|
Post by jam on Aug 19, 2015 6:55:25 GMT
I'll explain what I'm seeing, and maybe you can explain what you find objectionable: --There are two people showing techniques, not just a guy cutting air. --First technique involves manipulation of the weak around the opponent's blade, instantly creating both cover and taking the center while repositioning his body for a direct thrust to the chest. It's subtle and interesting enough I intend to try it out next time I'm fiddling with longswords. Usually we bind first, then try the old slip-around if the bind is on the weak. But this would short-circuit the other fellow's fulen and, if you can pull it off, would be a game-ender. --I'm not as confident about the second permutation. It creates an exposure when he's pulling under the other blade, and I doubt I'm fast enough to pull it off. But I'm sure it works for him. Once he's up under the blade he has protection and a direct line of attack on a re-positioned center. --Third reminds me of a zornhau or zornort. Driving down into the blade to create an opening and take the center. Then it's a cut or thrust as needed. --Fourth is a wonderful hand cut, taking advantage of the other fellow's error in entering measure with his sword still in a vom tag type guard. He even knows to continue cutting down into the hand, though I would have stopped at chest level and pushed into him while cutting down on the hands. So often these hand hits are just snipes which would do little more than score the skin. As with some of the messer techniques I was doing this summer, it's best to keep your contact with the hand and drive down while cutting across the hand and into the chest. --There's even wrestling on the blade! Hell yeah! when was the last time I saw ringen am schwert in Japanese swordplay? It's well done, though I think he could improve it by using the katana's long handle as a messer-style lever and arm catcher. But he gets it done. --He seems to be re-positioning himself very artfully. It reminds me of the style we're exploring in I.33 right now. A subtle re-alignment of your torso with a little bit of a shuffle rather than a big side step. If done right it gives you a direct line of attack to his center while he's cutting at air. --He seems to understand that the sword provides cover and esp. when steel is used allows you to overbind and deflect. For example when he crosses the line and comes up on the camera-side of the opponent's blade, any attempt by the other guy to strike or thrust will be easily deflected. We do this all the time--though usually not while trying to cross the line. In our system, the response to this threat is to accept a bind and create cover, then perform either mutatio gladii, shield strike or move in to ringen. I don't know what they'd do with katana, but it would be interesting to see how he addresses it. --Overall, he seems to understand that this is about killing the other guy without dying, and he's using the wooden swords in a way that would work with real ones. He's not using binds as we do, but as I understand it binds were not preferred with katana for pretty obvious reasons (no crossguard, no short edge, no weighted pommel). Basically, these all strike me as techniques that would work in a sword fight. Without meaning any insult, much of what I see in traditional Japanese and Chinese swordsmanship, and esp. in the sportified stuff, is either sword dancing or just flat-out suicidal. The idea that you're reconstructing a lethal martial art about sticking the other guy with a length of steel seems to have been lost in the shuffle of time and politics. Bring it back, and the techniques all get better. But, you know, don't actually kill each other ;-) You wrote all this! Can't you see the basic, fundamental flaw that runs through every single technique in the video?
|
|
|
ZNKR Kata
Aug 19, 2015 11:59:30 GMT
via mobile
Post by Derzis on Aug 19, 2015 11:59:30 GMT
Jam, if you look to a longsword sparring vid, you will see why he wrote all that. My mind went to that when I saw the vid, and the fact that they use a type of Shinai and not bokken made it even close to the wasters. It has nothing to do with "original" kendo but the title - something common on YouTube to get audience.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Aug 19, 2015 16:58:45 GMT
Is this a guessing game? You've attacked the video twice without offering any specifics. I can't read your mind, but perhaps you're referring to the cooperative opponent. That's how techniques are demonstrated. Though I would want the opponent to speed up a bit and to make sure his strikes are coming at my head. And I'd like them to start further apart and mind the measure better. But overall I think it's solid basic stuff. And the fact is I've seen Japanese style sparring videos where I've wondered "why don't you just cut his hands" or "why don't you just jab him when he's cocking his blade back in measure like a fool? Here, he's doing these things. Yes, it's pretty basic stuff and obviously it's going to get more complex when you have to deal with the counters and counters to counters to counters, but it is at least getting your blade on him while keeping an angle of protection. That's more than a lot of Japanese swordplay styles seem to offer. So many of them have both opponents in measure drawing back with the blade. That ought to be suicide, since a rising thrust to left or right ochs or equivalent will end it while protecting the attacker. But instead the other guy seems to draw back as well, also in measure. It's a strange thing to see.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
ZNKR Kata
Aug 19, 2015 17:35:42 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2015 17:35:42 GMT
Not sure what Jam might be seeing but uchidachi does not seem to have a good command of distancing in any of these exchanges. Shidachi may as well stand in place and counterattack at leisure.
