Empty hand flows from weapons...

[Sukerkin]

1. There is a long history of purely empty hand arts in China and on Okinawa that developed independently of any weapons.

I'm sure your phraseology isn't saying what you meant there. I would maintain that no (non-sport) empty-handed art developed in isolation as, to be effective, they have to take the prescence of weapons into account.

2. The fact that kobudo and karate have some similar moves and dynamics does not mean that either developed from the other.

True. I would still be very surprised if there was no linkage between the armed and unarmed styles tho'. It would be very difficult to investigate and prove one way or the other so we are left with our impressions and our opinions based upon what we observe (and some common sense).

3. There are weapons ryu that do not use karate type stances and the dynamics of which are unique (Yamani ryu).

Quite so. I don't know the ins-and-outs of Yamani ryu so I can't speak to that specifically. However, the postures in MJER iai have similarities to some karate stances but are not the same because, after all, we are dealing with three foot of steel in our hands.

4. Some of you sound like you are trying to learn to do sword using karate stances and dynamics. That is incorrect and misleading. Kenjutsu and karate have almost NOTHING to do with each other. Find a real sword school.

<snip harshly worded points>

I agree with what you say about how trying to 'force' a swordart into a karate mould would deform it unreasonably. However, perhaps it could've been phrased in a touch less inflammatory way? Disagreement doesn't have to be a conflict and a counter-point discourse can still be courteous.

9. My suspicion here is that, in some cases, this whole theory is an effort by some to find an excuse for doing karate kata with weapons or vice versa and for simplifying things to suit them. Kobudo and karate are very different arts. Just because a typist and a concert pianist sit alike and use the same motions does not mean that Mary Lou Headlights out in the office will be playing Mozart concertos at home tonight.

I concur with your last point there and it's a good way of illustrating that similarity does not necessarily connotate a causal relationship.

Are we not in danger of forgetting here that the 'martial artists' of the time when 'our' arts were developing were soldiers and thus did not study iaido, kenjutsu, karate etc as seperate, compartmentalised, entities? The list of arts that a samurai was expected to learn was quite extensive last time I looked and formed a suite of techniques. What was used where and when was situationally dependant, just like the arts studied by our WMA compatriots. That is one reason why I do not think it beyond the realms of possibility that motions, postures and actions were codified to an extent to be present in more than one of the arts.

 

[cstanley]

I'm sure your phraseology isn't saying what you meant there. I would maintain that no (non-sport) empty-handed art developed in isolation as, to be effective, they have to take the prescence of weapons into account.



True. I would still be very surprised if there was no linkage between the armed and unarmed styles tho'. It would be very difficult to investigate and prove one way or the other so we are left with our impressions and our opinions based upon what we observe (and some common sense).



Quite so. I don't know the ins-and-outs of Yamani ryu so I can't speak to that specifically. However, the postures in MJER iai have similarities to some karate stances but are not the same because, after all, we are dealing with three foot of steel in our hands.





I agree with what you say about how trying to 'force' a swordart into a karate mould would deform it unreasonably. However, perhaps it could've been phrased in a touch less inflammatory way? Disagreement doesn't have to be a conflict and a counter-point discourse can still be courteous.



I concur with your last point there and it's a good way of illustrating that similarity does not necessarily connotate a causal relationship.

Are we not in danger of forgetting here that the 'martial artists' of the time when 'our' arts were developing were soldiers and thus did not study iaido, kenjutsu, karate etc as seperate, compartmentalised, entities? The list of arts that a samurai was expected to learn was quite extensive last time I looked and formed a suite of techniques. What was used where and when was situationally dependant, just like the arts studied by our WMA compatriots. That is one reason why I do not think it beyond the realms of possibility that motions, postures and actions were codified to an extent to be present in more than one of the arts.

I meant exactly what I said exactly the way I worded it. Once again, karate developed as an empty hand art to be used against one or more opponents, armed or unarmed. I do not think one can posit a direct correlation. It is like the old myth about sai being developed to use against armed samurai.

