I agree on Deadliest Warrior, and I don't even think it was popcorn worthy.
Ha, agreed...
As far as steel, you're right Japan had it by the Samurai age (from Chinese methods IIRC). I'm not too educated when it comes to Japanese arms, focus in more on mainland Asia.
Wood and leather though, I've read that all over. I had it in my head the armor was composite of leather with wood pieces and maybe small pieces of steel, but you're saying there was more steel than I believed.
Thanks for clarifying.
So where would the wood be in the armor? Not plating?
Japanese samurai armor is typically made up of many small parts and a wide variety of materials. Steel, leather, and wood typically form the protective plating, which may be composed of many small sections laced together using leather or silk cord. Lacquer is then applied over the parts to hide the construction beneath a smooth, glossy surface. The leg and arm guards might be made from chain link or plating, stitched to richly decorated silks and leathers.
With sumptuous textiles, detailed lacquerwork and forged steel components, a suit of Japanese samurai armor is an extraordinarily complex construction of craftsmanship and beauty.
collections.asianart.org
No, not in plating. The plates (kozane) would typically be steel, occasionally toughened and lacquered leather, but never wood. That's a really, really bad choice, as it's too inconsistent, too thick and weighty if any real protection is to be offered, and just badly suited across the board. The only wooden aspects to yoroi that I can think of are occasionally to create the crests and structures on the helmet (kabuto), forming things like simulated horns and so on, and the yoroi bitsu (box, which also typically contains a wooden frame for display). I've never seen, nor heard of any armour being made with wooden plating at all. Bamboo is also sometimes cited, which is only used in kendo bogu, not in actual armour.
The description of the suneate and kote (shin and arm protectors) is correct... there are a number of different forms and designs, but the essence is splints linked by chain mesh then stitched to a silk or cotton base. There would be a thicker brocade (kikko, named for tortoise-shell patterns) at the knee as well, in most forms. Very occasionally, the splints were wide enough to remove the chain links, but they were considered heavy and unwieldy without adding much actual protection, so they weren't very common.
What I meant by authority wasn't governance, but the authority of verifiable lineage (to some degree). ie people that can back up even half of what they claim.
Okay. That's not how I read it, so thanks for the clarification. Again, though, other than internal to the individual art, that's not really possible... in fact, the issues with trying to regulate such things is a large part of the "no fraud-busting" rules here.
For example, Bucksam Kong, Frank Yee, and Chiu Chi Ling are three authorities on Wong Fei Hung's lineage of Hung Ga Kuen, one of the most famous martial arts in Chinese history. They promote an art with verifiable Shaolin links, even though a lot of it is surrounded by questionable folk history and tall tales, the art itself is legitimately historical.
Similar people exist for various Karate styles, Filipino martial arts, and so on. When it comes to Judo, there is a massive network of authoritative teachers, both in and out of the Kodokan.
Which is great and, I think, a sign of each art's rich history.
Is it?
Frank Dux trained with Senzo Tanaka, a master of Yamabushi Ryu Ninjitsu, teaching Frank the secrets of the Dim Mak, and allowing his to be successful in an underground tournament when he was in the CIA. This lineage goes back centuries to Japan... except Frank made it all up.
James Williams founded the Nami Ryu, based in the teachings of Don Angier, head of the Yanagi Ryu Aikijutsu. Don, in turn, learnt the school from a Japanese ex-pat named Yoshida, who taught him this old art. Don took the art as he was taught it, and restructured it to create the Yanagi Ryu as taught... except Yoshida isn't someone there's a lot of evidence for, and the manner and methodology doesn't match the way Japanese koryu work, so....?
Tony Ball here in Australia teaches the Fudoshin Ryu, an art created by his friend and mentor, Bob Lawrence in the UK, who synthesised the art after studying a range of arts in Japan, such as Takenouchi Ryu, Katori Shinto Ryu, Judo, Karate, Aikido, and more. Except he didn't, and it's all made up, based in basic Judo, karate, and some completely fabricated weaponry methods. Tony's son, Darren, goes to Japan regularly to find the origins of his art, and always comes back with great photos, discussions, and memories, but no trace of the history he's been taught (villages that don't exist, arts that never were).
