Nice video and thanks for the shoutout. It is nice to see many Japanese historical swordsmen advocating for maintaining concepts over movements and not chasing "perfect form" which is a thing that gets thrown around in Korean swordsmanship circles a fair bit. Our approach over in the land of Korean historic fencing (at least in my club) has been maintain context first, then concepts, and last movements in techniques and it is nice to see some writers backing this approach.
I'm new to swordsmanship training, but have spent a lot of time studying another martial art, so take my words with a grain of salt. I think kata gives birth to Bunkai and Henka which give birth to Gekiken. A lot of classes dont offer opportunities to explore all this. I think its important to try and meet up with other practitioners outside of the structure of a class and work on these things if you're in a situation where that isnt really being addressed. Thats the independant study portion that really gets overlooked when people live busy lives and have a hard time devoting more than a couple hours a week to their training.
If you reduce kata purely to rote learning, you are no longer doing kata 形, but kata 型. That kata would be considered dead, and you would have missed the communicative and transformative aspects of kata entirely. It's the reason that from my perspective as a koryū practitioner, none of the quotes of the early authors provided here seem to be at odds with what we practice at all.
I find this interesting and, therefore, have many questions. In your opinion, what is the second term ‘kata’, how is it different to the first term, and what are its links to practical application? How are the quotes provided not at odds with what you practice, from the perspective of your training background? While there may be differing opinions, the definition of kata I have used is from a koryū source/practitioner (see vid), and the term ‘kata’ isn’t even mentioned once in any of the texts I have referenced or the other two I own that I haven’t 🤔 Am only asking as not only do these quotes seem to be at odds with the majority of koryū practice I have seen but also, from my own experience, any form of purely preset drill doesn’t really translate to practical application against a resisting opponent as you have two conflicting contexts (preset and non-preset).
@@NathanaelTheAussie The distinction is that kata (型) are done purely by rote, like a dance, as opposed to kata (形), which are done with a sense of liveness and a certain amount of resistance from the opponent that increases substantially with the experience of the two practicing the kata. They are most certainly "agreed upon" in terms of content, but as you progress, the uchitachi (the usually senior person "receiving" the kata) will try, to various degrees, to either forestall your technique or counter it. They may even just go outside the kata entirely, if they sense that you're anticipating what's coming. As for historical references to kata, Karl Friday notes: "Certificates of achievement and similar documents left by fifteenth- and sixteenth-century martial art masters suggest that kata had become the principal means of transmission by this time." (Legacies of the Sword, p. 108). According to the related notes in the appendices: "Examples of such documents are reproduced in Imamura Yoshio et al., eds., Nihon budō taikei, vol. 1: 14, 20-21; vol. 2: 402-403, 439-462; vol. 3: 12-13; and Seki Humitake, Nihon budō no engen: Kashima-Shinryū, 30-32." (Legacies of the Sword, p. 202, note 17) Really, a few quotes here and there from Dr. Friday's book won't do it justice, so I really recommend you just read it if you find the opportunity. It's cheap on Amazon, and Dr. Friday is well respected in his field, being both a historian and a high level exponent of the Kashima Shinryū. In any case, there's also just straight up shiaigeiko, *which is sparring*. Shinai and bōgu predate sport kendō by a lot. It's also quite well known that katageiko and shiaigeiko existed pretty much simultaneously. Many koryū do practice shiaigeiko, but a lot of those also do not allow beginners to engage in sparring.
@@gontaiyuuI can't wrap my head around how a PhD in History could write something so poorly cited. That particular section of the "LEGACIES OF THE SWORD The Kashima-Shinryu and Samurai Martial Culture" cites two sources in note #17, both of which are modern publications and not proper historical citations, which would be the actual documents themselves. He does not even cite the pages on which his supporting evidence can be found, and at least one of those sources has 10 volumes! However, one thing that he completely fails to clarify Is the modification of the definition of Kata over time. That statement is technically true, that Kata were very important to the training of swordsmen in the 16th century. But Kata back then referred to a stance literally "form", which is definitely fundamental for other traditions or swordsmanship across the world. In the modern world, the word Kata has a different definition, which he consistently uses throughout his book, referring to the predetermined exchange of techniques between two practitioners. That is what Kata means today, but it is not what Kata meant 400 years ago, and so the statement is making a conclusion about historical Kata which we now know to be incorrect. He is likely referring to mokuroku, which is a graduation scroll that lists all of the fundamental techniques by name, and accompanies it with an artistic depiction. The mokuroku alone Is not enough to know the technique. But they were never given as a learning tool like a textbook, but instead more of as a quick reference or study guide to remind the graduate of what they had learned, but not to instruct them. It definitely implies training With a master is necessary, but does not imply anything about Kata in the modern sense. All of the other 16th century documents That are not mokuroku, but are instead actual instruction techniques (Heiho Okugisho by Yamamoto Kansuke is the prime example), completely lack anything that is similar to a modern Kata. With that, I would say that this small statement is incorrect, within a larger book that does not necessarily cover that topic.
