Stupid page, wont load what I wrote.. type later.. Chris, your not being clear. At some point, those guys got tossed, and your telling me, they were taught no way to get back to there feet. Wow.
Right. First off, that's not what I'm saying. The ability to get back up is not indicative of a ground-fighting (ne waza) syllabus. Nor does the lack of a ne waza syllabus mean that the ability to recover from being thrown/taken down wasn't part of the system. And I think this is a big part of the issue here... frankly, I don't think you're understanding what ne waza actually refers to, nor understanding the context of these old traditions, or their curriculum.
I don't want to be combative, so chriss, if came off that way, im sorry. Ok. I have been working on my home and thinking about this.
No, not combative, really... I might just say that you're not really listening to what's being said, and aren't really looking past what you think things should be like.
Ok. im armored up, got my weapons and I head out on to the battle field. Im engaged with the opponent, what are my odds of either of us being pulled to the ground..
Very, very, very, very, very, very small. If that.
Secondly, I must rememeber this was a supplemental art, not a primary art,
In some systems, not in all... and more frequently it was a primary focus from the 17th Century onwards.
thusly its not going to cover all areas..
No martial art does.
Lastly, as you said before, some schools focused on different things. As you said there were schools in all points in between the training spectrum of techniques. I was surprised to learn of striking in Jujutsu.
I could probably show you a whole range of things that you wouldn't expect in "jujutsu" systems... large weaponry syllabus', for instance... not to mention combative actions that go almost completely against what you'd picture when you hear "jujutsu"... like this:
Now, that's actually a training exercise....here's some of their kata:
How close to what you'd call Jujutsu did that look?
How about this one?
Ground grappling had to exist in some of the old arts some were, or it would not exist in any form today.
Uh... why would you think that?
The question is, how technical it was or wasn't back then.
No, the question is why you think it was there in any real form at all. Mainly as this started when you asked if the impression you were getting (that it really wasn't present in traditional Japanese systems) was correct, and you were told it was... since then, you've been arguing that you think it should have been, despite the fact (repeated a number of times now) that it just wasn't. Really. It wasn't there. What some (note here, SOME) systems had included methods of pinning (osae waza), but that was rarely involving both of you on the ground... more commonly, someone was held on the ground, and the performing partner was kneeling or standing above them... or a small range of "finishing" techniques applied on the ground... but not "ground fighting". That was more commonly from suwari waza (seated techniques), and would involve bringing someone down to finish them. Ne waza (ground techniques) are more about engaging someone on the ground... and that simply wasn't present in traditional Jujutsu arts. One more time here... it simply wasn't present there. Continually stating that you think it should have been, or asking something like "how technical it was or wasn't", with the assumption that you are in fact correct that it was there (despite being repeatedly told that you're not), is to firstly deny the reality, and secondly, to ignore the very answer you asked for.
Apparently this aspect of fighting was very informal, and more of a after thought if it was even brought up at all.
Where on earth did you get that from?!?!
I also feel that we don't know as much about the warriors back then. I doubt they only studied a few arts. I feel that perhaps in there own they may have explored that aspect. Maybe not, but honestly we will probably never know the whole truth.
Completely, thoroughly, totally wrong. Japanese society is one of the most complete with regard to documentation, and that goes triple for the official groupings, which, of course, included the samurai/warriors, who were the ruling group throughout most of Japan's history. Add to that the fact that many Daimyo (feudal rulers) would reward their samurai for attaining ranking in a variety of arts, and not documenting what they were training in would be the equivalent of not claiming working hours, so you don't get paid.
We have many, many records, from many, many domains, covering pretty much everything you might want. It could help to remember that, after the Tokugawa Shogunate began, the samurai were primarily administrative... and they wrote everything down.
Thinking of my own past experiences, I have been in 2 real fights. In both cases, the altercation went to the ground, were I lost. Of course one anecdotal story does not prove anything. I just remember being totally lost in those situations and not liking it. Not knowing how to escape while that bullie had his way with me was not a good thing.
Well, you're right in saying that two anecdotal stories don't really prove anything... I mean, I've been in four times as many fights, up to and including a five on one assault, and haven't had any of them go to the ground. But I will say that your use of the term "bullies" implies that these stories came from your youth... and, frankly, that doesn't really qualify to me as being representative of real violence (in terms of street assaults, or the contexts of martial arts), if that's the case. I can understand the feelings (and fear) that such a situation can generate, but it's really not indicative of the nature of violence, more representative of dominance play.
While, as I stated in my fight response thread, I don't think I need to devote a massive amount of time, I just want to have some sort of a plan, or way to deal with being there should I end up there again. I feel it at least a little bit prudent to do so. My coach tells us, to avoid it all times, though he teaches us how to survive there, incase we do. Tho honestly our primary training goal is to get back to our feet, only fighting on the ground if last resort.
Right... none of which has any bearing on whether or not 500 year old Japanese systems focus on, or really even have ground fighting in them. Again, I'm going to suggest that you leave your personal beliefs behind here, as they're leading you away from hearing the actual reality.
There is a Bujinkan budo taijitsu school in my area. Some of the arts that make it up, have a long line back including some samurai arts. Im hoping to drop by and ask him some questions as well. Maybe he can shed some light on it for me in some way.
Uh... have you seen the signature on the bottom of my posts? My organisation was the original Bujinkan school in Australia, and, although we left them in 2001, we base our methods in the arts taught there. I know the methods of all the Ryu (traditional schools) contained there, and there is absolutely no ne waza in any of them... Koto Ryu, Gyokko Ryu, Togakure Ryu, and Kukishinden Ryu don't even have any seated techniques. Shinden Fudo Ryu and Takagi Yoshin Ryu have some seated, but no ground work (other than the occasional pinning method as mentioned earlier, with the defender kneeling or standing over the attacker, or, even more rarely, utilizing a finishing action, such as a break or a choke [Shinden Fudo Ryu, Koto Ryu, Takagi Yoshin Ryu, with the forms found in Koto and Takagi there being from a standing technique, not a ground method). That said, the Bujinkan is very free, and many instructors add to these traditional methods, so some include some ground work... but that doesn't mean it's traditional, or from any of the arts taught there.
Chris what happens if you get into a altercation in real life and end up getting knocked or pulled to the ground, does your art prepare you to deal with that? If so, what is your arts plan? Im honestly curious, I would love to know what other arts take on this is.
Similar to the way you describe your coaches approach... but possibly with a different technical slant.
Look, I'm going to try to sum things up here for you. Traditional Japanese systems did not feature ground fighting. It would be a bad idea in the context of these arts. There was really no use for things such as the mount, as, combatively speaking, when in armour, it leaves you in a very immobile position, and would lead to the practitioners being killed. The only time it really becomes feasible is in a competitive arena, as there is not as much risk, and the time can be devoted to develop the skills. In fact, the better sources to look to for old, traditional ground work, are the Western ones... not for any combative applications, but for their tournament scene, where there were a large number of different competitive events, including grappling events, as well as competitive wrestling in many places throughout Europe. Japan just didn't really have that... Sumo would be the closest. And that has no ground work at all. Arguing that you think they should have them is, bluntly, pointless. They didn't. End of story.