Sokaku Takeda was taught Ono-ha Itto Ryu and a form of "oshiki uchi", often described as "secret teachings" (not what the term means... it's a religious term from a particular Buddhist sect, and has nothing to do with martial arts) from his father, with the oshiki teachings claimed to be from Minamoto Yoshitsune, in the 12th Century... except it wasn't, and he was the founder.
Hatsumi trained with Takamatsu, who claimed much of his arts to have come from his uncle (or grandfather), Toda Shinryuken, a sword instructor in one of the Shoguns' schools, and teacher of Shinden Fudo Ryu. This is where the Togakure Ryu, Gyokko Ryu, Gikan Ryu, Koto Ryu, Shinden Fudo Ryu, and Kumogakure Ryu are said to have come from in the Bujinkan... except there is no definite evidence that Toda ever existed, let alone held the arts, or taught Takamatsu.
The point is that any art can claim a history, and, while some are easy to pull apart, others get quite difficult... Daito Ryu is a very technical and impressive school, and forms the technical basis for Ueshiba's Aikido, so is it benefited or hindered by its questionable history? How about Hapkido, where Choi claimed to have lived with Takeda, and got more detailed instruction that Takeda's own son (Tokimune), even though the only evidence seems to indicate him attending one or two seminars with Ueshiba, then claiming to have lost his documentation on the train in Japan before returning to Korea? Does that mean that Hapkido doesn't have credibility, with it's history not being what is claimed? What about TKD claiming 2000 years of history stemming from a kids game (Tae-kyon)?
The idea of having a lineage and history is great... but also easily faked. And there is no governing authority to determine the credibility or validity of such... so, no, there is no authority that any art has over any other either. And the authority any single art has over its own promotion is just that... internal.
THIS set of arts does seem to be unique in that the authoritative sources seem to distill down to a single point. In other words, Hatsumi is not one of several. HE is unique in the sense that nobody else in the world seems to really come close, and everyone I know of who also claims to be a lineage holder in these areas is either an outright fraud or has nowhere near the level of appreciation when it comes to students. Even Kano himself is not the only authority on the art he taught, because he formed it from older ryu. So Kano was more of a focal point than a capstone, in the sense Hatsumi seems to be.
No, I'd disagree with that. Most classical Japanese systems have their total authority centred in a single person... for Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, the one person is the current soke, presently Kajiya Takanori, the 12th soke of the school. For Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, the current soke is Iizasa Shurinosuke Yasusada, 20th generation soke of the school, who is the ultimate authority as to who is or is not in the school, even though he doesn't practice himself (his son in law, and successor, Iizasa Kota, does practice, for the record). Within the Genbukan, Tanemura Shoto is the single authority, and within the Jinenkan, it's Manaka Unsui. We could look to Tatsumi Ryu, and Kato Hiroshi-sensei, or Yagyu Koichi-sensei being the current soke of Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, Otsuka Yasusada as the second generation soke of Meifu Shinkage Ryu, and so on and so forth.
When it comes to Hatsumi, he was said to be the last student of Takamatsu Toshitsugu, which is really where these arts come from (hence the name Takamatsuden, or "transmissions from Takamatsu). He was not the only student, with others such as Sato Kinbei, Kimura Masaji, and others teaching their own smaller groups, nor was he the end of the line, with a number of his senior students leaving to form new organisations (Tanemura with the Genbukan, Manaka with the Jinenkan), as well as an array of Western students who left for various reasons, often continuing in their practice outside of the main organisation (Brian McCarthy, Peter Brown, Wayne Roy, Stephen Hayes, and more), with varying levels of success and influence.
What puts Hatsumi in his position is, more than anything else, his marketability, and willingness to exploit that. He had a product that was in the right place at the right time to capitalise on interest in the West, and seized the opportunity with both hands. One could argue that his approach was more about growing his base than growing the quality, but this is a value judgement. What is not something that can realistically be denied is that he was incredibly successful in gaining huge numbers of students and members, resulting in a large organisation that spanned the world, and, really, well done him on that. What went along with that, though, is something of a cult of personality revolving around Hatsumi... something that he himself seemed to welcome... where he is seemingly beyond reproach or criticism, and all manner of flaws are excused away. This also creates a structure where he is seen as above all others (Hatsumi on the top, everyone else below), which sees recent events such as the handing over of sokeship a largely toothless gesture, as all it did was split a fractured powerbase, keeping Hatsumi on top... it's something I consider a sad state of affairs, but is not really unique, sad to say.
