  That's true, and if you surf the forums you'll find a lot of debate on whether or not sport fencing and Kendo qualify as true sword arts as well.  I won't make the case in either way for them, but I will point out one key difference between fencing and kendo.  Both systems have evolved from real sword fighting schools.  There is a historical basis for both.
> 
> What are the historic roots for Chanbara?  What ryu-ha provided the basis for it's techniques?  What experienced swordsman were key to it's formation?    Kendo and Fencing can be tracked back to particular schools of swordsmanship.  Depending on exactly how you define Kendo, it goes back more than 200 years.



It comes from Toyama-Iai-Batto-Do.


----------



## Charles Mahan (Jul 19, 2006)

Can I get one of the Toyama Ryu guys to comment on this?

A quick search of E-budo turned up this thread which questions the link between Toyama Ryu and Chanbara.

http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32783&highlight=Chanbara

To quote Dave Drawdy, a prominent figure in the Toyama Ryu/Nakamura Ryu world in the US, from that thread


> "is there some sort of connection between Toyama Ryu Iaido and Chanbara?" short answer - no. Although one figure big in chanbara also claims rank in Toyama.
> "traditional Toyama Ryu Iaido?" - unlikely. I don't know this group, but if their rank is through the Sports Chanbara people, safe to say they are not affiliated with Nakamura Ryu or Toyama Ryu, which are both still around, active and headquartered in Japan. And which, BTW, are very generous in allowing groups to train and be affiliated, so that is no excuse. There are currently only four dojo groups in the US that are actively affiliated with the Nakamura home dojo, as far as I know. Several more under a Toyama line. A bunch of those guys will be in California next week for the West Coast tai kai. Lots of people have 'spun off' of the Toyama and Nakamura styles and developed their own variations or systems (and books, and videos, etc., etc.), for a variety of reasons. With very few exceptions, none of those guys made it to the level of a teaching license before breaking off and making up, um I mean forming their own style. Logic would seem to indicate that if they didn't have a teaching license, they didn't know the system.
> But, hey, I could be wrong.


----------



## pgsmith (Jul 19, 2006)

> It comes from Toyama-Iai-Batto-Do.


  No, it doesn't. It has absolutely nothing to do with Toyama ryu. It was invented in the early 70's by Tetsundo Tanabe to specifically be a sport allowing children to play at swords without getting hurt ... http://www.internationalsportschanbara.net/founder.html

  The only person that has ever tried to associate it with Toyama ryu is _Master_ Dana Abbot, and I won't go into him on here. I have played Sports Chanbara, and it's a lot of fun. It bears no resemblance to actual swordwork as far as technique goes, but it's a lot of fun.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Jul 19, 2006)

pgsmith said:
			
		

> No, it doesn't. It has absolutely nothing to do with Toyama ryu. It was invented in the early 70's by Tetsundo Tanabe to specifically be a sport allowing children to play at swords without getting hurt ... http://www.internationalsportschanbara.net/founder.html
> 
> The only person that has ever tried to associate it with Toyama ryu is _Master_ Dana Abbot, and I won't go into him on here. I have played Sports Chanbara, and it's a lot of fun. It bears no resemblance to actual swordwork as far as technique goes, but it's a lot of fun.



Could you possible PM me with info about Abbot?  And maybe some links to and/or about Toyama-Ryu?

Thanks,

JeffJ


----------



## Charles Mahan (Jul 19, 2006)

Here's another thread which contains a lot of discussion of the nature of Chanbara.  It leans pretty heavily in the direction of sport not budo, although there are some VERY vocal defenders.  Still a thorough open minded read of the thread makes it pretty clear which side of the debate came out on top.


----------



## Cruentus (Jul 20, 2006)

I might have a slightly different take then most people here because I am not a traditionalist and to me it is a waste of time trying to define what a "sword art" is and what would fit the bill.

I will say that I did Chanbara while I was doing Iado (many moons ago) at a traditional Japanese school where many of the Chanbara players there had won competition in Japan.

I found that it was a great complement to learning the sword. It teaches you valuable distance and timing skills that carry over to other aspects of your training. The key is to use it as a training tool and try to keep your movements as close to realistic as you can (as if you had a real blade) and don't get into quirky speculative techniques that only allow you to get "point." Unless your actually going to compete in tournaments, there is no need for that stuff.

I would say Chanbara is to sword fighting as point fighting is to real fighting. There are many dynamics that are going to be different, but that doesn't mean that valuable skills can't be learned from it.

The problem that we run into with our sword training is that we aren't truely able to spar live with live blades. So, we have to fill in the blanks somewhere. Chanbara and Kendo (and fencing too, but that is more western style swords) are good compliments. But there is always a trade off of one reality to another. You do your traditional sword exercises with a real sword, and you get the balance and feel of a real blade but you don't get the feel of a live opponent. You do Chanbara, you lose the feel of the real sword but gain the interaction with the live opponent. You do Kendo, and you have a sword with a little bit more of a realistic feel (but still not the same), but you have to deal with armor that might be limiting. 

This is all relative, however, as most of us won't be carrying a sword in the streets looking for a duel.

But I think that you can build good attributive skills while having a lot of fun with sword training. So, I say play Chanbara as well; it'll help you build some attributes and its a good darned time. 

Paul


----------



## Chris deMonch (Jul 20, 2006)

From what I've seen of chambara it looks like a fun thing to do every now and again, but I don't really see how it's necessary at all in actual sword training.  But then, I also do not believe that sparring in a weapons format is necessary either.  In the koryu, timing, distancing, and all that good stuff are built up through use of partnered drills (kenjutsu/kumitachi/kumi-iai/whatever).  Such things when done properly are done at full speed with full intensity, and in a given set techniques can be switched up to keep people on their toes.
While I think sparring is fun to do every now and again, all too often I see it go on way too long after one or the other would be dead or boil down to slap fights with bokuto.  Kenjutsu drills are the way the samurai trained their techniques back then and kenjutsu drills are the way the koryu schools pass this stuff on now.  Within that context I don't really see boffers as necessary.


----------



## Swordlady (Jul 20, 2006)

Weren't most all *real life* duels between rival samurai VERY short?  As in someone was dead within a couple moves.

Chanbara looks like a lot of fun, but it is nowhere near fighting with *real* katana.  Nor does it properly simulate how samurai used to duel.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 20, 2006)

I'm certainely not a samurai expert, but where they not battlefield soldiers for the most part, usually fighting off horseback?  Not folks that went around dueling one on one?