The point seems to be manipulating the opponent and they are abstracting to a large degree. He gets the concept across but it is not being done in response to a legitimate attack.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Aug 19, 2015 17:57:53 GMT
I agree the pacing and distance are off, but the technique demonstration requires a cooperative opponent and a slower pace. On some of the line crossing attacks he might come a cropper at full speed, but he looks pretty spry so I wouldn't put money on it. The basic idea of an attack to the head if someone is cocked back and too close is sound. As is the idea of an attack to the hands if they're left exposed. As is the concept of wrestling with the blade. As is the concept of a zorn-ort or similar line grab. All these are basic concepts I don't usually see in Japanese arts, which seem to be more focused on the perfect cut in the abstract without reference to using the sword as a tool or as a means of providing cover. In fact I haven't been able to find many Japanese swordplay videos at all that show how to cut into someone. Which is why this fellow's demonstration of driving down into the hands was refreshing. But maybe I'm missing something.
|
|
|
ZNKR Kata
Aug 19, 2015 18:40:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by Derzis on Aug 19, 2015 18:40:16 GMT
If you want a good kenjutsu as example, check tenshin shoden katori shinto- ryu on youtube. It is a movie for less than 1h about this school.
|
|
|
Post by Kiyoshi on Aug 20, 2015 6:24:13 GMT
I'm probably WAY too late to join this conversation (I wasn't able to read all 9 pages, I'll probably read more later), but I would like to throw in my two cents. I am a practitioner of JMA (both weapons and empty hand) and and ex-practitioner of CMA (Both weapons and empty hand) and have had multiple experiences training with WSA. I am by no means a master of any of these arts, just a guy who likes to talk and has spent a lot of years with a hockey helmet and wooden weapons. In my opinion, seitei is combative, in the sense that you learn individual things that can be used in combat. However, not everyone learns seitei with this in mind. Some learn seitei just because it is a required part of many curriculum. Seitei, or any single kata, is much harder to teach spacing and rhythm than paired drills and is not so great at teaching actual combat experience that sparring does.
I also agree that the more realistic your sparring is, the more your attitude changes. I've never sparred with sharps, but I have with steel blunts that were just shy of being sharps. I've also sparred with wooden weapons, bamboo, foam (I loath those things), and plastic. There are elements to each training type that one cannot convey with another. For instance, metal blades have a sort of stickiness when they come in contact. This doesn't occur with any other weapon type. This also runs into the idea of points sparring. I find it to be pretty unrealistic when one thinks only of the point. In the martial arts club I attended we had points, matches were best of 5, but you only had a point when the opponent died and you did not. Double kills were points for neither person. We had judges to differentiate between cuts that would kill or end the fight and those that wouldn't. Things like wrist cuts were only kills if you followed them up with a killing blow. This style of fighting taught me more than shiai ever did.
That said, sparring against people with realistic representation of swords, shields, spears, etc, was only possible with the movements that I learned through forms. Whether I was using a gun, jian, katana, naginata, broadsword, or emei, the moves I learned in partner drills and in forms are what came to the surface when they were usable. I used moves that weren't in them as well, but my core fundamentals came from them. I don't think it is quite right to say that any piece of an art is less necessary than another. The teaching of techniques through partner drills, forms, and sparring were integral to most martial artist I met who studied them for more than self improvement. This was regardless of it being from one country or another.
I've met martial artists who over specialized in one area and claimed it was all they needed. The ones who only practiced solo forms had issues with spacing that resulted in those weak reaching slap cuts you see in so many sparring videos. The ones who only specialized in sparring had issues coming up with more complex techniques since they'd spend all match attempting a technique without ever practicing it and we can all guess how that would work out. The ones who specialized in partner drills had issues thinking on their feet. There are many subtleties taught from each area that can't be overlooked.
