Koryu in the West

[Toby Threadgill]

Hi Guys,

Interesting discussion......

A couple of things....

I need to clarify something about Takamura Yukiyoshi as some people have misinterpreted how he altered the TSYR curriculum in the 1960's. Many people have made the assumption that he changed or altered the original koryu curriculum, thereby altereing the schools core teachings. I can state with absolute confidence that he did not change any of the original koryu kata. The original curriculum is completely intact and unchanged. What he did was add a comprehensive series of kata and semi-freestyle drills to address modern attacks like boxers jabs and karate type kicks. These kata are considered "betsuden" ( additional studies ) and do not in any way replace the original kata but simply augment them.

Concerning cutural significance and koryu transmission......

Takamura sensei significantly dismissed the idea of koryu being impossible to transmit outside Japan. The reason cited was the fact that koryu were the product of a feudal social structure and that feudal Japan was totally severed from modern day Japan. Takamura sensei frequently made the case that modern Japanese culture, being almost totally devoid of street crime was in fact more divoriced from feudal Japan than, say, New York City...LOL. That does not mean he thought the transmission of koryu was assured. In fact he believed koryu transmission was just as likely to fail inside Japan as out...for completely different reasons.

In truth, several prominent koryu now sport more serious and technically competent foreign students than they do Japanese. And remember, many of the koryu in Japan have either degenerated or died out completely inside Japan. The healthiest koryu very often have a significant number of followers outside Japan.

To paraphrase my teacher, The dirt under the dojo floor has little to do with transmitting koryu. It is the dedication of the teachers and students who will ultimately determine the success or failure of such and undertaking.

All my best,

[Josh Reyer]

In truth, several prominent koryu now sport more serious and technically competent foreign students than they do Japanese.

Mr. Threadgill, could you elaborate on this? It's a statement I've heard before, and yet still I find it difficult to square it with my experience here in Japan. What prominent koryu are you thinking of? The only ryuha I can think it would apply to is the rare case of Toda-ha Buko-ryu. Otherwise, it seems to me that foreign students, while naturally falling to the right of the mean in skill and seriousness (an artifact of selection bias), still tend to be small fish in big ponds. Even in SMR jo, which is fairly ubiquitous, for every Phil Relnick and Quentin Chambers there are multiple Japanese menkyo kaiden.

[Aaron T Fields]

Hogwash...THe Japanese are no more in connection to their cultural history than Americans are with their own. Sure some cultural stuff doesn't translate, but a koryu is a collection of physical skills, a method of warfare that is outdated and outclassed in arms.

Am I Japanese or will I ever be, no and I don't want to be, I am cool being who and what I am. That still doesn't mean I can't glean something from a archaic cultural practice, or the body mechanics I might learn (which should stand the test of time, or they were flawed. Notice I said body mechanics not technique.) I am not going to get the same things a Japanese person is going to get from koryu practice in regards to cultural stuff. But, that doesn't make my practice more or less valid.

Like all combatives and combative sports, at their core they are about snuffing out your opponent. They adapted and adjusted or they died out. There are a lot of folks who say that somehow change makes something less than it was. In fact, it is just change, the key is to keep the core as that should stand the test of time. Like jujutsu or judo, if it isn't changing at some level it is just playing dress up.

Only folks not worried about getting killed have the luxury to argue over the historical validity of technique. Like a modern day soldier, if stuff didn't work they threw it away and took what did. "Style" is the concept of those that are safe.

I don't care if it is a technique I learned from my own department, a LA fireman, or a New York fireman. When the flame is rolling over me head, the building is creaking, and it is so hot I am belly down, it is the technique that a Seattle fireman used to put out the damn fire.

I have never had anyone ask me if the arm lock or throw I just used to make them sqweeeel, was Russian, Japanese, or Mongolian. They typically just ask what it was and how to do it.


