It is kenjutsu within the ninjutsu ryuha, nothing more, nothing less. To say it is more combat oriented than the next is a bit cheeky.
Scott, again I apologize for my ignorance, I did not mean to cause insult. But again, I request a more appropriate description; ie, if I am talking with someone who really does not know anything about martial arts and they ask "oh what is that?", what should I say in response?
That is down to the particular ryuha. Some arts have 'personal development' as a priority, some are purely interested in the efficacy of the killing techniques. Therefore, your description is really down to your art and ryuha. As I practice gendai iai, koryu iai, koryu kenjutsu and shinai kendo, I just say I practice Japanese swordsmanship. That is much easier that trying to explain each one seperately as they all have their own mindsets. I don't dwell on what JSA is unless someone asks, and even then only really explain that I practice out of interest in the art and their heritage, and not for self-defence. So, homework - go find out what bikenjutsu is to you and come back to us.
just tell them like it is. let them know that you are training in a more combatant sword art then most. when i started learning kuk sool I went to their website and on the web to learn much about it so that I can tell others about the style itself.
Like compared to what exactly ? Using the "it's more combative than most" phrase to describe a Japanese sword art is a bit of an oxymoron to be honest. If we take Seitei iai as a classic example. Seitei is most definitely a modern creation, a blend of a number of classical sword schools with a limited number of techniques within it's curricula, none of which (in their current guise) have ever been tested in actual combat - but, if you're studying a much older system of Japanese fencing say Yagu Shin Kage Ryu for instance, then yes you could comfortably argue that YSKR is by far more combat orientated in it's waza than Seitei iai but - therein lay the oxymoron - No one carries a sword into battle anymore so, a sword arts combative effectiveness isn't the driving reason why people study a Japanese sword art in an era where warfare isn't fought with swords. A sword arts actual combative effectiveness, now, in this day and age is pretty irrelevant unless we're having a historical discussion. Dave
Well yes, or if they bring back dueling. But I think its instructive to examine the history of Toyama-Ryu in this matter as well. I forget how many different RYU were examined but the essentials came down to a sparse handful of techniques. In the matter of "combat effectiveness" their are just only so many ways a person can cut or thrust with a two-handed sabre. The rest of it is all strategy at best. IMHO. Best Wishes, Bruce
We have all been there in the 60's LOL. Maybe I should of used the japanese terminology 6' staff. to develope the wrists. D2
Sure, lets. Does the Japanese Defense Force teach combative the use of the Japanese sword as part of it's professional development for Officers or NCO ? I think not. Do any branch of the JDF carry a sword as part of their complete equipment fighting order ? Nope. Again, the "combative effectiveness" of a Japanese sword system is entirely irrelevant as a means of comparison-descriptive between one art and another, because, as I've explained before: 1. Students aren't learning the techniques as a means of killing because.. 2. Swords aren't now used in warfare. Historical discussion is an entirely different issue however, if someone wanted to suggest that one ryu was more combative than another then there's some data which needs to support that assertion. Dave
Just jumping into this thread; he could be talking about the aproach. In WMA, we have several ways of approaching weastern swords. A The nerd's flirt with old manuals (when people tries to copy manuals, but don't really stress-test them much) B The MA'ers flirt with old manuals (when people tries to copy manuals and stress-test them) C The Re-enactos (those who invent a safe sport-system with more or less safety-equipment, that can be good training of timing and distancing, but isn't really about trying to get things historically correct) Olympic fencing is sort of like in this category. D The show-fighters (those who only is interrested in making things look cool on the screen) I'm sort of involved in all those four categories, allthough I try to get as much of the "B" into all categories :hat: I have never done EMA, but I get the impression that Kendo would fit into "C", and Shinto Ryu Kenjutsu, etc fits in somewhere between A and B (as opposed to WMA; much EMA-stuff have a consistant tradition to lean on), so one could make up alternative E The EMA'ers (those who joins a school with strict grading, and several hundred years history to lean on)
I disagree with this point. I used to agree until I started practicing kendo. These days, I see shinai kendo as I do seitei iai - a system of modern techniques used to fulfill a certain need - but most defintely not sport, re-enactment or play fighting. The koryu arts would all be more like 'E' and I doubt any 'flirt with' or rely on old manuals.
Huh? The use of BO STAFF? http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92495 http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85923 The bong will crack when struck with the bo. Unless the the person with the bo had thoroughly used the bong before, they would not be able to strike the bong with the bo. . . .