@@gontaiyuu In regards to shiai with shinai, shinai often make it difficult to apply historical skills and techniques from the texts we look at mainly because they were designed to work with steel blades of a curved shape. While any form of sparring is certainly better than no sparring at all, comparing sparring with light and straight shinai with sparring with steel blades (even wood to.an extent) is like comparing apples and oranges. They are radically different. Not exposing the student to sparring or sparring-like activities until they are ‘of a certain level’ is a comparatively modern approach - For example, Yagyu Munenori explains that his chapter in regards to martial arts application needs to be taught and understood through sparring specifically, a statement which is echoed across two other different authors writing within 80 years of each other in different locations.. Thank you for the text recommendation, I have already read the majority of this document, not quite finished it yet. The primary purpose of HJMA's research is to use historical documents directly from the period and, if any specific terms are used, to then use them within the context of the period. If we try and apply a modern lens onto historical terms it leads us to minor to significant misinterpretations (eg: Zanshin and kata having changing definition tremendously overtime). Karl Friday's book seems to be applying the 19th century-today meaning of the word kata to in period (early Edo and earlier). Friday also makes some bizarre references in that section on kata in history, referring to what appear to be modern publications (not historical) and also not even reference which sections of historical texts he is referring to and what they say - in short, we are just expected to trust him there at face value. From the sources we have, kata simply means something along the lines of ‘technique’ or ‘guard’; it does not refer to a patter or preset sequence of any sort. To put it into context, in period, stating that someone has ‘mastered all the kata’ seems to more mean something like ‘mastered all of the techniques’. I have read documents from Miyamoto Musashi, Yamamoto Kansuke and his successors, Ito Ittosai and his successors, and Aisu Ikosai; non of them mention kata even once in their original writings that I have read. While these historical writers don't specify the exact learning process, they do provide may crucial clues which, interestingly enough, coincide with some of the modern research today conducted into educational and coaching approaches. All of these historical masters aforementioned advocate an approach that involves the teaching of basics to be understood in light of their application, rather than learning the basics and then learning how to apply them later like we see today (eg: kata and bunkai in karate) - one of the many examples of this are Musashi’s quote regarding the principles of weapon use and winning in combat are one in the same, i.e. not to be understood in isolation at any point. I am not trying to invalidate Koryu as a practice, not by any means. I think Koryu has crucial importance in Japanese culture and tradition, as well as a role to foster this passion across the world and in its own schools. Despite the points of disagreement raised here, I wanted to thank you for inviting the discussion and conducting it in a genuine and well-meaning way. I believe this is crucial for the martial arts community as a whole and there needs to be more people who will do this.
That is exacly the situation with modern budo that I encountered when searching for some martial arts clubs using blades. I had some experience with HEMA (longsword and rapier) and wanted to brach into typical japanese weapons. I ended up choosing kendo, which focuses on practicality in sparings, but has its own set of problems (extreme sportification, unrealistic rules etc.). Unfortunately, HJMA and HAMA are pretty young disciplines, it will take some time until they will be developed enough to be widely available.