Aaron Fields

[Toby Threadgill]

Mr. Threadgill, could you elaborate on this? It's a statement I've heard before, and yet still I find it difficult to square it with my experience here in Japan. What prominent koryu are you thinking of? The only ryuha I can think it would apply to is the rare case of Toda-ha Buko-ryu. Otherwise, it seems to me that foreign students, while naturally falling to the right of the mean in skill and seriousness (an artifact of selection bias), still tend to be small fish in big ponds. Even in SMR jo, which is fairly ubiquitous, for every Phil Relnick and Quentin Chambers there are multiple Japanese menkyo kaiden.

Hi Josh,

Are you trying to get me in trouble....LOL. Let me explain in general because if I get too specific, I'm liable to burn some bridges as you can well imagine. It can be a very touchy subject.

The small fish in big ponds analogy is probably correct but its the selection bias you mention that I think you underestimate. Many of these foreign instructors (dedicated and talented small fish) are now moving back to the west and cultivating their owns students, making the XYZ pond bigger than many Japanese may realize. Consider my own art of Shindo Yoshin ryu. The mainline in Japan is almost extinct. The remaining licensed instructors have no headquarters dojo and are not actively training as far as I know. The Takamura ryuha on the other hand is fairly healthy and growing with dojo's around the globe. With the passing of 80+ year old Dr Fujiwara in Tokyo, the SYR mainline will probably come to an end. Interestingly, I met with the founders family last year in Japan and they were stupified to find out Shindo Yoshin ryu was being successfuly taught and growing outside Japan. They were so impressed by this revelation that they brought in an old uncle who started training in the mainline hombu dojo in the 1930's. The family, including the uncle did a 3 hour taped interview with me and budo historian Shingo Ohgami. TSYR through the efforts of my teacher may be among the first koryu completely transplanted outside Japan.

In the past I've met with several high ranking instructors and a couple of headmasters. Almost universal among these men was the concern that the Japanese youth were not interested in classical budo. To a man they discussed with conflicted admiration the seriousness and dedication demonstrated by their foreign students. Like my own teacher they saw classical budo's future in jeopardy inside Japan and acknowedged the possibly of its best chance for survival existing outside Japan. Interestingly, they felt Europe and not the United States was the most fertile territory for survival as they felt America's youth would soon demonstrate the same indifference to tradition as Japanese youth. Europeans they felt embraced tradition in a way Americans didn't.

We also discussed at length how Takamura sensei taught me and why I was so interested in classical budo. I had no satisfactory answer. They were blown away that I could recite archaic Shinto Norito and regularly performed Shinto rituals in my dojo. I thought one old guy was going to fall out of his chair when I recited part of the Tsurugi no Haishi for him. It must have been an experience of cognative dissonance for him.

So....I stand behind my statement. The majority of koryu are certainly not over run by talented foreigners but the ones who have at least accepted foreign students have accepted a motivated bunch, willing take their training very seriously. That these schools seem to demonstrate a better chance of survival than those who have limited themselves to Japanese only ought to be obvious. My school is just one example.

_____________

God, I love Aaron Fields. As a school embracing many Japanese cultural elements I cannot help but admire the truth Aaron presents. Although Takamura sensei definitely believed in transmitting selected cultural elements he felt were an inseparable part of our traditions legacy, he always returned to the admonition that we are doing budo, not basketweaving. When budo devolves into religion or pretty dancing, it was no longer budo in his mind. It's conflict that defines budo, not pretty robes, incense burning or philosophical nonsense. All those my be present in some classical schools of budo but they are not the core of what we do or why we do it.

A guy visiting the dojo once asked Takamura sensei about his philosophy. To paraphrase, he answered "In my experience the difference between philosophy and budo is the smack in the mouth in budo should be real, not imagined"

I miss the man.

[jwinch2]

Hogwash...

You know Aaron,... it's bad for you to keep things all bottled up like that. Don't hold it in, just let it out there. Really, you should vent once and a while and get it all out in the open... You'll feel much better when you. I'm sure of it.

Just some friendly advice.

Great post!

[Michael J. Bray]

David, time prevents me from reading all replies to your post. My comment to your origina post is simply, "AMEN". I'll come back to this thread later.