No matter.

Sparring in weapons is IMO, absolutely neccessary to get effective.  Same as in empty hand fighting.  Every Boxer, Wrestler, Submission grappler, kickboxer, No rules fighter, etc.  Everyone of them that is any good spars, it is definately neccessary.

Is sparring "real"?  No, of course not, but neither is anything else done in training, can't toss it all out.  There are things that can only be learnt by having someone try and hit you while you try and hit them, and for those things you need to spar.

Can it get silly and counterproductive?  Yes, see point fighting in open tournaments for a common example.  But it doesn't have to just because some folks want a safe, easy, no one can possibly get hurt version.

Will it continue long after both should be dead?  Yes, of course.  Wouldn't do much good to show up, spar for 30 secs then go home cause you are "dead" would it?


----------



## Charles Mahan (Jul 20, 2006)

Andrew what's your background in the sword arts?   It's relevant to the discussion since you are using that background to contradict another poster who has stated that free sparring is absolutely not part of the traditional transmission of koryu sword arts.

For the most part swords were not battlefield weapons at all.  Taking a katana onto a Japanese battlefield is a lot like taking a 9mm pistol onto a modern battlefield.  If you're down to your pistol, something's gone horribly wrong with the battle.  It's a sidearm not a primary weapon.

BTW, for those participating who are not JSA sword form regulars, the falacy of the necessity of free sparring has been discussed over and over and over again.  Threads can be easily found on most of the big forums by searching for the term "sparring" or perhaps "free sparring".  I would suggest http://www.e-budo.com and http://www.swordforum.com as good places to do a search.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 20, 2006)

More other weapons then swords.  But I do have limited experience in Kendo and Western Fencing.


----------



## Swordlady (Jul 20, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> More other weapons then swords. But I do have limited experience in Kendo and Western Fencing.


 
You do know that Kendo is considered to be more of a _sport_ than a sword art, right?


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 20, 2006)

Yup, and a far to restrictive one for my tastes, I kept wanting to take a swing at peoples legs...

You also say that like "sport" is a derrogatory term.  I would say it is not, in fact without training that has a competitive element it's less of a functional art.


----------



## Charles Mahan (Jul 20, 2006)

No offense Andrew, but I am tempted to dismiss your assertions out of hand because you seem to have no real experience in the sword arts to speak of, yet you are speaking very authoritatively on the topic.

I strongly recommend you go looking for those sparring threads I mentioned.  There are an awful lot of arguements laid out on both sides already in endless detail.

BTW, here's another thread on chanbara 
http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26181&highlight=sparring


----------



## Swordlady (Jul 20, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Yup, and a far to restrictive one for my tastes, I kept wanting to take a swing at peoples legs...
> 
> You also say that like "sport" is a derrogatory term. I would say it is not, in fact without training that has a competitive element it's less of a functional art.


 
Didn't mean to use "sport" as a derogatory term; just to show the difference between Kendo and an actual JSA.  Same difference between fencing and rapier fighting in a Western martial art.

Kendo and fencing are great for building reflexes and improving reaction time to attacks.  But the movements in Kendo are very different from kenjutsu in a koryu.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 20, 2006)

Charles Mahan said:
			
		

> No offense Andrew, but I am tempted to dismiss your assertions out of hand because you seem to have no real experience in the sword arts to speak of, yet you are speaking very authoritatively on the topic.



Fair enough, but mind if I ask you what experience you have just grabbing some sticks / fake swords and banging on each other?  aka: sparring

You are speaking from your perspective, which is fine.  What I disagree with is writting something off because it does not fit with your own definition of what "good training" is.  In my mind effectiveness requires sparring.  Whether it is no weapons, sticks, knives, swords or any other weapon you can come up with.

So, what experience do you have in "my ways" that allow you to dismiss them so easily?


----------



## Charles Mahan (Jul 20, 2006)

Hmm... Did Amtgard actively for about a year.  It pretty much amounts to boffers.  Did that before finding Iai.  Good fun. Outrageously intense cardio.  Utterly useless for real training.  

Besides, I'm not drawing on my own experience alone.  It's very rare to find the kind of "free sparring" your seem to find so necessary within the koryu sword world.  Keep in mind that these are traditional schools of swordsmanship which have been passed down instructor to student for generations.  Since the time when the arts were used to actually kill people.  Since the time when people put their faith in their training to see them through a conflict.  Since lives were riding on the line.

Sparring sounds like a great idea, but the stakes are too high to do it with the weapons you would actually be using.  The safer you make the training tool the less like real swordsmanship your sparring becomes.  The more risks you are willing to take and the harder it becomes to pull off the same techniques that you can use with a real sword.  All this stuff is in the other threads on sparring.

Within my art the folks at the top do two man waza with live steel, because shinken are the only things which convey the sense of danger of live steel, and because they are the only training tools that have the same performance characteristics as live steel.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 20, 2006)

So basically begins sounding like a empty handed argument which is very common on these boards.  Those that spar, vs those that feel it is too dangerous to do without "softening" their art.

I stand on the same side for both. 

I have a lot of respect for the Koryo arts, anyone trying to actively preserve a piece of the past is doing something worth while.  But to dismiss other training methods because they do not conform to Koryo traditions is silly, and if you want to go to logic it is a logical fallacy.

Sword work has many forms, sparring is one, Koryo styles are another, flashy acrobatic routines are yet another.  All are good, just serve different purposes.


----------



## Swordlady (Jul 20, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> So basically begins sounding like a empty handed argument which is very common on these boards.  Those that spar, vs those that feel it is too dangerous to do without "softening" their art.


I don't think you're completely understanding why there really isn't any sparring in the koryu.  The sparring you're talking about is essentially banging sticks together.  It simply doesn't make much sense to "bang sticks" in a JSA, when the basic intent in most all of the solo kata and kenjutsu was to _kill_ one's opponent quickly.




			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> I stand on the same side for both.
> 
> I have a lot of respect for the Koryo arts, anyone trying to actively preserve a piece of the past is doing something worth while.  But to dismiss other training methods because they do not conform to Koryo traditions is silly, and if you want to go to logic it is a logical fallacy.


Just as long as you see the apples and oranges for what they are, there isn't a problem.  But the problem exists when you try to fit in a square peg into a round hole, and then turn around and call the round hole "silly" because the square peg doesn't fit.