And I think that explains the big power vacuum that people exploit. Imagine if all of Judo went back to ONE person, who claimed to be the lineage holder and probably was legit. There would be ample space open for any charlatan, fraud, or even well intended Youtube trained ninja master to step in to claim the throne.
Don't we see this all the time with ninjutsu? In the absence of a lot of verifiable sources, anybody can make stuff up and say it's tradition.
Hmm... arguably, it's easier with several "sources"... if there's only one, it's simple to check. If you want to know my, or any other claimed representatives of Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu's actual status, you just need to check with Kajiya-soke in Japan (really, check with the hombu, who acts as his authority in that sense). If I claim to be a part of the school, but he says "never heard of the guy", then you have questions that need answers... now, if I claim to be a practitioner of "Musashi Ryu Ni Ken Jutsu" (the REAL art of Musashi, trust me, don't believe those other guys who claim he didn't use 5 feet long chopsticks to defeat the great dragon of Eastern Mozambique...), and the reason Kajiya-sensei hasn't heard of me is that it's a different school, well, now we have to determine if the story checks out... but it's outside of the authority of HNIR to say that I'm wrong...
In an effort to steer the conversation away from "you don't know what you're talking about", "no, you don't know what you're talking about"...
You've often expressed ideas like the ones I've quoted above, indicating that the arts present in the X-kans and their offshoots are not intended for or well suited for modern self-defense and should not be judged by that standard. (You've also made the larger argument that all martial arts are really only suited for a specific context and that functional crossover to other contexts is limited. That's a discussion/argument we might productively have at another time.)
Ha, this is why I like you, Tony... and, yeah, it's all martial arts. By definition, really. But we can go back and forth over that later, if you'd like...
My question to you is, setting aside what the X-Kan arts are not suited for, can you explain your view on what they are suited for? Specifically, what skills, attributes, and/or values are developed through training in these arts and how do you measure whether those skills, attributes, and/or values are being successfully developed by the practitioner? What sort of limitations do you see for the student and teacher in accurately determining whether these skills, attributes, and/or values are being developed? In addition, what would you say is the value to the modern student in developing these things?
(I'm tempted to offer examples of how I would answer these questions with regard to my studies of contrasting arts like BJJ and HEMA, but that might be a bit of a derail for this thread, so I'll reserve that for later if anyone expresses an interest.)
This is one hell of a question, and deserves a fully structured answer. I'll see how I go in that regard, because a lot of it is "I know it when I see it"...
The first thing to discuss is what a martial art is, and what a martial art isn't. First and foremost, a martial art is a codified methodology of studying and training in physical combative methods, which is borne out of and based in particular cultural expressions of violence and social structure, informed primarily by the point of origin of the art itself. They require a consistency (internally) in order to operate without conflict, and are centred in a particular context that the art was designed to operate within. What a martial art isn't is an answer to problems and situations outside of its context. It is not a random assortment of disparate "techniques", hoping that that will give you the magic answer to the mythical "street attacker" you hear about. In fact, techniques are the least important... they aren't the martial art itself, they are simply the way the art is expressed; the way it is trained, and studied.
What do I mean by that? Well, a common complaint is that x martial art is only really good against x martial art... as the art in question tends dominantly to only train against itself (BJJ train against BJJ, Judo against Judo, karate against karate attacks, and so on). While that is true, using that as a complaint only shows a deep ignorance of how the training, and the arts themselves, work. Of course they do. They're meant to.