Thanks for sharing your story here, mate. It is one I have heard constantly, to be honest. This is nothing against traditional martial arts, of course. I have a soft spot for the cultural influences and values in those contexts, and I think it is something that HEMA could learn a bit from in regards to respecting the history and culture in which those systems were brought into being. Nothing against kendo either as, despite the rule sets, it is great for developing other skills that are important for fencing. However, there needs to be something on offer for people who want to learn first and foremost how to use a weapon in a combative context. I very much think that HAMA, HCMA, HKMA, and HJMA are all new disciplines in the realm of historical martial arts - particularly when compared with HEMA. It’s why I and others are doing the work that we do and slowly expose these new fun and totally possible to practice disciplines into the community and provide as much support as people require to get started 😊
Great video. Totally on board with the approach. Written language was invented by civilization to ensure that information is passed down in a more reliable way instead of having to rely on oral tradition
Please stop using that flashing red green transition. It hurts. I suspect there is significant difference between what koryu arts were like centuries ago vs now; many I think are preservation arts now. I think the manner of teaching in history would have been rather different than now. Dead Kata, strict movement repetition can in fact be harmful to learning, skill acquisition, application and retention. Live Kata, based on principles and variations is a concept many are only recently rediscovering. The idea of bunkai, variation, randomisation has been around for a long time, yet many did not, and still do not, include it in their training. It should not be an 'advanced' practice.
@@brisbaneswords8563 Thanks for leaving your thoughts and feedback. If I get more people complaining about the transition then I am happy to adjust for next time. I think the way weapon adds were taught in period, at least in Japan, are not only likely different but also mostly unknown today; very few sources from the time exist that tell us their training process. What I have had to do for my living history group is mostly use a backwards mapping approach: look at their end goal of training based on the sources and other clues we can get, and work from there. Bunkai is an interesting one, as I personally find it a bit counterintuitive to separate the meaning of the practice’s application from the practice itself. That’s just me though. You mention some good points with kata, the live kata in particular is interesting though I have my own opinions on it. You might find one of my upcoming videos interesting. Specifically, I will be releasing an upcoming video looking at kata (dead and live) purely from my own professional background, an education perspective.
@NathanaelTheAussie I think the written texts are likely just outlines and records, definitely not the closed teaching (menkyo kaiden?) (sorry I've forgotten most of my Japanese language). I think the modern resurgence of ecological or an constraints based coaching are actually rather old teaching styles that were overtaken for a while but the class based repetitive teaching styles. I wouldn't separate Kata and bunkai but I can guarantee that many martial artists do not know bunkai. Also there is a difference between bunkai/application, and variations (IE dealing with non optimal circumstances to apply techniques and how to adjust)
@@brisbaneswords8563There do seem to be closed teaching documents out there, whether they are menkyo kaiden and if they were even a common period concept is another matter 🤔 these documents vary from barely any detail to a decent amount, but almost all of them assume a level of ground knowledge from the reader. I very much agree with your point in coaching, it is something that I found fascinating the more and more I began to realise. The way I see it personally, there is no difference between a technique/skill and application and variation of it. We see this advocated for in the historical sources as well. Separating the approach and the application I find a comparatively modern concept when it comes to HJMA. I very much agree that many who do kata likely don’t know bunkai and, even if they did from what I have seen it is often a very shallow understanding.
Brilliant! I feel like this applies to many martial disciplines, especially when you look at the ways that they changed through the advent of modernity, and they became an agent of preservation over practicality.
Would it not be correct to state that every combative 'art' is and of its time? Aspects of Military Strategy by its very nature can transcend centuries. Ultimately in a war or battle or conflict are not the goals universal? And that is to be the victor. The 'traditional' fighting styles (martial arts)bring to the participant a different element and that is of the conflict within ourselves in striving to be a a better person as we transition through life's travails
Thanks for sharing in the comments, I think you have made a good point here that we all must keep in mind. Martial arts are a product of their time and culture. It’s why I think it is even more important to, when looking at anything from the past, to make it a priority to read sources written by those from that time. Otherwise, if we approach it ONLY from our modern view, we are going to be left with a swathe of misinterpretations. The traditional martial arts, as they are practiced today, seem very much to focus on the curriculum and the self first and foremost, which I think is more than understandable for its context.
Nice video and thanks for the shoutout. It is nice to see many Japanese historical swordsmen advocating for maintaining concepts over movements and not chasing "perfect form" which is a thing that gets thrown around in Korean swordsmanship circles a fair bit. Our approach over in the land of Korean historic fencing (at least in my club) has been maintain context first, then concepts, and last movements in techniques and it is nice to see some writers backing this approach.
Anytime mate 👍
The more I read into this period, the more it has become clear to me that the martial writers support the practical approach.