Those of us who train in a koryu take our art _very_ seriously.  And yes, some of us do get offended when an outsider tries to insist that *their* way is "better", even though they don't fully understand the koryu itself.  I would also be very careful to pass judgment on something you have little to no knowledge about.



			
				Andrew Green said:
			
		

> Sword work has many forms, sparring is one, Koryo styles are another, flashy acrobatic routines are yet another.  All are good, just serve different purposes.


However...you also have to understand that most serious sword art practioners aren't impressed by a whole lot of flashiness.  Personally, my hackles get raised when those "flashy" XMA acrobatics gets lumped together with _genuine_ JSA.  Especially because the XMA stuff is often misrepresented as the "real deal".


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 20, 2006)

Swordlady said:
			
		

> I don't think you're completely understanding why there really isn't any sparring in the koryu.  The sparring you're talking about is essentially banging sticks together.  It simply doesn't make much sense to "bang sticks" in a JSA, when the basic intent in most all of the solo kata and kenjutsu was to _kill_ one's opponent quickly.


nope, that doesn't fly for me.  Doesn't matter what weapon, or lack of weapon I have, my intent is to hit the other person harder and faster.



> Those of us who train in a koryu take our art _very_ seriously.



Yes, and the same could be said about practitioners of performance based or sparring based systems.



> And yes, some of us do get offended when an outsider tries to insist that *their* way is "better", even though they don't fully understand the koryu itself.



Now, given what I have seen on most sword forums this seems very often to be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  I don't think any of those other methods would say "Koryo styles are not 'real' swordsmanship", but that does go the other way.



> I would also be very careful to pass judgment on something you have little to no knowledge about.



Again, that goes both ways.



> However...you also have to understand that most serious sword art practioners aren't impressed by a whole lot of flashiness.



And you should realise that there are many very serious practitioners who train in other methods then the Koryo style training.  Just because it is different doesn't mean people are not serious about it.



> Personally, my hackles get raised when those "flashy" XMA acrobatics gets lumped together with _genuine_ JSA.  Especially because the XMA stuff is often misrepresented as the "real deal".



Don't worry, they probably get offended when they get lumped in with classical styles some times too


----------



## Chris deMonch (Jul 20, 2006)

Being a koryu kenshi, I can only speak as to the JSA aspect.  I heartell that WMA guys spar every now and again, and if that works for them, that's great.  Chinese, Filipino, and Korean sword arts I'm also largely ignorant of, and don't intend to speak for them.  As to the rest, I don't know what the theatrical martial arts feel about themselves and admittedly I don't stay awake at night worrying about it.  As I mentioned earlier, they're acrobatics, not swordsmanship.
Within the context of JSA however, it seems to come down to people having their view of what swordsmanship is and how it should be trained clashing against what it actually is and how it's trained.  Folks can go off till their blue in the face about how sparring is necessary and anything that doesn't do it is falling short, but the koryu bugei styles don't do it and haven't for 4-500 years.  It wasn't seen as necessary then, and to date I have yet to encounter some aspect sparring supposedly has that falls short in properly trained kenjutsu kata.
To clarify for myself, I have sparred with bokuto and fukuro shinai, quite a bit for ***** and giggles.  However, in my experience you always have to sacrifice too much accuracy for safety.  Whether it's using bokuto but engaging in the practice of tsumeru (stopping just short), using fukuro shinai but losing the dimensions of a sword, etc, everything comes up short.  
For proper training of timing, distancing, intensity, unpredictability, etc, there's kenjutsu waza.  That's how it's been done for 400 years back to the days when guys were using these techniques to kill eachother, and it's how it'll be done after I'm gone.  As someone who comes from a background of a few other arts and has done his share of sparring in the past, that sits fine with me and I've never found it to be a poorer art for not finding it to be important.
Chambara on the other hand, is a sword based activity, but I'd say calling it any kind of swordsmanship is a stretch.


----------



## Charles Mahan (Jul 20, 2006)

We are hopelessly off topic.  The topic is about chanbara.  I would encourage a moderator to spin all this sparring stuff off into a new thread.

That said.  I can't resist a parting shot.  Andrew there is a very big distinction between sparring unarmed and sparring armed.  We don't bang sticks together.  Ideally I cut you before you can get your sword out.  Barring that I cut you before you can do anything to stop me.  Barring that I cut you while you're trying to cut me.  Barring that I evade your attack altogether and cut you.  A swordfight works on very different principles from unarmed work.  Unarmed fights do not necessarily have as their core operating principle the goal of killing one's opponent.  In JSA, anything that does not lead quickly to the death of your opponent is a waste.  Anything you do to move away from the death of your opponent takes you away from the real style.  Anything you do to make sparring safe enough to not kill or maim students is corruptive in nature.  In unarmed combat you can take it pretty darn close to the limit without worrying about killing your opponent.  The same cannot be said for sword arts.  

Ok sparring genius.  I would like to know what sparring rules would you propose for me to use in sparring with a sword?  Keep in mind that many of the techniques I am trained to use cannot be accomplished without a sword and a saya.  And a bokuto and saya just don't really cut it.  Do you propose we spar with iaito?  Or do we do away with a fair number of the key principles of my style so I can train with a bokuto?  Of course a bokuto is too light and will have the negative affect of having less force during impact making cuts easier to block and leading to a corruption of technique.  Also many of the cuts I might try would prove fatal if they landed even with a bokuto.  A strong cut to the temple can kill.  So can a good tsuki to the throat.  A kirioroshi to the shoulder can break your collar bone.  A kesagiri to the ribs will almost certainly break one.  Even with a bokuto.  For that matter they could be extremely dangerous even with a shinai or fukuo shinai and tsuki's to the throat can still be deadly.  

So what we're down to, assuming we wish to go full force, intent and proper maai is boffers.  Unfortunately being as big, light and floppy as they are they are useless for most techniques as well.  Plus there is a big loss in the sense of danger that is projected by boffers leading to sloppy and risky behavior.  Not exactly things you want to reenforce in students.  

There are other potential paths you can take to make things a little safer and yet stay away from boffers.  You could practice with bokuto and pull your cuts up short.  This would tend to reenforce bad habbits.  You will fight as you train.  If you become used to stopping short, you might stop short at exactly the wrong moment when the adrenaline is pumping.  

Another way is to adjust the distance so that cuts don't quite reach the target.  This would allow full force in the swing without actually making contact, but again it reenforces a bad habbit of keeping your distance too great.  