You are thinking in terms of Japanese arts. The development of karate and weapons on Okinawa was less military, less systematic, and less integrated.

I did not see any harshly worded points. Are you that sensitive?

 

[MBuzzy]

1. There is a long history of purely empty hand arts in China and on Okinawa that developed independently of any weapons.

2. The fact that kobudo and karate have some similar moves and dynamics does not mean that either developed from the other.

3. There are weapons ryu that do not use karate type stances and the dynamics of which are unique (Yamani ryu).

5. Not all karateka were body guards for the Shogun. Clayton is wrong.

9. My suspicion here is that, in some cases, this whole theory is an effort by some to find an excuse for doing karate kata with weapons or vice versa and for simplifying things to suit them. Kobudo and karate are very different arts. Just because a typist and a concert pianist sit alike and use the same motions does not mean that Mary Lou Headlights out in the office will be playing Mozart concertos at home tonight.

So is your position that empty handed fighting and weapons fighting has no link and that they are completely separate things? I find a great deal of credibility in the idea that once a warrier has lost his weapon, he would need an empty handed style to compensate. I also don't see how they do not correlate. Weapons are simply an extension of the body. Obviously, they need different techniques, but most concepts that can be applied to a weapon can be applied to empty hands as well. Some with very little alteration.

The most impressive thing I found about stick fighting styles is that if you remove the sticks, the same movements work empty handed. Very little difference at all, you're simply using your arms and hands rather than that extension.

You do make some good points though, the fact that they are similar does not necessarily prove a cause and effect correlation. There are an infinate number of differences between system and stances, but I submit that if you look deep enough, you will find more similarity than you find difference, enen in this concept of "dynamics" that you refer to.

4. Some of you sound like you are trying to learn to do sword using karate stances and dynamics. That is incorrect and misleading. Kenjutsu and karate have almost NOTHING to do with each other. Find a real sword school.

Please explain this comment. I really don't see a point here, other than some possible contempt for people who train both styles. Again, is your point that the thing done in a weapon style have absolutely no correlation to empty handed fighting? I strongly disagree. At least for me, my study of sword has given me a much better idea of general body awareness. A smaller movement in the arms and hands translates to a much larger movement of a weapon and forces more control and precision. To me at least, this translates very well.

There will always be minor differences between styles, such as how we place our feet or the angles of a stance, but all styles still have the same basics. There is a Front Stance in Tang Soo Do, there is a Front stance in Haidong Gumdo. They are basically the same, but with minor alterations to compensate for the weapon or lack thereof. It is perfect feasable to train in both styles and not "cross polinate." Although I strongly disagree that they have "nothing" to do with each other.

I'm also curious where you got the idea that people are training at "fake sword schools?" Seems to me that gets back to the idea that one style may be inherently better than another....which we have beaten to death in plenty of threads.

Personal opinion - if you learn to use your hands or a weapon effectively, GREAT. There is no right or wrong, only opinion of techniques.

6. Carbone and others like him are looking for an edge, a marketing gimmick, some unique or new idea. It isn't as simple as any of them want to make it.

7. Just because someone makes good weapons and has a huge dojo doesn't mean they are correct in their speculations.

8. Anyone can get Okinawans and Japanese to come to their dojo. Contact them, pay their airfare, hotel, and a fee and feed them. Then you can have all the photo ops you like.

Very simple here - all martial arts schools are businesses. Even if you teach for free, your operation still runs like a business, because without customers, you have nothing to do except practice alone. I am curious how much you know about Sensei Carbone and those like him to make such blanket statements?

It is true that the size of your Dojo and the quality of your weapons does not make you right. But in many cases, your seniority in a style, your experience, and overall knowledge are what ALLOW you to have the big Dojo and to make the quality weapons. We are referring to someone with an incredible depth of knowledge and experience in many styles, agree with it or not, you can't argue with that many years of experience. As for brining Japanese and Okinawans here, it may not be as easy as you think...