Training in a martial art is a way of training a very particular mind-set. That mind-set is contingent on the various aspects mentioned (social structure, culture, and context), and different arts will promote different mind-sets. A sporting art will develop and promote a particular mind-set that is both different and unsuited to a different system, to the point that it will be detrimental to the development of a practitioner who attempts to apply the same to both. One of my guys trains in the BJJ class that runs just prior to my own classes starting, and he was talking to one of the BJJ guys recently, who commented that he was interested by the meditation we go through at the beginning of class. "Oh, yeah", said my student, "it helps me get into the right mind-set. I go out of a competitive, protective mentality when training in BJJ, and into a 'ready to kill' mentality for the other class". The BJJ guys was a bit taken aback, and asked "You don't really think like that, do you?" "Well, yeah... swords are great, but they're not exactly something you use to be nice to someone with."
As a result, the training requires consistency above all else. This is why the arts practice against themselves... it's required for the real benefits (mental training) to be effective in its aims, so the practice needs to be the same on both sides. No matter which part of the training you're doing, it should be reinforcing the mentality and values of the system itself. Those values then inform the principles, which are then expressed via the context and cultural/social grounding of the system itself. What all this means, when it comes down to it, is that you need to be familiar with the cultural, social, and contextual structures and foundations of the system in order to understand what its aims are, and what it's designed for.
When we look at something like the Bujinkan, it gets a little convoluted, honestly, as the organisation/art seems to want to be all things to all people, which we know doesn't work... but it allows members to believe that it's suited for their own beliefs about what it's supposed to be for, regardless of the veracity of that belief. It is, at once, traditional Japanese martial arts, modern applications for self defence, a creative expression, an art based in body action, a widely varied weaponry system, a place for high rank, and one where rank doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is that it's kinda none of those... it's been Westernised to the point of only having the surface trappings of being Japanese, it's only superficially traditional, being far more modern than most will admit, it's based on stylised (semi-traditional... perhaps quasi is a better term) set of physical postures, strikes, and grappling actions, as well as archaic weapons, mixed with creative applications of modern ones... so, really, what the Bujinkan offers is a place where you can feel empowered in your own belief system, or fantasy. The ranking system then supports this by offering ever-increasing Dan grades, followed by Shihan status, then Dai-shihan status above that... as this inflated ranking system is difficult, if not impossible, to equate to skill, it ceases to do any such thing, allowing those that want rank to pursue it, and those that don't to denigrate the idea...
The Genbukan, on the other hand, is a bit different... it strives to also fulfill fantasy of training in classical (samurai and ninja) martial arts, but goes about it in an almost opposite fashion. Instead, it seeks to support this idea by having much more rigid training protocols, sense of hierarchy, and strict performance of technical materials. Catch is, of course, that this is not based in how classical arts are actually trained... such ideas are much more a WWII-influenced (and post-war) aim to prepare youth to be good soldiers than the way martial arts were genuinely trained. It also seeks to fill the image of "traditional Japanese martial arts", but goes a bit too severe, honestly.
In both cases, they are about filling a desire to "be" something that, largely, is a fantasy. And, to be clear, that's perfectly fine. The vast majority of practitioners will never need to employ physical skills in a real world situation, so such things can be good for the ego, confidence, sense of balance, and sensitivity with others around them. And the X-Kans are far from alone in this, of course. Most martial arts are filling a similar (imagined) requirement for most people, at least when they start them. From there, it's up to the individual to find their own value in them, as a reason to continue.
That may seem a bit dismissive of the X-kan approaches and offerings, and, honestly, I don't intend it to be... obviously, there are any number of values that people find in these arts and organisations. I suppose my take is based more on what is being aped, contrasted with the actual, which means that the benefits and values I find there are seemingly missing in the X-kans. And, I suppose that takes us to the values and benefits I find in more "authentic" classical and traditional Japanese arts.