Or you could elect to work on all the things which you say sparring should give you, but do so in the more or less controlled enviornment of kumitachi, which is the way most ryu-ha choose to handle the problem.  It is a comprimise true.  Even when doing kumitachi with shinken there are still inherent flaws, but it is the method that has been passed down.  And it has been passed down that way for a reason.  It is the lesser of all evils.  The JSA's evolved in a very Darwinian enviornment during a time when swordsmen with kooky training ideas were struck down by swordsmen who knew their stuff.  Those swordsmen survived to teach what they knew to others who were tested by Darwin and so on.  What we have now are the results of several centuries of evolution.  

I know you think your way is the best way, but you have to understand, you are asking us to put your very limited experience up against not our experience, but the experience of generations of JSA folks.  You're gonna need to make a stronger arguement than "because it's intuitively obvious!"

BTW, has it occurred to you to wonder why you aren't getting a lot of support from people who train in sword arts?  Might just be that there aren't many sword people here.  I encourage you to take this arguement of yours over to http://www.e-budo.com or http://www.swordforum.com and try your luck in the JSA forums there.  Perhaps you'll find some support.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 20, 2006)

Charles Mahan said:
			
		

> BTW, has it occurred to you to wonder why you aren't getting a lot of support from people who train in sword arts?  Might just be that there aren't many sword people here.



Japanese Koryo styles are not the only methods of using a sword, nor are they the only "good" ones.

Try suggesting that sparring isn't neccessary on a fencing forum, or a kendo forum, bet you don't get much support there.  So what benefit is there in pointing me to forums heavy on koryo stylists?

Where this a Koryo Kenjutsu forum you might have a point, but it is not.  It is a general sword arts forum, and a thread on Chinbara, which btw, involves a good deal of sparring from what I can tell.


----------



## Charles Mahan (Jul 20, 2006)

That's very true.  But your comments were not limited to other styles.  You asserted that sparring was required in all styles.  So are you now changing that to be all styles outside of Japanese styles?

And E-budo and Swordforum both have a fair number of kendo practitioners as well.  The kendo folks are definitely big on sparring.  All of the same complaints I made against sparring apply to kendo shiai as well.


----------



## shesulsa (Jul 20, 2006)

_*Moderator Note:

Please keep the discussion polite and respectful, and return to the original topic of discussion.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Super Moderator*_


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 20, 2006)

actually I stated: 


> Sparring in weapons is IMO, absolutely neccessary to get effective. Same as in empty hand fighting. Every Boxer, Wrestler, Submission grappler, kickboxer, No rules fighter, etc. Everyone of them that is any good spars, it is definately neccessary.



That is my opinion, and I stand by it.  You are free to disagree,  but if I ever take up a Koryo style it will not be for it's effectiveness.


----------



## Don Roley (Jul 20, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> actually I stated:
> 
> Sparring in weapons is IMO, absolutely neccessary to get effective. Same as in empty hand fighting. Every Boxer, Wrestler, Submission grappler, kickboxer, No rules fighter, etc. Everyone of them that is any good spars, it is definately neccessary.
> 
> That is my opinion, and I stand by it.  You are free to disagree,  but if I ever take up a Koryo style it will not be for it's effectiveness.



The thing with your opinion is that it fails to acknowledge that there is any other way of being effective. But we know that the samurai who did not spar were indeed effective. The natural conclusion would be that there is more than one way to train and do martial arts that still reach the goal of being an effective way of fighting.

You may have found that sparring is a good way to be effective. But please keep an open mind and not fall into the trap that there are no other ways. If you knew more about Japanese training, you might find that the skills you get from your way of sparring are indeed learned through a variety of other drills and training methods.

You freely admit that you do not have any real knowledge of JSA. So your insistance that JSA must have sparring to be effective is kind of like those guys that say you must do their form of martial art or you suck. The fact remains that samurai who never sparred still did very well- they must have been doing something right.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jul 20, 2006)

Don Roley said:
			
		

> The thing with your opinion is that it fails to acknowledge that there is any other way of being effective. But we know that the samurai who did not spar were indeed effective. The natural conclusion would be that there is more than one way to train and do martial arts that still reach the goal of being an effective way of fighting.



More then one way?  Imagine that...

Anyways, apart from some serious doubts about the Samurai never sparring bit, I need it.  No sparring doesn't do it for me, to become effective I need to spar.

Which, BTW is what I stated.  If others can become effective without it then good for them, unfortunately since no one actually goes into battle with a sword anymore we will never know.  But to write off Chinbara because it is sparring based and only JSA do it proper is silly.


----------



## arnisador (Jul 20, 2006)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> nope, that doesn't fly for me.  Doesn't matter what weapon, or lack of weapon I have, my intent is to hit the other person harder and faster.


Harder? With a sword? But, a sword _cuts_....and edged weapons cut when they're _drawn _across something. Yes, you can hack, and some swords are intended for that type of technique (think medieval knights; see discussion here), but principally a sword is a cutting and/or stabbing weapon. For cuts, harder is not usually the right idea, at least for the first cut when both people have swords drawn (as in the chanbara situation). Often one wants the finesse to stay at the furthest possible distance and just barely catch the opponent's hand with the tip of one's blade--not harder, but _more precise_.

Sparring is great. But I think what people are suggesting is that when you box, for example, you learn what works and what doesn't. A jab only does so much damage, and trading a jab for a hook is a bad deal because the hook will knock you out. But when you spar with fake swords, what happens? In a similarl way, touch-for-point sparring with the dulled sword, or chanbara sparring--like the stick in place of sword training so common in the FMA--let's you know who gets a touch in first, _but not who gets an effective cut in first_. I saw this again this morning at JKD, where we were knife sparring with plastic knives. Someone would trade a weak cut to the arm for a stab to the stomach. *Those aren't equal!* _That's_ what you lose by sparring, and what is preserved in arts that have battlefield knowledge amounting to "Joe did this and lost his right hand, but the other guy lost his head." You can't learn that by hitting one another with Nerf baseball bats.

Chanbara is its own thing. It may have some value for swordfighters, but it must be viewed very carefully. I'd be wary of anyone afraid to try it, and of anyone who confused it with effective swordwork.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 20, 2006)

Sounds to me (once I get past dug in feet, and seemingly out of joint, whatevers) that the real argument is about the differences between real combat arts, self-defense arts, and sport arts.  All are what they are, and the training is sometimes similar, but the 'end' is different.  
* In a combat art, you train to take out your enemy. Period. Dead means, they can't counter attack, and you train to do that in as fast, accurate and efficient way possible. Training to kill is a part of it.
* In a self defense art, you are aiming to disable, evade, avoid, and have to worry about the law. You do not train to kill, in most cases. 
* In a sport art, you do not train to kill. You train to win, in 1 on 1 situations. You rarely need to train for weapon awareness.