 

[TimoS]

So is your position that empty handed fighting and weapons fighting has no link and that they are completely separate things? I find a great deal of credibility in the idea that once a warrier has lost his weapon, he would need an empty handed style to compensate.

Keep in mind that neither karate nor ryukyu kobudo were never battle-field arts. Some karateka were the king's bodyguards, but there weren't that many. In my (limited, granted) experience in both of those, the distance, timing and techniques are quite different in karate and ryukyu kobudo. Sure, you can do some of the unarmed stuff with a weapon and vice versa, but not everything. I wouldn't say that they are completely separate things, rather that they complement each other.

Very simple here - all martial arts schools are businesses. Even if you teach for free, your operation still runs like a business, because without customers, you have nothing to do except practice alone

I understand your point here, but I disagree with it. E.g. the club where I train at the moment: we "pass the collection plate" every now and then (about twice a year) to pay for our instructor's gasoline. Last time we paid about 50 euro each (we are a very small club, only about 6 actively training members). Other than that, the only fee is the national association fee (20 euro, which is roughly 30 USD). I wouldn't say that we're a business

 

[Sukerkin]

I meant exactly what I said exactly the way I worded it. Once again, karate developed as an empty hand art to be used against one or more opponents, armed or unarmed. I do not think one can posit a direct correlation. It is like the old myth about sai being developed to use against armed samurai.

You are thinking in terms of Japanese arts. The development of karate and weapons on Okinawa was less military, less systematic, and less integrated.

I did not see any harshly worded points. Are you that sensitive?

As to your last, I don't know about my being sensitive but I certainly would read your words as challenging - it's perhaps a cultural difference.

Given that one of my roles as a Mentor is to try and keep things civil I thought perhaps an opening to a less confrontational discourse was a good idea {bullet-point arguments are condusive to slanging matches in and of themselves :lol:}. If I 'took you wrong' then I apologise.

As to your first, I was obviously not clear in my own phrasing because what you said is what I meant .

Anyhow, it's not that I don't care but I have nothing concrete to add weight to either side of this matter other than my point of view (which masses very little in the scheme of things). My opinion is different from your own in that I do see links between swordwork and empty hand arts, particularly karate but it's unprovable and not something I'd want to get in a fight about.

 

[cstanley]

So is your position that empty handed fighting and weapons fighting has no link and that they are completely separate things? I find a great deal of credibility in the idea that once a warrier has lost his weapon, he would need an empty handed style to compensate. I also don't see how they do not correlate. Weapons are simply an extension of the body. Obviously, they need different techniques, but most concepts that can be applied to a weapon can be applied to empty hands as well. Some with very little alteration.

The most impressive thing I found about stick fighting styles is that if you remove the sticks, the same movements work empty handed. Very little difference at all, you're simply using your arms and hands rather than that extension.

You do make some good points though, the fact that they are similar does not necessarily prove a cause and effect correlation. There are an infinate number of differences between system and stances, but I submit that if you look deep enough, you will find more similarity than you find difference, enen in this concept of "dynamics" that you refer to.



Please explain this comment. I really don't see a point here, other than some possible contempt for people who train both styles. Again, is your point that the thing done in a weapon style have absolutely no correlation to empty handed fighting? I strongly disagree. At least for me, my study of sword has given me a much better idea of general body awareness. A smaller movement in the arms and hands translates to a much larger movement of a weapon and forces more control and precision. To me at least, this translates very well.

There will always be minor differences between styles, such as how we place our feet or the angles of a stance, but all styles still have the same basics. There is a Front Stance in Tang Soo Do, there is a Front stance in Haidong Gumdo. They are basically the same, but with minor alterations to compensate for the weapon or lack thereof. It is perfect feasable to train in both styles and not "cross polinate." Although I strongly disagree that they have "nothing" to do with each other.

I'm also curious where you got the idea that people are training at "fake sword schools?" Seems to me that gets back to the idea that one style may be inherently better than another....which we have beaten to death in plenty of threads.