Before we go too much further, for the sake of context, let's cover my background briefly. I started with karate in the late 80's, before studying Tae-kwon Do for a few years. I entered the Bujinkan via Wayne Roy's schools in the early 90's, gaining my Shodan in 1998. I also spent some time (in cases, a few months, sometimes a couple of years) studying BJJ, boxing, RBSD approaches, Kyudo, and occasional forays into Aikido, Judo, Wing Chun, and a number of others, most commonly as one-off or a few casual sessions. By the late 2000's, I was becoming highly interested in koryu (the classical samurai arts of Japan), and began my study of Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, and Muso Shinden Ryu as formal practice, along with casual training in Jodo, Seitei Iaido, and some seminars with Hontai Yoshin Ryu, visits to other koryu teachers and classes, such as Tenshin Buko Ryu (then Toda-ha Buko Ryu) and Tatsumi Ryu, striking up friendships with practitioners of a number of these systems. A few years ago, I also began a formal study of Shinto Muso Ryu Jodo. My current practice is my Takamatsuden Jujutsu practice, into which I have incorporated my Muso Shinden Ryu and related studies, Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu, in which I hold the position as the Australian representative, Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, and Shinto Muso Ryu. As can be seen, I've spent time in modern and traditional/classical arts, competitive and non, unarmed and armed, from a range of sources over the past 3 and a half decades, in addition to my more academic studies related to the martial traditions.
Throughout this period, I've spent quite a fair amount of my time examining the core of martial arts, and what they are about, as well as the concept of self defence, and if they're the same thing, or even related (the answer there is no, for the record). And, one thing I've found to be true beyond all others, is that a martial system has to be absolutely consistent in all facets for it to have value. The physical has to match the intent and mentality, the philosophical outlook has to be reflected in the tactics, the training and teaching methodology has to express the beliefs and values of the school, and so on. In koryu arts, the entirety of the art supports the rest... the first clue you have about how the ryu thinks is found in the reiho (etiquette methods). These methods show a variety of aspects of a school, ranging from who the school is expecting to encounter, how it treats them, what context it will be in, what weapons may be expected to be needing to be dealt with, whether the school considers the opponent an equal, a lesser, or a threat, and far more. For each school, this will be unique, even if the actions are seen as similar with others, as the mind-set is unique to that school, and this is one of the most obvious ways the X-kans demonstrate their lack... the Bujinkan has barely any, with a (commonly) rushed Shinto-based bow/clap at the beginning and end of class, and little beyond that, while the Genbukan goes the other way, treating it with a reverence beyond the expected, making a show of how serious they're being. And, while the Genbukan will often differentiate reiho from ryu-ha to ryu-ha, the actual practice of it makes it more of a performance than a real application reflecting the ryu-ha itself.
I could go on, but we're tracking back over old discussions here... and, as said, this is really a case of "I know it when I see it", which, to be clear, only works when you can see it. The point is that you need to look at what is consistent in any art to figure out what the reality of the art actually is. For the Bujinkan, that is a sense of freedom and creativity... which has its benefits, and its issues. The Genbukan has its consistency in its more strict approach, seemingly offering very little personal expression in how a school is run, how classes are structured, and how techniques are performed. You'll note that nothing I mentioned there is really about the skills developed in each organisation, certainly not much about combative skill-sets, as that's not the key thing martial arts develop, even though most look to them as the main expression (they're far more important in sporting systems, but even there, I would suggest that they form an important base to apply the real mentality of the system).
I'm going to leave off how such things are assessed and measured in these organisations, as, to be blunt, I see them as missing key aspects, so the measuring is a moot point... essentially measuring something that's basically there in image only. Instead, I'll talk about koryu, and answer your questions with that in mind, as that's largely what the X-kans are attempting to imitate (value/trait-wise, at least).
As I've already alluded to, the real strength and benefits that these arts seek to imbue in their practitioners are psychological, relating to mental outlook and perception of the world around you. Obviously, this is different from school to school (my mentality in my Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu is different to when I'm training in Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, and different again for Shinto Muso Ryu or Muso Shinden Ryu... my Takamatsuden practice is also based on this, with each ryu being distinct in its attitude and mentality, which is the biggest way I differentiate my practice there from any of the X-kans). SMR, for example, focuses on preparing the practitioner to be able to move forward and engage a potentially lethal threat (a swordsman), armed with an "inferior" weapon... its aim is to give its members a mind-set that engenders that form of courage. Katori Shinto Ryu, on the other hand, is about controlling the engagement from the get-go... it's a meeting of equals (whereas there is a power imbalance in SMR), and seeks to prevent the opponent from being able to directly move against you, giving the idea of always positioning yourself in a way that you cannot be safely attacked, you are always strong, and guarded. Not so much about attacking, but about not being able to be attacked. HNIR is the opposite... it seeks to control the distance and pressure, forcing the opponent into attacking so you can take advantage. It teaches to not rush into engagement and leave yourself open, but to force the opponent to do that to themselves. Finally, MSR (this is a little tricky, as there are really three ryu-ha within MSR in the first place) is about moving in between the cracks and seizing each and every momentary opportunity to overwhelm and strike the enemy.