[TonyU]

I know it doesn't pertain to koryu but Mr. Threadgill's last post reminded of a conversation my sensei had with and Okinawan sensei during one of his past visits. The Okinawan sensei (can't remember who, sorry) told my sensei and others (and I paraphrase here) that if people wanted to see Okinawan karate as it is meant to look and practiced they should come to the US.

[Aaron T Fields]

I agree with what Toby threw out. There are some cultural values that should be passed along, as it is beneficial to the practice and execution. This is case with any Japanese budo, koryu or gendai.

Nevertheless, it is about ***-kicking or it is about nothing.

Jason, as far as getting it out, believe me I do. I am a happy dude; I just have a low threshold for BS. I call it like I see it, straight to the point. Of course I also don’t think every opinion is of value either. Yes, I am not always very popular.

A philosophy teacher once told me that “philosophers search for truth, philosophy students search for an argument.”

I like that.


Toby,

When are you going to be in this area again?

Aaron Fields

[jwinch2]

I love it Aaron. Cut through the BS and call it like it is as far as I am concerned.

Later!

[David Craik]

Only folks not worried about getting killed have the luxury to argue over the historical validity of technique. Like a modern day soldier, if stuff didn't work they threw it away and took what did. "Style" is the concept of those that are safe.

Like 99% of people who study iai, kenjutsu, naginatajutsu, sojutsu, hojutsu, and shurikenjutsu. Particularly considering Japan's violent crime rate, I would posit that for the vast majority of koryu practicioners, their practice is a cultural one. Because the law kind of frowns on running people through with a spear or hewing them in twain with a sword nowadays, 'changing' most koryu would be pointless because one's modifications cannot be tested in the environment for which they were designed.

It's a little like changing the tea ceremony to simply boiling water in a whistling tea-kettle and pouring it on a tea bag. Far faster and more efficient, but it is no longer cha-no-yu.

[Toby Threadgill]

Because the law kind of frowns on running people through with a spear or hewing them in twain with a sword nowadays, 'changing' most koryu would be pointless because one's modifications cannot be tested in the environment for which they were designed.

Agreed. This was touched upon earlier but I'd like to expound on it a bit.

Changing a classical weapons school curriculum like...say...TSKSR just doesn't make any sense. Transmitted properly, a school like that is a cultural/martial snap shot in time. Any motivation or reason for change is obviously flawed because the era of innovation in swordsmanship and spear fighting is over. Its a living museum.

Practical Koryu Jujutsu is different because the environment for application can still exist. Does that mean we should change the original kata. I don't think that's prudent but then again we don't need to. In TSYR we use the classical kata as the vessel for maintaining the principles, theories and body mechanics that are the arts technical legacy and core. New kata can be created and evolve over time based on the founding core principles without the necessity or risk associated with changing the original kata.

In TSYR the original koryu jujutsu kata were moved into the chuden mokuroku so the entire original curriculum would remain intact. A new shoden mokuroku was compiled by Takamura sensei as betsuden. It is essentially a blueprint for taking koryu kata and extrapolating them into henka waza to form a practical self defense system. From these new kata, drills are then integrated into the training that eventually lead to increasingly intense shiai. As great as all this sounds, it has its problems. Mostly, its a long hard road. If you desire a simple and practical self defense system I'd recommend something else besides TSYR.

That said, Takamura sensei strongly believed that koryu jujutsu without a methodology for its techniques being tested is an endeavor not living up to its potential. As long as an environment for practical use exists he believed a school must maintain a connection to practical application. Since TSYR 's curriculum is strictly divided between bukiwaza and taijutsu, we live this dichotomy of the practical vs the theoretical. Our weapons curriculum is pretty much an academic pursuit, teaching fascinating strategy and theory but demonstrating only minimal practical considerations such as those connected to tantojutsu. The taijutsu is different. If an old kata doesn't work in the context of its creation, we figure our why. If a old kata doesnt work in the context of the modern environment, we create a modified but closely related kata that addresses the realities faced in new environment. This maintains the founding principles while also keeping the art as relevent and flexible as it can be today. One foot in the past and one in the present.

[ben]

Very interesting posts Mr Threadgill. I particularly like your observation on the difference between koryu weapons arts and koryu jujutsu arts.