Specific issues I've read that I'd like to address. First is that you can't win fights with slow cuts. Many historical swordsman would disagree. Yes, you won't win by going at taichi in the park speeds, but you don't have to be overly fast. It is taught in both JSA and CSA that I have learned from that it is important to vary speed to the rhythm of the situation. Second, I agree that not all arts are created equal. There is more along the lines of a spectrum of combative, non combative, spiritual, and non spiritual arts. They share a base but their intent are not the same. There are historical records that show that this yields different results on the battlefield or in a duel. The issue is only relevant when one actually cares about using the techniques in real life. Third is the application of internal arts. I love them, so this may be biased, but they have plenty combat application. Bagua is a very much internal art and I have fought against boxers and MMA practitioners. Internal arts are similar to kata. They teach fundamentals which are combative when applied comparatively. I use internal arts when fighting a friend of mine who has arms the size of my head and then some. I couldn't possibly hope to beat him in a match of strength. I am 195lbs (88.5kgs) and 6ft (188.9cm) and he is 250lbs (113kgs) and I have a good 6 inches on him. Both hard and soft martial arts have ways of dealing with such opponents but I find it easier to use internal. Internal martial arts use body mechanics and finesse to win instead of power. Such things are possible.
I'm sure I'm probably completely off topic on most of this by this points, but if I am, feel free to pass over this post entirely.
|
|
|
Post by jam on Aug 20, 2015 10:55:14 GMT
Is this a guessing game? You've attacked the video twice without offering any specifics. I can't read your mind, but perhaps you're referring to the cooperative opponent. That's how techniques are demonstrated. Though I would want the opponent to speed up a bit and to make sure his strikes are coming at my head. And I'd like them to start further apart and mind the measure better. But overall I think it's solid basic stuff. And the fact is I've seen Japanese style sparring videos where I've wondered "why don't you just cut his hands" or "why don't you just jab him when he's cocking his blade back in measure like a fool? Here, he's doing these things. Yes, it's pretty basic stuff and obviously it's going to get more complex when you have to deal with the counters and counters to counters to counters, but it is at least getting your blade on him while keeping an angle of protection. That's more than a lot of Japanese swordplay styles seem to offer. So many of them have both opponents in measure drawing back with the blade. That ought to be suicide, since a rising thrust to left or right ochs or equivalent will end it while protecting the attacker. But instead the other guy seems to draw back as well, also in measure. It's a strange thing to see. Sorry, I do not have the time to draft long answers. Every technique in the video requires the applicant to be well inside the range of the opponent's sword, and also for them to be in an extremely weak version of chudan. I am not aware of any extant sword school that uses such an unrealistic position as the base of the technique, or that would teach an attack that ended in the position that these techniques start off from. As soon as we correct the maai (this word relates to the time/space, there is no English word for it) and correct the chudan, the techniques in the video will not work.
|
|
|
ZNKR Kata
Aug 20, 2015 15:39:04 GMT
via mobile
Post by Kiyoshi on Aug 20, 2015 15:39:04 GMT
Just thought I'd add a little bit more based off of further reading. Iaido, kendo, and other "modern" (some forms of iaido are koryu) arts display themselves as spiritual development because of a change in times. It is an attitude change because we no longer fight wars with swords. Claiming to do so would be frowned upon in modern society. Seitei and other iaido forms are meditative but they do it through martial experiences. The martial perspective is still there. It is up to the school and individual to choose which part, if not both, to immerse one's self.
I also think one might misunderstand iaido in principle. Iaido was developed for use off the battlefield. It was taught so a samurai or warrior would not be defenseless to surprise attacks (or assassination opportunities as some waza are apt for). Most koryu when it comes to the katana are not for battlefield use. Very few ryu still teach armored fighting.