My biggest complaint for example, while doing FMA stick sparing is that when you put on all the safety gear, it turns into who can land the most shots, and often sounds like a hailstorm on a tin roof.  Or, using padded sticks, that you accept shots that would have done damage in reality to land sloppy strikes that look cool. Having looked at the JSA, I've had a similar complaint. The alternate however, risks disability, and death. And a webgeek with a missing mouse hand is not a good thing.

I think you've all made some good points (and the split of the sparring stuff's being discussed), but some of the tempers seem to be rising. Take a few minutes to relax, k?

Please, discuss or debate your points, but leave the shots and digs out of it.  Also, a request.  When pointing folks towards other sites, please point at something specific. Just saying "go here" tends to run up against our forum promotion policies, and we and I prefer not to have to use them, especially when it's good people and good sites in the crosshairs. K?  Much appreciated folks.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 20, 2006)

Jeff,
  What was it Remy used to say?  "You are already cut" right?  Why did he say that?


----------



## arnisador (Jul 20, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> What was it Remy used to say?  "You are already cut" right?  Why did he say that?



Great point. I think my answer would be similar to what Charles Mahan has already said in post #33:



> Ideally I cut you before you can get your sword out. Barring that I cut you before you can do anything to stop me. Barring that I cut you while you're trying to cut me. Barring that I evade your attack altogether and cut you. A swordfight works on very different principles from unarmed work. Unarmed fights do not necessarily have as their core operating principle the goal of killing one's opponent. In JSA, anything that does not lead quickly to the death of your opponent is a waste.



Often we see a 'trade' along the lines of this: Person A gets in, stabs person B in the heart while controlling his knife arm, then shoves person B away while jumping back. As person A does so, person B swings and cuts him on the bicep. But he was 'already cut' and would have been unlikely to be able to do this. If I train as though this is a trade, I'm training bad habits, or failing to train good ones! Prof. Presas would cut the person quickly and show that he could quickly and efficiently get in a cut before the other person realized he was in danger, and that this meant the other person was disabled (though he might still be a danger, of course).

The question is absolutely on-point. In sparring, there are often 'trades' that in practice would be 'kills'. Chanbara-style sparring is great fun. Mr. Hubbard and I did it last month (was it only last month?), and he did the same with my son. They had great fun sparring sword-and-shield. But as he suggests, that's sport-style. Like Olympic fencing--so different from Renaissance dueling--it's great, but one must know the difference.


----------



## Blindside (Jul 21, 2006)

Charles Mahan said:
			
		

> Ok sparring genius. I would like to know what sparring rules would you propose for me to use in sparring with a sword? Keep in mind that many of the techniques I am trained to use cannot be accomplished without a sword and a saya. And a bokuto and saya just don't really cut it. Do you propose we spar with iaito? Or do we do away with a fair number of the key principles of my style so I can train with a bokuto? Of course a bokuto is too light and will have the negative affect of having less force during impact making cuts easier to block and leading to a corruption of technique. Also many of the cuts I might try would prove fatal if they landed even with a bokuto. A strong cut to the temple can kill. So can a good tsuki to the throat. A kirioroshi to the shoulder can break your collar bone. A kesagiri to the ribs will almost certainly break one. Even with a bokuto. For that matter they could be extremely dangerous even with a shinai or fukuo shinai and tsuki's to the throat can still be deadly.


 
Do you ever practice in armor, as in armor appropriate to the period of your art?  If you do not, then do you feel you are missing a huge chunk of the experience that the samurai would have had that you do not?  If you do, then the answer seems easy enough, slap on an additonal grill for the eyes, add additional lightweight modern armors to potential target locations, get an aluminum iaito  (with the tip rounded down and a wider edge) and have at it.  The worst you are going to get is a bruises that get past the armor as it is supposed to, at the very worst you will get something broken, but you are studying a martial art after all.  In your sparring use the honor system for what you think is a valid shot.  

You'll have saya, you don't have to pull blows (much), you'd have to be pickier about your targets since many of them would be covered in armor.  Besides it sounds like a heck of alot of fun to get decked out in kikou (sp?) and have at it.  

What do you think?

Lamont


----------



## Ninjamom (Jul 21, 2006)

There is a Hong Kong-based company called 'Realistic Sparring Weapons' that manufactures period weapons for all forms of sword and pole arm sparring situations.  The 'swords' they produce represent everything from Japanese katanas to Chinese daos to Scottish Claymores and European hand-and-a-halfs.  The weapons have sufficent padding in the design to allow full-contact sparring with head gear (and I recommend hand/lower arm protection), but they are correctly weighted to represent the balance and 'feel' of the period swords.  The finish on them is also designed to bind in a parry, and they are stiff enough to allow real blocks (or to show where real blocks would have missed).

We have been using these as a secondary training method in our school.  I know several experienced swordsmen in the Korean arts who are now using them.  The founder of the company that makes them offers lessons and invites representatives from other sword arts to spar and exchange ideas and techniques.  Many of these sparring sessions have resulted in video clips that are available on the company's website at www.rsw.com.hk .

I wrote a review of sparring methods for weapons arts (and especially for swordwork, but it aplies to other weapons as well) a while ago.  It has been posted on another MA forum (that shall remain anonymous out of respect to the ever-watching administrators  ), but if there's interest, I can probably dust off a copy and post it here.  When we first looked into adding sparring to our curriculum, we looked at inexpensive methods to pad shinais, options for armor/protection on the students, and different forms of training weapons (including the 'Action Bat' and Chanbara, among others).  We ended up adopting two complementary sparring styles - one a 'free-style' sparring with the RSW (with rules to assess first lethal contact), and the other a strict kendo-rules sparring, with some equipment less expensive than the usual bogu.  This combination allowed us to train students in a). a sport style that would allow them to compete and interact with other sword students, even if they moved to a new location, and b). a more 'reality-based' sparring method where the actual weight and heft of the weapon affects the timing, accuracy, and effectiveness of techniques greatly.