Personal opinion - if you learn to use your hands or a weapon effectively, GREAT. There is no right or wrong, only opinion of techniques.



Very simple here - all martial arts schools are businesses. Even if you teach for free, your operation still runs like a business, because without customers, you have nothing to do except practice alone. I am curious how much you know about Sensei Carbone and those like him to make such blanket statements?

It is true that the size of your Dojo and the quality of your weapons does not make you right. But in many cases, your seniority in a style, your experience, and overall knowledge are what ALLOW you to have the big Dojo and to make the quality weapons. We are referring to someone with an incredible depth of knowledge and experience in many styles, agree with it or not, you can't argue with that many years of experience. As for brining Japanese and Okinawans here, it may not be as easy as you think...

Not saying there is NO connection, only that it is not as direct and systematic as some seem to think.

RE: Sword Comments

Look, kenjutsu and iaido are very specific arts that date from at least as far back as the 11th century in Japan (iaido developed later, but has a very direct relation to the rest of kenjutsu). There is nothing remotely related to karate (except a few very broad things like emphasis on the hara, etc.) with regard to stance, movement, or technique. In a sword class, hours are spent on proper grip, proper technique in, for instance kiri oroshi, stepping in very particular ways that are totally unlike karate, and so on. I cannot imagine any art more unlike karate than kenjutsu.

In this country, there are far too many people doing what I call "playing with swords," that is, getting a katana (usually a wall hanger or some BB Magazine toy) and going to the karate dojo and doing "sword" using karate stances and footwork. That is not swordsmanship and it is not as simple as saying, "oh, well, the principles are the same." This is no argument about which kenjutsu ryu is "better." All legitimate sword ryu have strengths and all can teach you to use a sword properly. But, Johnny Hanshi in Hunky Dunky Karate waving a sword around in a back stance or doing karate kata while holding a sword CANNOT teach you kenjutsu...and he is fooling himself. There are just some lines that need to be drawn. It is an insult to real sword students for just any old karate guy to grab a sword, chop the air, and call it swordsmanship. There is way too much of that going on.

Legitimate sword training is often difficult to find. If you are serious about it, you will have to spend a good bit of money to get a good sword, proper clothing, and a few other items. You will likely have to search for a legitimate instructor, and you may well have to decide to travel some distance to train. Then, plan on 5 to 10 years minimum before you really begin to put it all together. Most people do not want to do all this. Unfortunately, too many just add sword to their other weapons while doing TKD or karate and insist that they are doing the same thing the folks in MJER, Itto ryu, Eishin ryu, or Katori Tenshin ryu are doing. Ain't so, sorry.

 

[TimoS]

My opinion is different from your own in that I do see links between swordwork and empty hand arts, particularly karate but it's unprovable and not something I'd want to get in a fight about.

I think that they only appear to be the same, but once you get down to applying the techniques, the differences appear. My previous karate instructor is also quite highly ranked in MJER iaido (7. dan renshi, if my memory serves me correctly) and he also said that e.g oitsuki (a forward lunging punch) is similar to tsuki in iaido. However, being that he probably isn't so well versed in karate kata applications, it is entirely possible that he has only looked "skin deep" and concluded that they are the same.

 

[Sukerkin]

It is certainly the case that intent can make a world of difference between physical actions that superficially look the same and I'm not sure that this discussion isn't veering a little by misunderstandings of what people are trying to say.

My view has been that the similarities in certain movements between armed and un-armed combat arts is not a coincidence. It may be biomechanical constraits caused it but in the end, if a people already have a body of martial knowledge to draw on I don't see why would they re-invent the wheel?

 

[cstanley]

It is certainly the case that intent can make a world of difference between physical actions that superficially look the same and I'm not sure that this discussion isn't veering a little by misunderstandings of what people are trying to say.

My view has been that the similarities in certain movements between armed and un-armed combat arts is not a coincidence. It may be biomechanical constraits caused it but in the end, if a people already have a body of martial knowledge to draw on I don't see why would they re-invent the wheel?