It is probably a reservation prompted by my own lack of skill, but I always feel that "questioning" or "adapting" the kata would be a problematic pursuit simply because I would be setting myself up against generations of martial artists who had trained harder than I possibly could. IOW that the fault could never lie in the kata but only in my imperfect application of it.

OTOH I know that various serious MAists have done interesting work to apply the lessons of koryu in modern settings: Hunter Armstrong and his work with the USMC springs to mind.

b

[KIT]

Toby

Fascinating explanation, I like the "take" SYR has on this.

But do you actually mean shiai, or do you mean randori...

or I guess more likely do you mean a force on force paradigm (or what you would probably call psycho-chemical stress conditioning/inoculation) which is different to either, while embracing elements of both?

[Aaron T Fields]

Just a few thoughts that are coming out of reading this thread. (By the way, this is a good one, well made points, great questions, and most of all folks just offering their standpoints. It is a shame more threads are not conducted in such a manner.)

Kata are scales and notes, they are not simulation. Once someone knows how to play scales and notes, they are expected to play music, in order to be a musician.

I want to expand on what Toby brought up.

Kata are designed to movement and spacing etc etc. The thing which most koryu lack today is a "randori-ish" element. Without actually mixing it up, you are just playing scales, IE drills.

If you understand how to use your body from hours of drilling, in randori you should be able to maintain the "correct manner of movement." Technique really aren't that important, as they come from correct body use and position.

Liberal change of kata is a slippery slope. Nevertheless, nobody has all the answers, and work can alwasy be improved on.

I won't speak very much for Ellis, but one of the reasons he only takes grapplers with experience, is becasue we randori. We understand the nature of drilling and real time. In addition Araki, likes to get in close. But that is another thread.

It is my belief, as a guy who practices both gendai and koryu, that the biggest hole in the majority of koryu, is the lack of randori . If your goal is application, kata is not enough, plain and simple. What form your randori takes might vary, nevertheless no application of physical skills are learned totally from drill. Randori is simulation, kata is drill.

Despite our often ego-centric viewpoint that somehow we are doing something select and unique, swinging a naginata, or sword, isn't any different than catching a football, throwing a curve, tackling a back, getting sights on a criminal, or pulling a charged hose-line.


Regards,
Aaron Fields

[Ellis Amdur]

It is probably a reservation prompted by my own lack of skill, but I always feel that "questioning" or "adapting" the kata would be a problematic pursuit simply because I would be setting myself up against generations of martial artists who had trained harder than I possibly could. IOW that the fault could never lie in the kata but only in my imperfect application of it.

Yeah, most people are not qualified, by either mileage or rank, to make changes in an extant koryu. But some are, and some should.
I recently got to see a film of people - menkyo kaiden - in my own line of Araki-ryu, four generations back. Most of them were about my age now - 56. It is clear to me that I've not only trained far harder than any of them, over the span of decades, but, with all respect, I'm far better than them as well.

To put it simply, I do change weapons kata as well as jujutsu. Why? Because it physically grates on me, like chalk on a blackboard, to do something stupid or stylized. Do I mean anyone should feel free to make "improvements?" As I wrote somewhere else, there are only a few - maybe 10 or less - non-Japanese qualified by rank and experience to make changes. But even so, in the kind of dojo I would want to train, it seems legit that any student should be able, in one fashion or another, to ask why something is the way it is, and to be shown why.
Back to the subject, I am qualified to make changes, and I do - and what makes it better is that I have a core group of a few iconoclastic belligerent guys, who are seasoned and strong, and want to push the envelope. We collaborate - which is almost surely the way the first ryu were created. Although the legends state that the founders went alone to the mountain-top, that's not really what happened. First of all, he got together with his guys and they smashed around and figured things out. Then finally, the founder said, "OK guys, I'm going to the shrine and think a bit and put this all together." But there was a lot of mat-time first.
So what do we do?
1. Sometimes we hone down a move, paring away things that were probably created so that the practice would be less dangerous or would hurt less. How do we know? We try it both ways. If it's not too dangerous/damaging and makes us stronger, that's the way we do it.
2. Sometimes, it is simply clear that an assumption was made in a dojo sometime in the past that is simply wrong. You cannot bring off the move, or it is simply that human beings will not react the way the kata expects - at least trained human beings will not. We try it and we know.
3. Sometimes a technical problem demands a new waza or even a new kata. So I/we make it, based on the technical criteria of the ryu.
4. BTW - For the historically minded within the ryu, I am very explicit exactly what was changed and why.
5. The real struggle is to keep things "within" the ryu. the entire ryu is "one kata." In other words, you have a system of interwoven reflexes that must fit. Simply adding something because it seems good may clash with the other reflexes. (Think a boxer who decides to add a karate reverse punch). Out of context means unusable when needed). But because it's "one kata," I can make changes/add things, because they are variations on that same kata.
6. Are changes casually made? No - I've actually waited 30 years to change something that originally felt wrong.