I think we can all agree that the same motions can have different meanings to different people. Different schools teaching the same technique can have opposite approaches. It is about finding the ones that match with you. If you only care about meditation, finding a school that teaches kabuki kata is fine. If all you care about is effectiveness, finding a school that teaches how to win and nothing more is fine. I personally prefer a balanced middle path. When it comes to others, I only am concerned if the teacher and students are honest with themselves and each other on the goals and methods of practice. If you want to learn mediation or combat, do so, but accept that your way isn't the only way or the best way. ZNKR has their way to do iai, others have different ways. Even among the same groups people disagree onto the approach of the art. This is fine as long as we don't force ourselves on others.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Aug 20, 2015 16:39:16 GMT
Maai would probably be zufechten and measure combined. And I don't view that video as showing or trying to show either. For a start if they're going to demonstrate these principles they would start out of measure and out of formal guards. They'd enter measure and then perform the technique. But it's harder to film for youtube and unnecessary if all you're doing is showing some basic attacks. Of course it's an artificial scenario in the sense that they're too close and the opponent is cooperative. But it's for a video so they have to be in the camera's shot. And generally that's how a technique is first demonstrated. You "omit the response" as they say in the treatise. And just stand there. Then you include the counter, then your foe includes the counter to the counter, etc. The paradigm is built up move by move. Then done at speed over and over again. Not because that exact sequence will occur, but because permutations of it always occur. And for example it's a very good idea to train yourself to use "traveling after" to take advantage of people pulling their blades back. I hardly ever see that in Japanese work. Or hand strikes, or wrestling. All of which are really basic to any school of swordsmanship or indeed any martial art. As far as whether they'd work, very similar techniques do work at speed with longswords. And to my eye that video is showing something closer to what I recognize as genuine historical swordsmanship than a lot of other Japanese stuff. Can you show a video that demonstrates the correct techniques for combat in your view?
|
|
|
ZNKR Kata
Aug 20, 2015 18:37:21 GMT
via mobile
Post by Derzis on Aug 20, 2015 18:37:21 GMT
I had the time to see more from those 9 minutes of vid (not all mind you and at h-speed) Some make sense (are used in other schools too) and some definitely not. Where is that genuine swordsmanship when the guy holds his sword parallel with his body with contorted grip that is telegraphing from Miami that a trust will happen in Texas? We can push the limits of "technical possible" as long as we want and we will see "might work" even in two branches swinging in the wind but I tend to think that sword fighting has a strategy/tactics component that I can't disregard.
Edit: I tried to find more about Yoshinori Kono and is quite interesting what he tries to do. Good luck in his research.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Aug 20, 2015 21:34:29 GMT
Seems OK to me. First 2 are feint-attack (feinted cut followed by cut, and feinted cut followed by thrust). As soon as the opponent commits to blocking, avoid the blade and put in the real attacks. 3 is a displace and attack, 4 is a stick technique (I don't like it with sword, but would be a different story with a jo/bo; probably comes from jojutsu, considering Kono). Last are two lure an attack and close line/block/countercut to arms, and wrestling in the bind, and a flicky thrust from a position designed to deceive as to your reach (might be from jojutsu as well, but works with sword).
Not counting the stick technique and the wrestling, the others are all aimed at quickly finishing inferior opponents (inferior, but good enough so that you can't safely just hit them with a single direct attack). The demo is with a compliant partner, but these will work against real opponents (i.e., full resistance).
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Aug 20, 2015 23:46:57 GMT
What are you referring to in the video?
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Aug 21, 2015 0:18:37 GMT
What are you referring to in the video? min 6:47 But after I checked what he is doing, as a research is OK. Contradicts what Musashi was saying regarding the grip on the sword, but at the end, why not? if the opportunity arise.
PS When he uses swords, he is close to "the norm".
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Aug 21, 2015 4:11:50 GMT
I think we're talking about two different videos! LOL
|
|
|
Post by Derzis on Aug 21, 2015 11:04:49 GMT
I think we're talking about two different videos! LOL
Absolutely. Genuine swordsmanship there, with stick fighting technics for iaijutsu.