Whenever I have a question about anything in the past, the best place to learn is from the sources themselves.
This 100% 👆
Great Video! Thank you
@@bristoncraigson9151 Thanks mate! 🙏
I'm new to swordsmanship training, but have spent a lot of time studying another martial art, so take my words with a grain of salt. I think kata gives birth to Bunkai and Henka which give birth to Gekiken. A lot of classes dont offer opportunities to explore all this. I think its important to try and meet up with other practitioners outside of the structure of a class and work on these things if you're in a situation where that isnt really being addressed. Thats the independant study portion that really gets overlooked when people live busy lives and have a hard time devoting more than a couple hours a week to their training.
If you reduce kata purely to rote learning, you are no longer doing kata 形, but kata 型. That kata would be considered dead, and you would have missed the communicative and transformative aspects of kata entirely. It's the reason that from my perspective as a koryū practitioner, none of the quotes of the early authors provided here seem to be at odds with what we practice at all.
I find this interesting and, therefore, have many questions. In your opinion, what is the second term ‘kata’, how is it different to the first term, and what are its links to practical application? How are the quotes provided not at odds with what you practice, from the perspective of your training background? While there may be differing opinions, the definition of kata I have used is from a koryū source/practitioner (see vid), and the term ‘kata’ isn’t even mentioned once in any of the texts I have referenced or the other two I own that I haven’t 🤔
Am only asking as not only do these quotes seem to be at odds with the majority of koryū practice I have seen but also, from my own experience, any form of purely preset drill doesn’t really translate to practical application against a resisting opponent as you have two conflicting contexts (preset and non-preset).
@@NathanaelTheAussie The distinction is that kata (型) are done purely by rote, like a dance, as opposed to kata (形), which are done with a sense of liveness and a certain amount of resistance from the opponent that increases substantially with the experience of the two practicing the kata. They are most certainly "agreed upon" in terms of content, but as you progress, the uchitachi (the usually senior person "receiving" the kata) will try, to various degrees, to either forestall your technique or counter it. They may even just go outside the kata entirely, if they sense that you're anticipating what's coming.
As for historical references to kata, Karl Friday notes: "Certificates of achievement and similar documents left by fifteenth- and sixteenth-century martial art masters suggest that kata had become the principal means of transmission by this time." (Legacies of the Sword, p. 108).
According to the related notes in the appendices: "Examples of such documents are reproduced in Imamura Yoshio et al., eds., Nihon budō taikei, vol. 1: 14, 20-21; vol. 2: 402-403, 439-462; vol. 3: 12-13; and Seki Humitake, Nihon budō no engen: Kashima-Shinryū, 30-32."
(Legacies of the Sword, p. 202, note 17)
Really, a few quotes here and there from Dr. Friday's book won't do it justice, so I really recommend you just read it if you find the opportunity. It's cheap on Amazon, and Dr. Friday is well respected in his field, being both a historian and a high level exponent of the Kashima Shinryū.
In any case, there's also just straight up shiaigeiko, *which is sparring*. Shinai and bōgu predate sport kendō by a lot. It's also quite well known that katageiko and shiaigeiko existed pretty much simultaneously. Many koryū do practice shiaigeiko, but a lot of those also do not allow beginners to engage in sparring.
if you do check the book out btw, Karl speaks at length wrt sparring vs forms from a historical perspective as well. pp. 108-119
@@gontaiyuuI can't wrap my head around how a PhD in History could write something so poorly cited. That particular section of the "LEGACIES
OF THE
SWORD
The Kashima-Shinryu and
Samurai Martial Culture" cites two sources in note #17, both of which are modern publications and not proper historical citations, which would be the actual documents themselves. He does not even cite the pages on which his supporting evidence can be found, and at least one of those sources has 10 volumes!
However, one thing that he completely fails to clarify Is the modification of the definition of Kata over time. That statement is technically true, that Kata were very important to the training of swordsmen in the 16th century. But Kata back then referred to a stance literally "form", which is definitely fundamental for other traditions or swordsmanship across the world. In the modern world, the word Kata has a different definition, which he consistently uses throughout his book, referring to the predetermined exchange of techniques between two practitioners. That is what Kata means today, but it is not what Kata meant 400 years ago, and so the statement is making a conclusion about historical Kata which we now know to be incorrect.
