cxt

I think we may have some differences in our terminology.
I refer “kata” to one-person activities, “in the air” as someone previous described it on this forum. (“Training is usually practiced in solo form (kata), but also has partner forms (kumetachi” http://home.stny.rr.com/iama/az.html ).

Then we have a “drill”, which is done with a partner. This implies the application of the kata. It’s there to practice timing, footwork, distancing, against a real person, to put things into perspective. This is rarely done full force/speed.

Then there are more complex drills like Migi. This incorporates several techniques, ie techniques from 3 different kata can be put together in a drill, and this drill is circular. We often start doing these stop-start, even our 3rd dan. Then gradually we speed up if we have the skill or ability. No one aimlessly bludgeons.

I don’t agree that “pulling” (and I’m assuming you mean “pulling back from hitting) detracts from the genuality (probably not a word but hey) of the attack. All of our higher grades are capable putting their all (speed, strength etc) into a cut and then either slowing down drastically or stopping when they predict that their opponent will not block successfully. I’m beginning to get to this stage too. We all know our limits however, and no one will do something they can’t, ie, I will not go full speed/force against a lower ranked student because I know that if they stuff up I might hit them.

“Free sparring” to me is Randori. An attack is made, and the opponent has to counter it. This is done stop-start almost right through to 3rd Kyu, or not even then if you haven’t got the skill. I associate the name Randori with RANDOM, and that’s basically what it is. I do it half-speed or ¾ speed at this stage, and Randori is a drill in which there are the LEAST cuts and bruises.

Now, getting to my original post, now that I have given some background information. Maybe I was wrong in implying that our STYLE is fully traditional. I’m yet to research that, but in this area our school is known for striving to be as genuine as possible. What IS traditional, is the STRATEGIES our sensei uses to teach. As a student teacher I can refer this to constructivism, ie, we learn through experience when ever we can. I have an example in which 7 months ago, for the life of me, I couldn’t do a proper Muko block. I was TOLD and explained about how to do it. But until I was put into the situation of someone actually making the cut, it was all pretty abstract to me. I did not even pick it up when a student just went through the motions of cutting and then stopped at my sword so that it LOOKED as if I had blocked properly. That didn’t teach me anything, that was like denial.

Then I was paired up with someone who actually made an ‘intentional’ cut. No only did I not block, but my knuckles didn’t appreciate it much. However, that experience taught me what I was doing wrong. And now, even though my Muko block is not exactly perfect, I can deflect the blade sufficiently without getting cut.

We sometimes learn the hard way, yes, and it’s through this that sometimes things get ‘rough’, but never are they malicious. So even if whatever style is taught is not done 100% as the Japanese did it way back when, our school still has elements of the traditional discipline methods. Here are a few excerpts to illustrate my point:

“The koryu (as we sometimes say for short), on the other hand, were primarily arts created by and for the warrior class of Japan's feudal period. A few traditions still exist that were actually used on the battlefields of pre-Tokugawa Japan, and in these systems effectiveness of the killing technique is still paramount.”

“For the most part, however, the techniques of the koryu still retain an element of danger; protective gear is typically not used. Safety is less important than efficacy; though wooden weapons are usually used in place of live steel blades, these can still do considerable damage if an error is made, and one learns to function out at the edge.”
http://www.koryu.com/koryu.html

“Our self-protection method is a very ancient Japanese discipline of warrior skills forged in a dangerous time when brutal assailants felt that no type of attack was out of the question. Therefore, we and our spiritual ancestors have had to emphasize a total system of self-protection without the rule limits of the newer sport and recreation martial arts.”

http://home.stny.rr.com/iama/az.html

You don't get to define what 'traditional Japanese Sword Arts' means. It's not simply the way you are taught.

Koryu are defined by the connection to those who have gone before. If you have no idea who that is, you have no idea if what you're doing is koryu.

I like your quotes. Do you think they support your thinking that your school is traditional? How about this part that you didn't quote:

Quote:

---

Classical traditions (however you date them) do have several defining characteristics. They were developed by and for the bushi, or warrior class, and they have some sort of lineage that runs back through each headmaster or menkyo kaiden (or equivalent) to the founder of the tradition. This is the "stream" of the tradition; although there may be branches (in some traditions each generation was expected to found their own "sub-tradition"), in general the structure is one of a single "flow" from one (usually) head instructor through students to the next generation. The student-teacher relationship is central to transmission of techniques, and these techniques were initially designed to ensure victory on the battlefield. Systems that don't exhibit all these characteristics are quite likely not koryu.

---

Where does your flow come from? Who taught your sensei, and how is he connected to the head of the style? That's what we've been asking all along, and it's right there on the page you quoted to show how traditional you are.

Folks -

I think we are getting a bit off-topic here. Marishiten's original post was about training methodology. She was asking opinions on training with resistance and use of bokken doing so. If you wish to question her instructor's lineage, perhaps a thread should be started?

Matt,

I'm not sure I agree. Understanding her lineage and the ultimate source for her ideas helps to add perspective and context to the points she is trying to make about the topic at hand.

Ie. Training methodology is very much wrapped up in ryu-ha and lineage.

It's pretty clear, that her 'lineage', obscure, legitimate or fake, allows for this training methodology. If you think that there can be no comparison within a limited sphere of 'approved' koryu...perhaps the thread should be moved?

Marshiten

The differences in terminology is one of the reasons I see "red flags" here.

Kata, in terms of japanese koryu, always refers to a two person exercise that involves all the major cuts, thrusts, parries, footwork etc that the ryu teachs.

It usually IS done at "full force and full speed"--more or less, depending on the skill level of the student.

Solo kata--is NOT really a part of most koryu--other than say iai practice.

And Randori or free-sparring is NOT part of koryu teaching either.

(there are some ryu that practice it--but the kata ALWAYS has central place--the sparring is NEVER the central lesson.
Mainly because the sparring ALWAYS has to be altered for safety sake--thus its understood that it is only "kinda" real and thus of quite limited value.)

So when you speak of your school being traditonal and a koryu, then you describe training that does not seem to be koryu, and you use terms that are not koryu terms--or define them differently than koryu arts do-- it makes people wonder.

Koryu don't generally use "kyu" "dan" ranks--koryu generally have no "ranks".
I "red flag" that as well.
Your generally either a student, an advanced student, somebody that knows all the teachings, or the teacher.
And there no are belt ranks to signify who is whom.

Another "red flag"--is the use of "koryu bujutsu" on the certs.
Since bujutsu refers collectivly to the entire body of classical japanese martial arts, its an odd thing to have on cert.

The concern here was that someone had sold you a bill of goods and tricked you about what you were doing.

NOBODY was trying to offend you---they were/are trying to help you.

We have all seen people tricked and fooled--and folks were trying to look out for you.

I could be totally wrong here---would not be the first time.

But there are a lot of "red flags" here in terms of koryu arts.

Fair enough, Charles. For reference:

http://www.fightingarts.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/15883941/an/0/page/0#15883941

No, this is the Sword Arts forum. Not the koryu JSA forum. This is the proper location for the post.

The controversy(and the only controversy really) revolves around her assertion that this methodology of training is traditional JSA. It is certainly a methodology of training with a sword and thus the conversation should remain here. It's just not traditional or koryu in nature. It would seem that the original poster doesn't like hearing that from so many posters.

Beyond that there is an ongoing dialog regarding the utility of this particular training method and some of the standard arguments are being made on both for and against sparring. This dialog is perfectly legitimate in this thread. The original poster also asked for input on this very concept in the original post.

Here's a good post on another forum that touches on the "free sparring" idea.

http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthread.php?p=422255#post422255