Each of these schools has their own way of dealing with an antagonistic situation (symbolised by combative techniques), imparting a particular approach, mentally, psychologically, tactically, and so on. The techniques are then used to assess how well the mental aspects are embodied in the person... how much do they hesitate? How open are they to attack? How do they control the distance? How immediately do they take advantage of the smallest opening? These become dependent on the technique, clearly, with various kata giving different expressions of the underlying mentality of the school, but that should be ever-present. The late Nitta-sensei of (then) Toda-ha Buko Ryu (now Tenshin Buko Ryu) said that the spirit of the school is to crush the enemy in front of them... if you're not doing that, with that intent, you're not doing Buko Ryu, no matter how "exact" your kata is. How is it assessed? By having someone who has fully embraced and embodied it, and can recognise it in others movements.
This, of course, leads lastly to how this benefits modern practitioners... and the answer, of course, is "it depends". What is their personality like in the first place? What is their mentality? Are they timid, and need to develop their courage? Are they unbalanced, and need to work on their ability to stop in place? Do they let opportunity pass them by, and want to be more "carpe diem"? The point is that this is mental work, so the idea of the techniques being "self defence" (impossible, again, for any martial art to be such) is quite irrelevant. Even the idea of the kata being combatively effective, outside of the context of the kata, is not something overly important. This is the same if it's a koryu sword art, a modern karate-ka doing their solo kata, or a BJJ exponent rolling in a competition. The biggest difference is that, in the classical arts, we don't pretend it's about self defence... sword arts rarely are... but many modern arts think they are meant to be, so try to justify their idea that that's what they're about. They're not. And the sooner practitioners realise that, the sooner they come to experience the wider value.
Our big conflict here with Omar is his feeling that that's what martial arts are meant to be for... and his aim to find as many sources for as many technical answers as he can, thinking that's how it's supposed to work. That means that there's a lack of real consistency, and no real mentality and understanding guiding anything. His own website states that "while Jujutsu serves as the cornerstone of our hand-to-hand combat training, our system also integrates Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Boxing, Taekwon-Do, and a diverse array of weapons disciplines"... and that, simply, doesn't work.
I'm not sure that this is the best example, since all* of Judo does go back to a single person, Jigaro Kano, who created Judo based on his experience with historical arts which were significantly different from the art that Kano created.
*"All" in the sense that all of Judo descends from a lineage that began with Kano, not that he personally created all the techniques, tactics, and training methods which have been used in Judo over the last 141 years.
Other than that I don't know that I'd class them as "significantly different", considering the Koshiki no Kata essentially is Kito Ryu, and the Itsutsu no Kata is taken almost identically from Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, with the majority of the technical material being either derived directly, or greatly influenced by the methodologies of those two systems, I completely agree that it all comes back to Kano. What he did was to (almost accidentally) create a new teaching methodology, a synthesising of his educational work and his martial study, with the aim of creating a singular way for all practitioners of various arts to train together. Eventually, that method of having all systems (or, at least, many systems) having a generic, shared training syllabus/methodology would come to be it's own thing, being Kodokan Judo... but, yes, definitely all from the one man in a very real way.
I updated my post regarding this as an afterthought....but like you said Kano didn't invent anything.
Well... yes, he did. He created the Kime no Kata, the Katame no Kata, various others, he created a new training structure and ranking methodology, and more. He synthesised a number of methods from previous arts (most notably Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu and Kito Ryu, but others had influence as well), but that, in itself, is another form of creation
He organized previous material into a new curriculum (based AFAIK primarily on two older arts). He modified certain things for safety. But he's like a focal lens from past to present. Not a hierarchial figure that was "the only living" blah blah blah. If he never existed, you could still find practically everything in judo in some older jujutsu school somewhere.
