fighting techniques of the ninja

[Aiki Lee]

That's what I thought. Thanks for clarification.

 

[skuggvarg]

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

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

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

Regards / Skuggvarg

 

[Chris Parker]

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

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

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

 

[Aiki Lee]

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

 

[skuggvarg]

Chris,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards / Skuggvarg

 

[Chris Parker]

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

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

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

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

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

Chris,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best regards / Skuggvarg

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

 

[skuggvarg]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards / Skuggvarg

 

[Aiki Lee]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Chris Parker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards / Skuggvarg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Aiki Lee]

Thanks again for your input!

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

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

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

 

[Chris Parker]

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

 

[Aiki Lee]

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

 

[Chris Parker]

Something that's all too common, my friend.

 

[skuggvarg]

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

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

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

 

[Muawijhe]

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

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

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

 

[Aiki Lee]

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

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

 

[skuggvarg]

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

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

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

Regards / Skuggvarg

 

[Aiki Lee]

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

 

[Muawijhe]

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

 

[Chris Parker]

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

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

[yt]zF2IJiLVglQ[/yt]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards / Skuggvarg

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

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

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

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

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