|
|
|
Post by jam on Aug 21, 2015 11:45:31 GMT
Maai would probably be zufechten and measure combined. And I don't view that video as showing or trying to show either. For a start if they're going to demonstrate these principles they would start out of measure and out of formal guards. They'd enter measure and then perform the technique. But it's harder to film for youtube and unnecessary if all you're doing is showing some basic attacks. Of course it's an artificial scenario in the sense that they're too close and the opponent is cooperative. But it's for a video so they have to be in the camera's shot. And generally that's how a technique is first demonstrated. You "omit the response" as they say in the treatise. And just stand there. Then you include the counter, then your foe includes the counter to the counter, etc. The paradigm is built up move by move. Then done at speed over and over again. Not because that exact sequence will occur, but because permutations of it always occur. And for example it's a very good idea to train yourself to use "traveling after" to take advantage of people pulling their blades back. I hardly ever see that in Japanese work. Or hand strikes, or wrestling. All of which are really basic to any school of swordsmanship or indeed any martial art. As far as whether they'd work, very similar techniques do work at speed with longswords. And to my eye that video is showing something closer to what I recognize as genuine historical swordsmanship than a lot of other Japanese stuff. Can you show a video that demonstrates the correct techniques for combat in your view? The techniques that you say you have never seen in "japanese work" are in fact core principles of many schools. The fact that you say what you have said is only evidence that you don't know very much about japanese swordsmanship. I am sorry to be so blunt, but short time leads to short words. The techniques in the video that you say "to my eye showing something closer to genuine historical swordsmanship" all rely on two swordsmen standing in range of each other in the most pathetic chudan no kamae I've seen for a long time, as if maai doesn't even exist. We do not need to use our intuition when it comes to genuine japanese historical swordsmanship. All the good ryu are extant, and none of them step into range without a strategy. Pointing your kissaki at the sky and staring, hypnotised, at your opponent's kissaki is a new strategy to me, to say the least.That you are impressed by it is perplexing, but not entirely surprising. These sorts of made-up-sword styles are specifically designed to impress lay-people Two sword schools that I like their enbu, and I pick two that I do not study to remain objective, are Jogo Do Pau and Ono Ha Itto Ryu kenjutsu. Ono Ha itto ryu usually enbu techniques similar to those in the video, but with actual issoku itto no maai, zanshin, Ki ken tai icchi and the other core principles of swordsmanship included.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
ZNKR Kata
Aug 21, 2015 14:24:01 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2015 14:24:01 GMT
It is going to tempting to take jams message personally, but really consider what he is writing there.
There are some interesting interactions which I wouldn't write off.
Something to consider: how can you dismiss formal kata, but embrace what you see here? Both are abstractions. We all have our preferences and some people just think strawberry ice cream sucks, but really what is the fundamental difference between one abstraction and another one? Neither are "real" in the sense that you seem to be using the word.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Aug 21, 2015 16:30:26 GMT
I know very little about Japanese swordsmanship. I study German longsword and I.33 along with a bit of messer. That's why I'm asking--can you show me a video of the Japanese techniques done properly? Because as I said, the ones I've seen haven't been terribly impressive to me. So far you've just been broadly dismissive without citing any particular problem with any particular sequence in the video. Please include a link to a video you believe to be a good example. Otherwise we're just trading German for Japanese concepts back and forth. You seem determined to be vague, so please be SPECIFIC. That means citation to a video and a time stamp. As seen above, we may not even be discussing the same video. I'm talking about this one, as a basic demonstration of some basic cuts:
It is of course artificial, and slow, and out of measure. It's a demonstration of the attacks alone, not the defenses and not all the elements of an encounter. But it shows some sword attacks I know to be valid, which reoccur in many of our systems in one form or another.
I don't dismiss what might be called "kata" in our systems. In fact we do them all the time. But I've found I get more from the exercise if we at least demonstrate the theory behind the "kata." So for example rather than just adopting Prima ward and then adopting crutch protection standing in a line looking at a mirror, we do these together at a slow pace to show that crutch seeks to fill the void created by Prima. That sort of thing. Which is of course not fighting, but it helps you understand what we believe these positions were intended to do. That's what I see the cited video as doing. But we're coming at this with different vocabulary and different expectations of how to train, which is I think what's creating much of the disagreement. That's why I was saying please post videos of Japanese two-person drills done *right* so I can at least get an idea of where you're coming from.
|
|
|
ZNKR Kata
Aug 21, 2015 18:33:02 GMT
via mobile
Post by Derzis on Aug 21, 2015 18:33:02 GMT
Jam named one ryu, I named one. Use google for them and you will get the videos
|
|