In sum, so what if I will never use a spear or a sword. If I'm going to practice WITH a spear or a sword, and know how to make something better, I will. We modify, we renovate and, on occasion, make something new out of something old. Why? Because we are not the Society for UnCreative Anachronism nor are we dress-up samyoureye. We do this stuff just because we like it, and we like it more when it is stronger and real. No bigger meaning than that. My attitude is that this is the best we can do with what we have - and if, in some future, such techniques are used again, if we were wrong, people will die. If we are right, more will survive.
Isn't that the way it always was?

And what of the question that something precious will be lost. Funny word. How many guys here would be complimented if someone said, "Gee, your waza is really precious."

[Toby Threadgill]

Toby

Fascinating explanation, I like the "take" SYR has on this.

But do you actually mean shiai, or do you mean randori...

or I guess more likely do you mean a force on force paradigm (or what you would probably call psycho-chemical stress conditioning/inoculation) which is different to either, while embracing elements of both?

Hi Kit,

Yeah...What you said...LOL

Actually, Takamura used the word shiai but he defined that as a freestyle or semi freestyle encounter that ended when someone was totally dominated or defeated. He didn't like the "tit for tat" stuff he saw in some randori but technically what we do, is as you described, embrace elements of both.

Concerning Aarons post.....

One thing that makes me crazy is the criticism of kata by people who don't understand their function. Aaron summed it up very well. Kata is a type of controlled drill intended to teach a very specific set of skills, theories and body principles. Randori/shiai is the spontaneous manifestation of those skills which in my opinion must eventually include adrenal stress conditioning. If all you've got is kata, well...it's just friggin dancing. That's why I prefer students that have come from a school that included some sort of competitive element. My highest ranked guy here in Colorado is a Tomiki 6th dan and the chief instructor of JAA. His taisabaki is fantastic and very fast. Attempting freestyle tanto work against him can be very humbling. He didn't learn the skills he demonstrates just doing kata!

And concerning Ellis's post...

I completely concur with Ellis and his opinions on change but Araki ryu is rather unique in it's freedom to adapt thru time. Not many koryu are orthodox in that manner.

Perhaps the day will arrive when one of the TSYR weapons kata that I hate will drive me so nutty that I finally change it....but that day hasn't come yet. I'm just not sure I'm deep enough into the nitty gritty of those kata that I fully grasp everything in them. Give me another 10 or 20 years to squeeze them and maybe I'll feel I see their full depth and realize I might know something my teacher didn't. The cool thing is, he would smile. He'd know he actually taught me something on that day.

Great discussion.....