Lance Chan (the owner/instructor at RSW) has posted some recommended 'rules' for assessing sparring situations on his site.  He also has a few video clips of 'pitched battles', with two opposing teams (requires a lot more awareness of what's happening around you, and allows the exploration of more tactics, as opposed to only one-on-one sword sparring).

Anyway, this combination has worked very well for us.  We have been able to incorporate the techniques and strikes that we train in kata/poomse into the sparring, rather than have the sparring force people to abandon proper control and technique in order to score a 'point' or a 'win'.


----------



## Chris deMonch (Jul 21, 2006)

Blindside said:
			
		

> Do you ever practice in armor, as in armor appropriate to the period of your art? If you do not, then do you feel you are missing a huge chunk of the experience that the samurai would have had that you do not? If you do, then the answer seems easy enough, slap on an additonal grill for the eyes, add additional lightweight modern armors to potential target locations, get an aluminum iaito (with the tip rounded down and a wider edge) and have at it. The worst you are going to get is a bruises that get past the armor as it is supposed to, at the very worst you will get something broken, but you are studying a martial art after all. In your sparring use the honor system for what you think is a valid shot.
> 
> You'll have saya, you don't have to pull blows (much), you'd have to be pickier about your targets since many of them would be covered in armor. Besides it sounds like a heck of alot of fun to get decked out in kikou (sp?) and have at it.
> 
> ...


 
Some styles do still practice in armor.  Yagyu Shingan Ryu I know still does, and I think Katori Shinto Ryu still may.  However, other styles which matured during the Edo Jidai when large scale warfare basically didn't happen anymore are more geared towards a duelling atmosphere, and train under the understanding of an unarmored or at most lightly armored opponent. 
Even for those styles that train in armor, putting it on and going at eachother with habiki wouldn't do too much to save you, as pretty much every style aims to cut for unarmored areas.  Doh Armor and Kote gloves aren't going to do me much good if my opponent's target is my latissimus dorsi.
As to the RSW, I came across those guys on another forum a while back.  What they're trying to do may be admirable, but I'm inclined to stick with bokuto.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jul 21, 2006)

I'm certainly not a JSA practitioner, my experience is limited to the swordwork in BBT... but from my perspective and limited training, I cannot understand what the Value in sparring in this environment would be.

When we pick up a sword in our art (or steal our opponents) the object is not to (as swordlady already pointed out) "bang stick stogether..." It is to cut the opponent down with quick ruthless technique.  *If* our blades ever touch, its almost always quick, short and just a "smack" with the blade to move the opponents if he is also armed with a sword.  Partner drills work best for thatin my experience... Most of the sword "Sparring" that I have seen tends to lead to a game of grabass  like  Bob  mentioned with sticks... with people overreaching, looking for openings lightly tapping with the tip of their sword or making what would amount to an ineffectual cut with the end of their sword and then crying out in the fashion of a child "I got you, your dead!"

Ya wanna spar with swords, go join the SCA... It's certainly fun.  Just be prepared to have them cry when you break the rules of their sport by using real technique... I know that from experience.​


----------



## Charles Mahan (Jul 21, 2006)

A quick note to the moderators.  An awful lot of the posts on page one pertain to chanbara and not specificallly to this sparring thread.  They areally ought to be moved back as they are relevant to that thread.  The first 7 or 8 at least.  In fact I would suggest that post 13 in the current incarnation of this thread is where we really got away from a discussion on Chanbara and onto a discussion of the merits of sparring.

BTW I would also like to protest whoever it was that snipped my links to various threads where Chanbara was discussed.  If the justification for deleting links to threads on other forums is that it might pull readers away from this one, then it strikes me as poor form indeed.  Are we to pretend that threads on other forums don't exist?  Are we as forumites to ignore perfectly good resources when they are readily available?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 21, 2006)

Charles,
  In this thread, I only see 1 post edited, the first one. I don't see any links removed from any of the posts though, unless they were in the lead post. If a link in that post got cut by accident, please feel free to repost. *EDIT*: I also checked the original thread, and see no missing links there.

As to links, specific links to other threads are almost always ok. General links to other sites usually are, depends on the nature. If the purpose is simply to push people away from here to there or are used to bash the other site, those links aren't allowed (as per policy).

If theres concerns over policy, please bring them to me directly by PM.  Helps keep threads moving, and lets me know where to look, rather than it waiting until I find it or someone points me to it. Dankes.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 21, 2006)

In regards to Chanbara or not.  Or otherwise to spar or not regarding sword work.  I think it is prudent to have a little sparring to complement your technique.  To much and you get into a flailing match.  To little and you may lose the ability to judge distance properly in real time. : )  I will say this though I have had the opportunity to move with some very qualified people who only trained kata or two man drills and generally two a man they were very effective when we did spar with or without armor.  There definately seems to be more than one way to train. (imagine that)  Just my take for what it is worth!

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 21, 2006)

It depends on how you train.  I've sparred in schools that limit the 'contact' point to chest only, for safety concerns.  Hard to practice leg sweeps and head shots under those conditions.  When their students sparred in a tourny I was at, they were woefully unprepared for the greater contact allowed.

The concern I think is that when dealing with a combat art, if you train to pull your shot, or 'safely distance' yourself, then you run the very real risk of doing the same in reality, which makes for a dangerous situation.

I got into an argument a while back with a kenpoist who insisted that every technique must be done to completion.  After watching his technique, I said his secondary strikes wouldn't have landed.  He said why not...I said "Because your first shot would have knocked me on my ***, so the rest would miss." While I'm sucking air, he's slapping himself.  LOL!

Looking at the padded stick sparring.
Great for working on timing, coordination, conditioning and evasion. But, in the end, it's not "Combat", it's "Sport".


----------



## Charles Mahan (Jul 21, 2006)

Bob.  Go back and read post 9.  It's pretty clear there are missing links.  I found those links through searching the other forums.  I had a lot of spare time when I posted them.  I'm afraid I don't now.  At any rate, I believe they were links on chanbara and not sparring, and as such they belong in the other thread.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jul 21, 2006)

Charles,
  Post #9 in this thread wasn't edited. It would say so at the bottom if it had been.

Are these the links though?
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=578991&postcount=5


----------



## Charles Mahan (Jul 21, 2006)

Those aren't the threads no.  I suppose it just got lost somehow when the thread was split.  Thanks for checking.


----------



## pgsmith (Jul 21, 2006)

> Some styles do still practice in armor. Yagyu Shingan Ryu I know still does, and I think Katori Shinto Ryu still may. However, other styles which matured during the Edo Jidai when large scale warfare basically didn't happen anymore are more geared towards a duelling atmosphere, and train under the understanding of an unarmored or at most lightly armored opponent.


