Ground fighting in the Takamatsuden

Hannibal,

I think it is known that samurai did do jujutsu and probably many dabbled in sumo...but I doubt many did ground fighting to the extent that it is used today. I have seen several very intricate locks and chokes from the ground in various schools including TYR but newaza as I know it is a bit more extensive and subtle. I have dabbled in several systems of Japanese jujutsu and they didn't include newaza.

Maybe to clarify the definition of newaza would be best as we could all be thinking of something different. That is why I asked about the kata/waza PR was referring to for a base. For me I am thinking of an exchange on the ground, usually requiring a bit of time if the opponent is skilled, and not a few techniques to get you back to your feet, hold the opponent down etc.

One of the main ryu that I study once we grapple the opponent to the ground we use our own or their dagger to finish the conflict. No need for newaza really. Their exist many detailed and subtle movements on the ground but it really isn't about an exchange. Much different from what we would think of today as newaza.

Best,
Todd Schweinhart

 

It's troubling when you use words like "I get the feeling that it all has a relevance" when referring to SD. So really what you are saying is that you don't know.

And this "You see his thinking is not aligned with the mainstream Bujinkan, I feel that mine is and am a dedicated follower,..."

Then you say that you don't suggest you know much. Well if you are a 15th dan and don't know much then it begs the question why are you teaching students?

Think about this for a moment not one person has stepped forward in this thread and supported you or the things you are saying. Not even one of your students.

Why is that?

 

Perhaps you should define what you mean by newaza. Again, there are ways of climbing up and around your opponent, how to take him out whether you are on top, side, or bottom, chokes, locks, and pins, and other things. More than that, it is the holistic way you move around the opponent, and the principles of movement and control that show that newaza are deeply ingrained and practiced in the ryu. Again, if you read earlier in the thread, I went into a bit more detail.

The idea though is not to remain laying down and spending 5 minutes on unarmed newaza with a likely trained opponent while a referee watches over you. If that is what you consider subtle and intricate newaza, then again we disagree. The idea is to have enough bodily control and skill to avoid being killed on the ground, and the ability to kill, maim, or control the other guy on the ground whether with or without weapons. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'll add that when I competed, I didn't know the newaza from the Takamatsuden and I supplemented my training with things outside the Bujinkan. Had I known then what I know now, I think my approach would've been a lot different.

 

My groundwork consists of several facets- c&r and weapon retention (professional life), escape and weapon deployment (SD & teaching life), subs and pins (low level SD and hobby and fun life)

None of the above are exclusive and what works for one tends to carry over pretty well. When I hear "grappling with weapons" i always smile because how many have actually done it? I don't nean drilled it or simulated it, I mean actually DONE it

I have and there is zero issue with the techniques transferring over in a life or death situation

This is not about style vs style because 9/10 that is just sauce and spice rather than meat and veg- this is more to raise the issue that the perceived flaw in the "sport" style grappling is based on a lack of correct exposure to those systems.


I also want to bring it back to something PR said in the opening post

SO much this!!

It is NEVER about the technqiues, or the theory or the uniform - it is ALWAYS about teh training methodology

Boxing and Boxercise are identical technically - the training method makes the difference

Regardless of what you are doing, you don't train under pressure then you cannot fight under pressure

 

I'm speaking of historical context, not calling grappling arts ineffective.

(Though yes, I am one of those people who has a bias against no-gi-only BJJ à la 10th Planet.)

 

The problem that seems prevalent in the tori/uke model is both parties having the same objective - to allow the technique to happen. It appears to be a deep-rooted problem ingrained in the culture of some training methodologies.

It's a funny psychological phenomenon, that as soon as you give someone a rubber knife and tell them they're sparring the unarmed guy, the ensuing action very rarely resembles isolated tori/uke practice. Just as, if you get 3-on-1 and the objective of the 3 is to smash the 1 and give no quarter, it looks nothing like dancing around arm-hangers.

I think it was ap Oweyn that mentioned the objectives of the respective parties in training, and I feel it is a fundamental and nuanced point.

 

It's not the model itself. It's a bastardisation of it, and a relatively recent one at that.

 

I think Hatsumi sensei passed on whatever he wanted to pass on a long time ago, and that the bujinkan is just a way for him to have fun and pay the rent and enjoy celeb status.

And it probably also serves the added purpose of providing a thick smokescreen so that whoever is next in line is unknown and can continue the line in all privacy while the rest of the Bujinkan will all try to convince each other that they're the chosen one.

 

There also seems to be a funny idea about rank in an organisation, too.

It often looks as if the higher the grade of tori, the more uke wants to make them look good, or just expects to come a cropper from some fancy counters (and that expectation influences their actions).

I think the pyramid is best the other way around - I welcome students to really try to smash me. Not only is it good training for me, but how can you have faith in an instructor whom you've never tested?

 

Again though that's the issue. Traditionally, isn't the senior supposed to be uke (thus able to resist and make sure you do it right)?

 

Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by this? Is there anything in particular you have against No-gi only BJJ?

 

I did. But Fusen gets the credit for introducing that notion to this thread. I was agreeing with him.

 

Nothing particularly unique. This has been debated over and over by many people a million times more experienced than me.

Basically the 'you wear clothes in real life' thing.

 

Yes, that is my understanding from the reading materials suggested to me by Dean Winchester.

 

Without diverting too much, not always and not always to any degree that actually means anything

T-Shirt or shorts and a vest equates to no gi; a leather jacket equates to a gi

Although I train in both I find no gi grappling for more useful from a combat perspective simply because you rely on the hold, not the outfit

 

I think the ability to get grips without relying on cloth but body positioning instead is definitely important, but the slipperiness of rashguards and tights can bring up its own issues. It makes it harder to grip your opponent, true, which is good... but it makes it harder for your opponent to grip you, which can make for bad habits when that's all you do.

 

In your many tussles how often did what you were wearing get used against you Hannibal?
So you might not be relying on a clothing grip to achieve something but the guy you are taking down might have other ideas and grab your lapels, sleeves, trousers, belt etc?

 

Both approaches are good in isolation, but better in combination.

If your gi game is wholey dependent on specialist grips, your gi game sucks.

if you nogi game goes to bits in a gi, your nogi game sucks.

elbows in, head up, hips down, control whats near you, job done.

 

Just not focusing on it in and of itself is fine in my book, as long as people acknowledge that they are not. When people pull out lines about having a magic technique that will stop any newaza specialist on the other hand, it reminds me of UFC 1.