A swordsman without a sword does not automatically know how to deliver a gyakuzuki or a mae geri with proper focus, mechanics and power sufficient to knock an opponent down. A karateka who picks up a sword to face a skilled swordsman hasn't a prayer. I think the similarities are very surface and nothing more.

 

[exile]

A swordsman without a sword does not automatically know how to deliver a gyakuzuki or a mae geri with proper focus, mechanics and power sufficient to knock an opponent down. A karateka who picks up a sword to face a skilled swordsman hasn't a prayer. I think the similarities are very surface and nothing more.

OK, this brings in something I was wondering about, looking over Timos', Sukerin's and cstanley's posts... again, I've got no perspective which is strongly at stake in this conversation, I'm just interested in seeing where it can go. So it occurred to me that one way to approach the OP issue is stand it on its head: imagine a samurai of considerable experience who's had his sword taken away from him, and try to visualize how the body movements in his (now swordless) kenjutsu would/could be adapted, with the minimum modifications necessary, to effective unarmed self defense. What would the result look like, do you think? (bearing in mind that one might expect some systematic differences from any empty-handed MA that we know about which derived (as, e.g., karate appears to have done) from the fusing of a number of empty-hand fighting traditions and skill sets; take that as a given). Can you picture what the unarmed swordsman will be doing in the face of an unarmed attack, and how he will be applying the sword-based skills of his bujutsu to the unarmed context?

And then: if there's a good answer to that question&#8212;call it X&#8212;is there any currently practiced MA which seems to have a resemblance to X which is more than generic?

I'm just suggesting that this angle might be productive...

 

[cstanley]

OK, this brings in something I was wondering about, looking over Timos', Sukerin's and cstanley's posts... again, I've got no perspective which is strongly at stake in this conversation, I'm just interested in seeing where it can go. So it occurred to me that one way to approach the OP issue is stand it on its head: imagine a samurai of considerable experience who's had his sword taken away from him, and try to visualize how the body movements in his (now swordless) kenjutsu would/could be adapted, with the minimum modifications necessary, to effective unarmed self defense. What would the result look like, do you think? (bearing in mind that one might expect some systematic differences from any empty-handed MA that we know about which derived (as, e.g., karate appears to have done) from the fusing of a number of empty-hand fighting traditions and skill sets; take that as a given). Can you picture what the unarmed swordsman will be doing in the face of an unarmed attack, and how he will be applying the sword-based skills of his bujutsu to the unarmed context?

And then: if there's a good answer to that question—call it X—is there any currently practiced MA which seems to have a resemblance to X which is more than generic?

I'm just suggesting that this angle might be productive...

The result would look like Daito ryu aikijujutsu...which is exactly what that is.

 

[MBuzzy]

Keep in mind that neither karate nor ryukyu kobudo were never battle-field arts. Some karateka were the king's bodyguards, but there weren't that many. In my (limited, granted) experience in both of those, the distance, timing and techniques are quite different in karate and ryukyu kobudo. Sure, you can do some of the unarmed stuff with a weapon and vice versa, but not everything. I wouldn't say that they are completely separate things, rather that they complement each other.

Agreed - this is a good position, from a historical perspective. There may not have been a link in the development or history, but I am saying that they do complement each other to use your terms. I think largely we are discussing semantics. They are different styles with much different histories, but they definately relate to each other. The body mechanics do have a relationship. The timing, distance and techniques may be different, but not only can they be adapted, but they are simply weapons verisons of the same ideas. With a weapon or not, you must time a strike to hit the opponent, you might find openings, you must position your body properly, you must be the proper distance. Both styles address these things, just in different ways to account for the weapon or lack of.

I understand your point here, but I disagree with it. E.g. the club where I train at the moment: we "pass the collection plate" every now and then (about twice a year) to pay for our instructor's gasoline. Last time we paid about 50 euro each (we are a very small club, only about 6 actively training members). Other than that, the only fee is the national association fee (20 euro, which is roughly 30 USD). I wouldn't say that we're a business

Understood, most people do disagree with this position. It is a much more pragmatic approach and requires a more systems based view of a business to understand. It is true that there are clubs and free training areas....people who get together to train, clubs, etc. And you are correct, passing the hat for gasoline costs, etc does not constitute a business. But not all businesses turn a profit. What all businesses do have though, is a customer and a supplier. From this perspective, ALL martial arts schools are businesses.