Gotta correct a few fallacies that people are laboring under ... 

Both Yagyu Shingan ryu and Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto ryu, among others, still retain armored training. However, it is only a small part of the entire curriculum. This is not due so much to the influence of the Tokugawa unification stopping large scale warfare. This is due mainly to the fact that the vast majority of sword work was expected to be done against an unarmored opponent. The sword was a sidearm only. It was only used in battles when everything else failed. Since it had only a small chance of being used in battle, only a small portion of training was devoted to this.

Our dojo is one of those that regularly engages in sparring using tsumeru techniques wherein the cut is pulled up short. This is only done with the most advanced practitioners, and it does lead to degeneration of technique. It's easy to see when watching it. I have personally used RSW type of sparring weapons, done sparring in kendo armor, and done Sports Chanbara. Each method of sparring is fun for its own reason, and each one requires a change in technique from what is supposed to be done. None of them can teach what is required as well as the kata, which leads me to my next point ...

There are many different "martial arts" with many different reasons for doing them, and many different things that can be learned. To learn to be a good boxer, you have to study boxing. To learn Olympic fencing, you study Olympic fencing, to learn how to be good at Sports Chanbara, you study Sports Chanbara. However, to learn how to effectively use the Japanese sword in the manner in which it was originally designed to be used, you will need to study a koryu sword art. Not because the koryu sword arts are necessarily better, but because they are the only ones which we *know* are effective. Since no one engages in sword duels anymore, anyone can say that their "new and improved" sword art is better. There is absolutely no way to know if that's true. The techniques and training methods of the koryu sword arts were developed and perfected hundreds of years ago when the people studying them were regularly using their swords. The koryu sword arts are the only schools that have been passed down through the generations, teacher to student, with the techniques, methods, and instructions intact. Because of this, we know that they are effective. The same can't be said of any other sword arts. Guesses can be made, and opinions put forth, but it's all opinion as these other sword arts have not been used in large numbers of life and death confrontations. Many Western Martial Arts enthusiasts would argue that there are several different training manuals from feudal Europe from when swords were used. This is true, but only the manuals remain, not the schools and the methods which were meant to go along with the manuals. Add to that the fact that most of the Japanese manuals from that time frame are deliberately obscure, or include outright falsification of some things in order to prevent rivals from learning too much about them, (I can't believe the Europeans were any different in that regard) and any certainty about how effective learning from these manuals is has fled. A common point between all of the koryu sword arts is the fact that they all train in the same manner, *through kata*. There are solo kata and paired kata. There are also a couple of other things that are done occassionally, such as the fukuro shinai in Yagyu Shinkage ryu. However, the main training method in *all* of the surviving koryu is kata. Since i seriously doubt that the folks that depended upon their training to preserve their lives would _all_ embrace an inferior method, I have to conclude that kata is the most effective method of training.

In conclusion (finally!) all the different arts are fun, and they all have something to be gained from them. It all depends upon what you are trying to gain. If you wish to learn how to spar, then sparring is really the only way. Will this teach you how to effectively use the sword as it was originally intended? No, it will effectively teach you how to spar. Is this a bad thing? Not at all. As I said, it all depends upon what you wish to learn.


----------



## howard (Jul 21, 2006)

Paul, excellent post.  Thanks.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jul 21, 2006)

Paul, I definately enjoyed your post.  Very nice.

Brian R. VanCise
www.instinctiveresponsetraining.com


----------



## arnisador (Jul 21, 2006)

In the special "The Weapons That Made Britain," sword training is used that relies heavily on what we would term a kata (see here).


----------



## kroh (Aug 18, 2006)

Wow, getting through this thread was like trying to swim through peanut butter.  What always gets me is the passion shown by both sides about a discipline that has lost its place on the battlefield (or street as it were). 

In much the same way that people no longer wear quick draw rigs and ten gallon hats when fighting with pistols, the same can be said about katana's and kimono's (sounds like a cool name for a rock band).  

I have never been strictly a JSA practitioner (although I am continuously astounded by the grace, fluidity, and power exhibited by them), I have usually experienced it as a facet of my regular training.  That being said, I totally agree that standard sparing for the JSA's is really not the best course to train these methods.  Like Arnisador said earlier... If you are already cut, then you can't make the counterattack you see so often in "sparring" matches.

I can also see the point made by others that want to know how methods of old sword arts can train for the unexpected when everything is patterned.  JSA, CSA, FMA-SA (Filipino Martial Art Sword Arts...I should have just wrote it out), they all use intensive drilling to hammer home the principles needed.  There is nothing really unexpected if you train all the necssary skills required for the activity (SWORD FIGHT!).  Any time you add sparring, you loose a lot of the principle by trading off for safety and the ability to whack (not cut) your opponent.  

If there was a better way to train the combat efficiency than drills, wouldn't they be doing it... And if it took them (swordsman) this long to fix the problems (we need to add sparing)...why are we training and arguing about a method that was broken to begin with?

I think the "combative" sword arts are great as they teach timing and proper use of distance and footwork.  I think sport fencing is great as it teaches targeting and intent.  Both have merrits and both can be fun.  We just have to remember where one activity ends and the other begins. 

Regards, 
Walt


----------



## Makalakumu (Aug 18, 2006)

kroh said:
			
		

> We just have to remember where one activity ends and the other begins.


 
I'm not so sure if it works like that.  In fact, from what I've read thus far and from what I've experienced in other bladed arts that I've trained, the two may be two different beasts.  

In the past, when I've sparred in lets say...judo...over a number of years, through repetition I started to develop a feel for what my uke was doing and what he was going to do.  This was a very "hands on" feeling that made my technique better.

I never got that feeling with a training knife in my hands even though I've spent almost five years doing FMA.  The reason why is simple.  It.  Doesn't.  Cut.  People were still reacting to various moves and counters but, in the end, people were not and could never in that situation, react how a human would naturally react from a given technique.

So, what did I get out of sparring with toy knives?  I got to practice some technique, some footwork, and some instinctual responses.  However, I'll tell you what my biggest lesson was...learning how fast a person could actually move with a knife and realizing how amazingly dangerous that situation would be with a live blade.  

Hands down, THAT, was my biggest lesson.