He is likely referring to mokuroku, which is a graduation scroll that lists all of the fundamental techniques by name, and accompanies it with an artistic depiction. The mokuroku alone Is not enough to know the technique. But they were never given as a learning tool like a textbook, but instead more of as a quick reference or study guide to remind the graduate of what they had learned, but not to instruct them. It definitely implies training With a master is necessary, but does not imply anything about Kata in the modern sense.
All of the other 16th century documents That are not mokuroku, but are instead actual instruction techniques (Heiho Okugisho by Yamamoto Kansuke is the prime example), completely lack anything that is similar to a modern Kata.
With that, I would say that this small statement is incorrect, within a larger book that does not necessarily cover that topic.
@@gontaiyuu
In regards to shiai with shinai, shinai often make it difficult to apply historical skills and techniques from the texts we look at mainly because they were designed to work with steel blades of a curved shape. While any form of sparring is certainly better than no sparring at all, comparing sparring with light and straight shinai with sparring with steel blades (even wood to.an extent) is like comparing apples and oranges. They are radically different. Not exposing the student to sparring or sparring-like activities until they are ‘of a certain level’ is a comparatively modern approach - For example, Yagyu Munenori explains that his chapter in regards to martial arts application needs to be taught and understood through sparring specifically, a statement which is echoed across two other different authors writing within 80 years of each other in different locations..
Thank you for the text recommendation, I have already read the majority of this document, not quite finished it yet. The primary purpose of HJMA's research is to use historical documents directly from the period and, if any specific terms are used, to then use them within the context of the period. If we try and apply a modern lens onto historical terms it leads us to minor to significant misinterpretations (eg: Zanshin and kata having changing definition tremendously overtime). Karl Friday's book seems to be applying the 19th century-today meaning of the word kata to in period (early Edo and earlier). Friday also makes some bizarre references in that section on kata in history, referring to what appear to be modern publications (not historical) and also not even reference which sections of historical texts he is referring to and what they say - in short, we are just expected to trust him there at face value. From the sources we have, kata simply means something along the lines of ‘technique’ or ‘guard’; it does not refer to a patter or preset sequence of any sort. To put it into context, in period, stating that someone has ‘mastered all the kata’ seems to more mean something like ‘mastered all of the techniques’.
I have read documents from Miyamoto Musashi, Yamamoto Kansuke and his successors, Ito Ittosai and his successors, and Aisu Ikosai; non of them mention kata even once in their original writings that I have read. While these historical writers don't specify the exact learning process, they do provide may crucial clues which, interestingly enough, coincide with some of the modern research today conducted into educational and coaching approaches.
All of these historical masters aforementioned advocate an approach that involves the teaching of basics to be understood in light of their application, rather than learning the basics and then learning how to apply them later like we see today (eg: kata and bunkai in karate) - one of the many examples of this are Musashi’s quote regarding the principles of weapon use and winning in combat are one in the same, i.e. not to be understood in isolation at any point.
I am not trying to invalidate Koryu as a practice, not by any means. I think Koryu has crucial importance in Japanese culture and tradition, as well as a role to foster this passion across the world and in its own schools.
Despite the points of disagreement raised here, I wanted to thank you for inviting the discussion and conducting it in a genuine and well-meaning way. I believe this is crucial for the martial arts community as a whole and there needs to be more people who will do this.
That is exacly the situation with modern budo that I encountered when searching for some martial arts clubs using blades. I had some experience with HEMA (longsword and rapier) and wanted to brach into typical japanese weapons. I ended up choosing kendo, which focuses on practicality in sparings, but has its own set of problems (extreme sportification, unrealistic rules etc.). Unfortunately, HJMA and HAMA are pretty young disciplines, it will take some time until they will be developed enough to be widely available.
Thanks for sharing your story here, mate. It is one I have heard constantly, to be honest.
This is nothing against traditional martial arts, of course. I have a soft spot for the cultural influences and values in those contexts, and I think it is something that HEMA could learn a bit from in regards to respecting the history and culture in which those systems were brought into being. Nothing against kendo either as, despite the rule sets, it is great for developing other skills that are important for fencing.