You have a supplier (instructor) and a client (student). The students have a choice and can go elsewhere for their instruction. Without students, the instructor has no one to teach, without the teacher, the students cannot learn....from him. But they can go elsewhere. Therefore, it is not a completely sybiotic relationship, as with a public school. The instructor must keep the students happy or at least satisfied to keep the students.

But....that's pretty far off topic and probably more of another thread discussion.

 

[exile]

The result would look like Daito ryu aikijujutsu...which is exactly what that is.

I was wondering about that... I've heard this before.

So if that's the case, then the conclusion is that karate, for example, will look like kenjutsu to just the extent that the technique set of DRA was incorporated into the mix that yielded karate on Okinawa, no? If intermarriage and the transmission of budo skills (including DRA techniques) in the Okinawan colonial situation under the Satsumas did occur, then you would expect to see 'sporadic' resemblances between Okinawan karate movements and kenjutsu movements, and maybe a few wisps of parallelism between Shotokan and kenjutsu, without there being any real systemic parallelism there... I'm just thinking aloud here; does this make sense?

 

[TimoS]

The result would look like Daito ryu aikijujutsu...which is exactly what that is.

Here I disagree with you, not by much, but a bit. Daito ryu is just one thing it might look like. After all, at least according to my understanding, in the old times the samurai ryu weren't solely based on any one weapon, but they usually covered not only a whole range of weapons but also unarmed combat. So the samurai who lost his weapon would probably fight using the empty hand techniques of his particular ryu. My experience in authentic koryu traditions is just about non-existent, so I cannot say for sure how much these unarmed combat methods resemble the armed methods of the same ryu.

 

[MBuzzy]

Not saying there is NO connection, only that it is not as direct and systematic as some seem to think..

Same situation, I think that it is semantics. We're saying the same thing in different ways. A swordsman is not automatically a good fighter and a fighter is not automatically a good swordsman. But expose it to the opposite extreme condition. A swordsman is not a HELPLESS fighter, just as a fighter is not helpless with a weapon. An expert in empty hand styles has a much better shot with a sword against a weapons expert than does someone with no experience. He will still probably lose, but at least has a good basis. Just as a swordsman with no sword is not helpless by any means. In fact, I would say that a swordsman with no weapon has a very solid foundation for fighting and would fare well with minimal additional training. In fact, in my sword style, at the higher levels, there is an empty handed portion....only taught past Cho Dan though....and surprisingly, it is very similar to the sword style.

I think that Exile has it dead on....a swordsman knows the concepts behind empty handed fighting because of their use of the weapon. When you can get beyond a more narrow view of how a weapon is used, the weapon is simply an extension of your body and the same concepts apply.

Look, kenjutsu and iaido are very specific arts that date from at least as far back as the 11th century in Japan (iaido developed later, but has a very direct relation to the rest of kenjutsu). There is nothing remotely related to karate (except a few very broad things like emphasis on the hara, etc.) with regard to stance, movement, or technique. In a sword class, hours are spent on proper grip, proper technique in, for instance kiri oroshi, stepping in very particular ways that are totally unlike karate, and so on. I cannot imagine any art more unlike karate than kenjutsu.

Another excellent example of how they are historically unrelated, although I find it hard to believe that there was never trading of styles or ideas. Or that swordsmen never learned empty handed arts. I also find it impossible to say that the two are not remotely related. In fact, I find that if I look closely they are very much related....as are ALL styles.