So, what does this say to people who practice JSA and do not spar.  I can't speak for them because I haven't trained in any koryu sword arts (although I'd really really like to).  However, I can speak for myself...I think that you can learn all of the lessons I learned above with drills and without sparring.  I think that you can get a better feel, even if it just intellectual, of what the human body would actually do if it were cut.  Sparring with never EVER recreate that.

The bottom line is that there are no ways to go out and actually get an instinctual grasp on what it feels like and what it looks like to actually go out and cut someone.  Thus, we are forced, through neccessity to trust the word of others who may have done this in a different time period.  

IMHO, what koryu JSA has going for it is a highly documented link that goes back to those sources and preserves the actual techniques, drills and other methods that were used at the time.  Who am I to question the fact that they don't spar?  Maybe if I invented a sword art that used sparring and I went out and started killing people in duels I'd have some basis for argument.  Obviously, that is impossible.

So, where does that leave me if my desire is go out and actually learn how to use a japanese sword in the fashion in which it was intended?  It leaves me trusting the word of others who learned from a lineage of warriors who "been there done that."  If they say sparring isn't neccessary, then it isn't.

I have no intellectual grounds with any sort of evidence that I could point so that I could disagree.


----------



## jasonb (Sep 13, 2006)

Not sure about other arts, but Pekiti Tirsia is heavily focused on bladed weapons, including a short sword.

Training progression

 training and free flow,sparring, etc with sticks

1. sticks
2. aluminum sword
3. live blade sword

In the end everything is done live blade with sword, forms, free flow/sparring, etc.

When I say sparing or free flow, what I mean is that we integrate all of our drills into a free flowing exchange, I don't know what you will do next and neither I you, but there is still a structure there.  The means of sparing with the live blade is simply keeping a distance of several feet further out than how you would actually fight so that you do not hit the opponent and also having control over your weapon so that you do not hit them if they are not defending properly. Of course, we also don't want to make contact with the other sword either since it screws up the blade.

How else can you learn to sword fight if you do not use the real thing at speed in a free flow? How do you learn distance and timing?

Sometimes with sticks we do sparing with contact, using hockey gloves or fencing headgear. We don't advise using soft padded sticks or putting on all sorts of armor. Seems like it tends to make people sit there and beat on each other rather than out of the way, counter attack.

http://www.pt-go.com


----------



## kroh (Sep 13, 2006)

Mr Gaje is the real deal, gentleman and no BS Trainer.  I really enjoy the PTK ( and FMA ) training mentality all together.  I think much of the debate in this thread comes from how sparing takes away from the actual mentality of the fight.  You get whacked and you suffer a point... keep fighting.  

in the end it is all moot as no one fights with swords anymore.  Now machete, e-tool, or ASP is a different matter %-} 

Regards,
Walt


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 15, 2006)

An interesting thread, gentlemen and some quite erudite posts to be found in it to :tup:.

I shall have to go through it again in a while to see if there was anything I missed in my quick skim through but I can't resist adding my own personal experiences right now (I know I shouldn't as a 'n00b' but the Typing Muse has seized control of my fingers ).

I'm a shodan in Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu Iaido and nearly all of our training is kata based, with extensive exploration of the bunkai behind the moves.  I say _nearly_ all because there is a kata set which involves a partner working with you to improve your technique.  However, this is not 'sparring' because each persons role is strictly defined with the 'attacks' and 'counters' well known before blades ever cross (so to speak).  Still, I'm glad that these days Health and Safety has seen to it that we perform them with bokken rather than shinken hew:.

The partner practice is useful because it allows you to train the only thing you cannot get from kata {well other than the general unpleasantness that would accompany sword combat :scared:}, that being that you have to adapt your distance and timing to a physically present (rather than imagined) individual without actually hitting them or being hit by them.
Because by the time you get to perform these partner kata you have already reached a certain level of competence in the use of the katana, the fact that you are controlling your sword *not* to hit them does not destroy your technique but adds a level of refinement to it i.e. you show that you have properly learned, via visualisation during kata, the ability to stop your sword where you wish rather than where _it_ wishes, so to speak.

I cannot see, at present, how 'free sparring', of the semi-to-full-contact sort I used to do in the empty-handed art I used to practise, would add to the 'correct' execution of the techniques of MJER.

Sword arts are all about improving your control of the sword, at their core, after all, whereas sparring is about improvisation and making the best of the situation you have.  In a JSA, if you've reached the stage where you're having to improvise a technique then, pretty much, you're already about to die :lol:.

Of course, this impression I've gained is only from the lowest level of 'acceptible' competence - I've a long, _long_, way to go yet and my views may well change (but I doubt I'll reach the conclusion that twenty-odd generations of true sword experts didn't know the best way to pass on technique).

Sumimasen if I've already stepped on someones toes (achieving that with my third post would not be something of which I'd be proud).

Mata na.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 15, 2006)

I see a lot of sense in this post! Still, I think that some sparring is valuable for developing not only range, as you mention, but also timing and the ability to fake. You could use a bokken or shinai for this...but as you mention, bad habits could develop (or good ones fail to emerge) from too much of this.


----------



## Swordlady (Sep 15, 2006)

Sukerkin said:


> Sword arts are all about improving your control of the sword, at their core, after all, whereas sparring is about improvisation and making the best of the situation you have.  In a JSA, if you've reached the stage where you're having to improvise a technique then, pretty much, you're already about to die :lol:.



Excellent point!


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 16, 2006)

I'm grateful for the postive comments, Lady and Sir :rei:.

I like the quote from Charles Mahan you referenced in the linked thread, *Arnisador*.  A succinct precis of the core of much of JSA technique and why 'sparring' per se would not necessarily improve the quality of technique in such an art.

That is not to say, of course, that working with a partner to help you visualise how a kata flows is not helpful.  

I've just started to teach a little (I think Sensei has simply decided I'm the one with the biggest mouth so I might as well be put to work ) and I've already found that playing the role of 'target/aggressor' whilst guiding someone slowly through the correct movements enables them to much more quickly grasp the "Why's?" and the "How's?" of a kata.

That is particularly true of certain body movements in kata that make no sense unless you realise that what is happening is that you are avoiding a strike whilst carrying through one of your own. As I'm already becoming too fond of saying when in sempai-mode, "This is a game of inches" and having a physically present partner there can show you that why you twist your hip or move your hand in such a proscribed fashion is that there is an assumed sword stroke coming in that you are thus causing to miss you.

As I say, not really sparring as most would interpet it but a useful adjunct to demonstration and instruction nontheless.


----------