Sort of... it wasn't the technical side that was his real offering... that was more about having a general, universal, simplified way of practicing a number of things that were (at least superficially) shared by the majority of schools at the time (that he dealt with). It really was Kano, with his education background, that lead to Judo becoming what it is, and the only reason he wasn't "the only living" etc was that that was his decision. He was listed as the only Shihan of Judo, for example, and the Kodokan actually employs the closest to the historical application of the soke position out of all martial arts (martial arts actually do it a bit unorthodoxically, for the record). To that point, the Kodokan has a President, who is seen to be the head of the organisation, very much like a soke in a classical school... and, as can be expected, there is only one living at a time...
There was still a long history of jujutsu masters behind him, with verifiable lineage.
Well... he was only about 3rd generation in Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu... it was a fairly new school at the time... it, of course, traces itself back through other schools, but that's almost besides the point, which we'll see next...
This was always important in jujutsu, name recognition is what "ryu" are all about.
Actually, no, it's not. That's a much more modern idea.
Trying to trace back a particular school, especially when people start with this idea of a founder passes on the school to their successor, who passes on to their successor, and so on, in a linear fashion, is fraught with issues and problems. What was more common was that someone would come up with a way of expressing their ideas on combative principles and ideas, and they would teach this to a number of students as their own system (ryu). These students may then continue to teach the same thing, with their own ideas being brought in (within the construct of the school), or they would create their own new art (ryu), by bringing in other influences and aspects. These may continue, or survive, with new branches and schools being created with each generation... what we have today, with specific ryu, with defined headmasters, are, in many cases, just the lines or branches that survived. At the time, there may be a dozen or so ryu with the same lineage, in the most part, but the recognition is more about the teacher at the time. Now, they may talk about their teacher, if that teacher or school (location) were well known, but not necessarily.
Shimizu Takaji was considered the "unofficial" 25th head of Shinto Muso Ryu, with his teacher, Shiraishi Hanjiro being the 24th... except Shiraishi's listing was by counting up the various heads of around three separate lines of the school that he learnt from different teachers (the ones that had survived up to that point), and came up with a more unified form for the school. Were there really a list of 23 previous heads in a linear manner back to Muso Gonnosuke? No. There were 12 in one line... 14 in another... 9 in another. By taking out the shared names, there were 23 individual ones, hence, 24th head of the school... in fact, after Gonnosuke, there was no singular head of Shinto Muso Ryu at any point up to Shiraishi... same as Judo, really...
And of course since his death, nowadays we have thousands of authoritative teachers. Sure, Kano is probably on a wall picture at each of those places, but in the case of Hatsumi it's different. As soon as you get past him, things get very murky.
There have been a grand total of 15 10th Dan holders in Judo... the Bujinkan has lord-knows-how-many 15th Dan and Dai Shihan...
As far as "getting murky past Hatsumi", not really, before Hatsumi is Takamatsu (and Ueno Takashi, but that's another story...). It's before Takamatsu that things get harder to find...
And that murkiness is, imho, the source of a lot of the controversy.
The pre-Takamatsu question certainly doesn't help... it's not unique, but it's not helpful...
Even Chris points this out, a lot of what passes for "modern" ninjutsu is fabricated made up stuff from the 20th century.
Sort of... what I said is that much of the approach of the Bujinkan is not really based in classical arts, even when it is (Takagi Ryu, Kukishin Ryu)... there are major questions as to the historical veracity of a large proportion of the Bujinkan (and Genbukan, and Jinenkan) ryu-ha, but more to the point, the manner of teaching shows a lack of distinction as indicated above. Honestly, I don't know that much was "made up", more reconstructed and re-labelled... some created, sure, but often from some credible material in the first place. The lack of ryu-ha transmission, on the other hand, further convalutes the whole thing, making it harder to see what exactly is what...
Whatever legitimate old samurai arts are there are covered in generations of muck that require someone with a hell of a lot of free time to research.
Again, sort of. They can be identified (in their basis), but aren't continued in the same manner, meaning they realistically don't exist anymore there. The new soke are, frankly, paper titles only.
And always, always, just like right now, you have two people (chris and yam) claiming the other hasn't done their research. I know which horse my money is on, though
That I leave up to the readers.