I can just see a relationship, many others do not. Particularly because I have experienced it and noticed a difference and how the two styles complement each other nicely. The same concepts all apply, you just have to have the "rosetta stone" to translate them"

In this country, there are far too many people doing what I call "playing with swords," that is, getting a katana (usually a wall hanger or some BB Magazine toy) and going to the karate dojo and doing "sword" using karate stances and footwork. That is not swordsmanship and it is not as simple as saying, "oh, well, the principles are the same." This is no argument about which kenjutsu ryu is "better." All legitimate sword ryu have strengths and all can teach you to use a sword properly. But, Johnny Hanshi in Hunky Dunky Karate waving a sword around in a back stance or doing karate kata while holding a sword CANNOT teach you kenjutsu...and he is fooling himself. There are just some lines that need to be drawn. It is an insult to real sword students for just any old karate guy to grab a sword, chop the air, and call it swordsmanship. There is way too much of that going on.

Legitimate sword training is often difficult to find. If you are serious about it, you will have to spend a good bit of money to get a good sword, proper clothing, and a few other items. You will likely have to search for a legitimate instructor, and you may well have to decide to travel some distance to train. Then, plan on 5 to 10 years minimum before you really begin to put it all together. Most people do not want to do all this. Unfortunately, too many just add sword to their other weapons while doing TKD or karate and insist that they are doing the same thing the folks in MJER, Itto ryu, Eishin ryu, or Katori Tenshin ryu are doing. Ain't so, sorry.

I would agree that sword training should not be taken lightly and there are far too many people who pick up a sword swing it around thinking they know the weapon. There are some big differences....in my sword style, the stance is basically the same with one major alteration, the position of the feet and toes. They are generally pointed in to avoid the sword. But we still have a version of all the stances from my empty hand style. The footwork is much different too....but the base concepts are there.

I specifically chose to study a specific style of sword, because my empty handed art is weaponless and it is much more deep than I ever imagined. I am also very luckily to be living within close proximity to an EXCELLENT teacher with links around the world in the Haidong Gumdo world.

You are completely right about costs, time, and the more aesthetic and attitude differences....but I will still hold that the fundamentals share many basic similarities.

And back to the OP Topic, along those lines, I would say that I find it hard to believe that throughout history they stayed completely separate. Whether one flowed from the other or not....who knows, although I could construct an argument either way.

 

[TimoS]

I was wondering about that... I've heard this before.

So if that's the case, then the conclusion is that karate, for example, will look like kenjutsu to just the extent that the technique set of DRA was incorporated into the mix that yielded karate on Okinawa, no? If intermarriage and the transmission of budo skills (including DRA techniques) in the Okinawan colonial situation under the Satsumas did occur, then you would expect to see 'sporadic' resemblances between Okinawan karate movements and kenjutsu movements, and maybe a few wisps of parallelism between Shotokan and kenjutsu, without there being any real systemic parallelism there... I'm just thinking aloud here; does this make sense?

I don't think Daito ryu has had any influence on okinawan fighting methods. IF (and that really is quite a big if) there was any kenjutsu influence on some early karate, then I would look more in the direction of the Satsuma clan tradition, which was Jigen ryu. There have been some speculation that some karate great, I think it was Bushi Matsumura, was also a master of Jigen ryu, but I don't think that has been confirmed by any actual research.

 

[cstanley]

Here I disagree with you, not by much, but a bit. Daito ryu is just one thing it might look like. After all, at least according to my understanding, in the old times the samurai ryu weren't solely based on any one weapon, but they usually covered not only a whole range of weapons but also unarmed combat. So the samurai who lost his weapon would probably fight using the empty hand techniques of his particular ryu. My experience in authentic koryu traditions is just about non-existent, so I cannot say for sure how much these unarmed combat methods resemble the armed methods of the same ryu.

I did not mean that all samurai would be students of Daito ryu, only that they would practice something that looked a lot like it. The Takeda clan and the Daito ryu were one of the major ryu, however, dating back to the Minamoto.

 

[TimoS]

Another excellent example of how they are historically unrelated, although I find it hard to believe that there was never trading of styles or ideas. Or that swordsmen never learned empty handed arts.