However, there needs to be something on offer for people who want to learn first and foremost how to use a weapon in a combative context. I very much think that HAMA, HCMA, HKMA, and HJMA are all new disciplines in the realm of historical martial arts - particularly when compared with HEMA. It’s why I and others are doing the work that we do and slowly expose these new fun and totally possible to practice disciplines into the community and provide as much support as people require to get started 😊
Great video. Totally on board with the approach. Written language was invented by civilization to ensure that information is passed down in a more reliable way instead of having to rely on oral tradition
Please stop using that flashing red green transition. It hurts.
I suspect there is significant difference between what koryu arts were like centuries ago vs now; many I think are preservation arts now.
I think the manner of teaching in history would have been rather different than now.
Dead Kata, strict movement repetition can in fact be harmful to learning, skill acquisition, application and retention.
Live Kata, based on principles and variations is a concept many are only recently rediscovering.
The idea of bunkai, variation, randomisation has been around for a long time, yet many did not, and still do not, include it in their training. It should not be an 'advanced' practice.
@@brisbaneswords8563 Thanks for leaving your thoughts and feedback.
If I get more people complaining about the transition then I am happy to adjust for next time.
I think the way weapon adds were taught in period, at least in Japan, are not only likely different but also mostly unknown today; very few sources from the time exist that tell us their training process. What I have had to do for my living history group is mostly use a backwards mapping approach: look at their end goal of training based on the sources and other clues we can get, and work from there.
Bunkai is an interesting one, as I personally find it a bit counterintuitive to separate the meaning of the practice’s application from the practice itself. That’s just me though.
You mention some good points with kata, the live kata in particular is interesting though I have my own opinions on it. You might find one of my upcoming videos interesting. Specifically, I will be releasing an upcoming video looking at kata (dead and live) purely from my own professional background, an education perspective.
@NathanaelTheAussie I think the written texts are likely just outlines and records, definitely not the closed teaching (menkyo kaiden?) (sorry I've forgotten most of my Japanese language).
I think the modern resurgence of ecological or an constraints based coaching are actually rather old teaching styles that were overtaken for a while but the class based repetitive teaching styles.
I wouldn't separate Kata and bunkai but I can guarantee that many martial artists do not know bunkai.
Also there is a difference between bunkai/application, and variations (IE dealing with non optimal circumstances to apply techniques and how to adjust)
@@brisbaneswords8563There do seem to be closed teaching documents out there, whether they are menkyo kaiden and if they were even a common period concept is another matter 🤔 these documents vary from barely any detail to a decent amount, but almost all of them assume a level of ground knowledge from the reader.
I very much agree with your point in coaching, it is something that I found fascinating the more and more I began to realise.
The way I see it personally, there is no difference between a technique/skill and application and variation of it. We see this advocated for in the historical sources as well. Separating the approach and the application I find a comparatively modern concept when it comes to HJMA. I very much agree that many who do kata likely don’t know bunkai and, even if they did from what I have seen it is often a very shallow understanding.
@@NathanaelTheAussieThe movement of the text delays our ability to read it. It's extremely distracting.
Brilliant! I feel like this applies to many martial disciplines, especially when you look at the ways that they changed through the advent of modernity, and they became an agent of preservation over practicality.
Oh I very much agree 👍 you see this same pattern being echoed across the planet and history among various systems.
Thanks for leaving your thoughts 🙏
@@NathanaelTheAussie I also think this is essentially what Bruce Lee was saying in his book "Tao of Jeet Kune Do". Anyway, best of luck!
Would it not be correct to state that every combative 'art' is and of its time? Aspects of Military Strategy by its very nature can transcend centuries. Ultimately in a war or battle or conflict are not the goals universal? And that is to be the victor. The 'traditional' fighting styles (martial arts)bring to the participant a different element and that is of the conflict within ourselves in striving to be a a better person as we transition through life's travails
Thanks for sharing in the comments, I think you have made a good point here that we all must keep in mind.
Martial arts are a product of their time and culture. It’s why I think it is even more important to, when looking at anything from the past, to make it a priority to read sources written by those from that time. Otherwise, if we approach it ONLY from our modern view, we are going to be left with a swathe of misinterpretations.
The traditional martial arts, as they are practiced today, seem very much to focus on the curriculum and the self first and foremost, which I think is more than understandable for its context.