[Ellis Amdur]

I honestly think that Araki-ryu was more the norm, back in the day. What would happen would be that someone would start making changes, and then change the NAME. Hence thousands of ryu. Araki-ryu may be unique in making radical changes and KEEPING the name. I think this is due to keeping a core curriculum (torite-kogusoku) and certain gokui that defined Araki-ryu.
That said, I also do Buko-ryu. The pedagogy of the system is VERY different, and lends itself less to innovation. but I've participated in revival/recreation of long-dead kata, added a "new" associated ryu to my dojo(s), because the kata concerning sword skills had long been lost, so I drew up some iai and some sword kata, based on Buko-ryu curriculum, attached a new name to them, and they are part of the practice, as an "associate ryu." It would be historically dishonest to call them Buko-ryu, because they have no historical link, but they're part of the dojo now.
I can agree that there are certain systems that, were I a member, I wouldn't change an iota, or some weapons/usages that are so culture specific that it would be chimerical to change (for example, changing the draw and release on a Japanese bow).
But if an object fits in your hand and you can swing it or thrust it, I think it's open, at least, to examination.
BTW - one way kata and training regimen change is through tame-shiai (testing shiai). And when one has an opportunity to test what one knows again individuals from another system, one can call one's innovation or tradition into question, even further. I have a work-out buddy who does TSKSR. I'd tweaked a particular A-ryu technique until we thought it was rock-solid. So I tried it out on my friend, and it didn't work. Because he DIDN'T respond like a grappler. His natural response was to withdraw while cutting. Not only did I discard the "innovation," I ended up discarding the entire technique and then the kata, because there we had other, more universally valid responses we could make in the situation which we had, where one didn't have to interview one's opponent, which would flow into things that would work, whether one closed (grappler) or withdrew or maintained arms-length (pure kenjutsu). One wants a set of movements that link together - if one hangs out to the side, isolated from the rest of the movements, it's better cut off. So that's a kata we dug a grave for under the redwoods. We can still hear it screaming to be let out on quiet nights, but it will soon be forgotten, left to whimper amongst the stones, "But I'm traditional. Someone long dead thought I was special once." But all we do is dance on it's grave.

[KIT]

Hi Kit,

Yeah...What you said...LOL

Actually, Takamura used the word shiai but he defined that as a freestyle or semi freestyle encounter that ended when someone was totally dominated or defeated. He didn't like the "tit for tat" stuff he saw in some randori but technically what we do, is as you described, embrace elements of both.

.....

What you are describing is consistent with aspects of modern force on force training, both gunfighting and hand to hand. Often involving contexts and dynamcis that are not readily encountered or possible in fully competitive training or "equalized" randori - such as certain maai considerations, unequal initiative, weapons access, multiples etc. etc.

In some ways we have to embrace "unreality" in order to create a "realistic" experience physically and/or psychologiocally.

One thing piqueing my interest in koryu training again is how, through their kata, kuden, gokui, etc. they addressed the same problems we address today in teaching people how to deal effectively with violent encounters - and how they "set up" certain things to elicit behavioral responses or tactical contexts not readily reproducible in pure freestyle training, and not apparent - or perhaps even nonsensical - when looking at just the physical expression of kata.

I used to scoff at some things until I started doing advanced training for advanced tactical personnel, survival training for officers, etc. and realized that, separated from context - both the practical and the "training set up" context, things I had people do or how I had them act would look or seem silly or a less than ideal/efficient/appropriate tactic or technique.

[David Craik]

Mr. Amdur, what would you think of the following scenario...

Many folk in all types of martial pursuits have favorite techniques or types of techniques that work well for them. I believe that in any dojo one will find many varied 'preferred moves'. I myself hated Tsukekomi because my tsuba was textured around the rim and didn't turn smoothly in my hand, and on the range found that with my sling run out to a certain length I could easily rest the magazine of an M-16 in the crook of my arm in the prone postition..shooting very well indeed with my makeshift monopod. But that was a no-no. I find that the 'figure-8' method of shooting at long distances in a standing position doesn't work well for me at all - though a left/right track works just fine. But I recognize that the 'lazy-8' works great for some people. If certain teachings are discarded as 'inefficient' or 'ineffective' for one person or even several, would this not do a disservice to a future student who might find them useful, as the 'long-dead' Muromachi-era gent who presumably actually used them in combat did, since he thought enough of it to add it to the curriculum?

[Toby Threadgill]

In some ways we have to embrace "unreality" in order to create a "realistic" experience physically and/or psychologically.

Kit,

Absolutely. Its nice to hear someone else say this for a change. I'm tired of listening to myself sound like a broken record .....