I wouldn't say that kenjutsu and iaijutsu are historically unrelated. In fact, I think they are more or less the same thing. It is a cliché, but there's this saying that iaido (or iaijutsu, whatever term you wish to use) only exists in the scabbard. Once you take the sword out, it is kenjutsu.

 

[TimoS]

I did not mean that all samurai would be students of Daito ryu, only that they would practice something that looked a lot like it. The Takeda clan and the Daito ryu were one of the major ryu, however, dating back to the Minamoto.

Ok, I understand. By the way, you do know that the Daito ryu history is quite heavily disputed and if I remember correctly, it has never actually been a battlefield art. But that's getting quite off-topic

 

[cstanley]

Same situation, I think that it is semantics. We're saying the same thing in different ways. A swordsman is not automatically a good fighter and a fighter is not automatically a good swordsman. But expose it to the opposite extreme condition. A swordsman is not a HELPLESS fighter, just as a fighter is not helpless with a weapon. An expert in empty hand styles has a much better shot with a sword against a weapons expert than does someone with no experience. He will still probably lose, but at least has a good basis. Just as a swordsman with no sword is not helpless by any means. In fact, I would say that a swordsman with no weapon has a very solid foundation for fighting and would fare well with minimal additional training. In fact, in my sword style, at the higher levels, there is an empty handed portion....only taught past Cho Dan though....and surprisingly, it is very similar to the sword style.

I think that Exile has it dead on....a swordsman knows the concepts behind empty handed fighting because of their use of the weapon. When you can get beyond a more narrow view of how a weapon is used, the weapon is simply an extension of your body and the same concepts apply.



Another excellent example of how they are historically unrelated, although I find it hard to believe that there was never trading of styles or ideas. Or that swordsmen never learned empty handed arts. I also find it impossible to say that the two are not remotely related. In fact, I find that if I look closely they are very much related....as are ALL styles.

I can just see a relationship, many others do not. Particularly because I have experienced it and noticed a difference and how the two styles complement each other nicely. The same concepts all apply, you just have to have the "rosetta stone" to translate them"



I would agree that sword training should not be taken lightly and there are far too many people who pick up a sword swing it around thinking they know the weapon. There are some big differences....in my sword style, the stance is basically the same with one major alteration, the position of the feet and toes. They are generally pointed in to avoid the sword. But we still have a version of all the stances from my empty hand style. The footwork is much different too....but the base concepts are there.

I specifically chose to study a specific style of sword, because my empty handed art is weaponless and it is much more deep than I ever imagined. I am also very luckily to be living within close proximity to an EXCELLENT teacher with links around the world in the Haidong Gumdo world.

You are completely right about costs, time, and the more aesthetic and attitude differences....but I will still hold that the fundamentals share many basic similarities.

And back to the OP Topic, along those lines, I would say that I find it hard to believe that throughout history they stayed completely separate. Whether one flowed from the other or not....who knows, although I could construct an argument either way.

You practice Korean swordsmanship. I am talking about Japanese swordsmanship in relation to karate, which seemed to be the focus of the discussion, or at least one question raised by it. I doubt if there was EVER any systematic exchange between karateka and swordsmen during the samurai era, since it ended in 1868, long before karate made it to the Japanese mainland or was ever systematized.

Saying that "the weapon is an extension of your body" isn't really saying anything. That is a nice way to tell students to relax and not be afraid of the weapon. I say it a lot, too, in class. The fact that a swordsman is not helpless without a sword does not mean he can automatically kick and punch with power and focus like a karateka. Swordsmen fought empty handed more like aikijujutsu. See above.

You seem to want to believe that, if you can do one weapon, you can do them all. Well, maybe after few years of training with each specific weapon, but one weapon does not easily transfer to the use of another. Being able top use sai, for instance, would not help you at all in learning kenjutsu. Derek Jeter, perhaps the greatest shortstop in baseball today, cannot do what Bret Favre did, nor can Favre play ss. Mozart could not play BB King; Elvis ain't Pavarotti. Get my drift?