Many people from modern sportive arts, who apparently have no understanding of what they're observing, criticize the same-hand/same-foot forward "lunge punch" often seen in the Bujinkan and "spinoff" arts (e.g., Genbukan and Jinenkan) as unrealistic. . .at best. (And in fact, I have my own criticisms of it, but I'll save that for a wee bit yet.) The question needs to be, and is virtually never, asked: Unrealistic for what? Warfare? It seems to me that the major influence on this kind of movement is the use of weapons. A while back I posted a link to an article by Dr. Kacem Zoughari concerning the history of movement in Japanese martial arts; and a couple of things he wrote sort of jumped out at me: I just went back and looked (for the first time in several years) at a Japanese documentary video which Shiraishi sensei gave me back in '89, featuring a number of Japanese kobudo arts. Interestingly, almost universally among them -- whether the attack was a strike, a grab, a sword cut, a spear or naginata thrust or cut, throwing bo (spike) shuriken, etc. -- this kind of movement was being used, with the same-side hand and foot forward. And these arts had no relationship to the Bujinkan. (Other than the period in which they developed, anyway.) Now obviously, these benighted heathens of the 1600s and earlier were ignorant of the sublime heights of understanding reached by modern sport practitioners. Their only real concern was killing each other on the orders of their respective lords. Little interest seems to have been shown in "submitting an opponent", unless it was something along the line of "submit your head to the point of my yari so I can display it more easily when I return to camp". But then, these were martial arts, as in "pertaining to, or suitable for, warfare". And in warfare, weapons have always been primary ever since Urgh clocked Grog with a mastodon thigh-bone. I remember once seeing a group of (American) TKD practitioners doing a public demonstration, during the course of which they did some stuff involving some kind of 2-man forms with (Japanese!) katana. It was truly painful to watch, as it showed there was absolutely no sense of commonality of principles or integration of movement across the range of empty-hand and weapon skills. With a truly martial art, though, in the interest of efficiency in learning and application it's pretty much "all the same" whether empty-handed or with any weapon. You even see this with European medieval-to-Renaissance era training manuals on combat which have survived to the present. But what did they know, they'd never be able to hack it in the ring. . . Attacking in this way makes you a little less vulnerable to your opponent's weapons than if you were doing a "hips & shoulders square-on" reverse punch. It also enables you to move and do things while keeping your sheathed sword, holstered pistol, or slung carbine out of reach of the opponent until you have the proper space to access and use them. That being said, however. . .I remember a training session in Nagase shihan's dojo in '98 where he commented that, across the Bujinkan in general, people had rather poor attacking skills. It's something I very much took to heart those years ago and, honestly, I agree with what he said then. Been working on it with my dojo ever since. If others don't know how to make this kind of movement work "for real", well. . .doesn't affect my own training or that of my students. I feel that the also-criticized matter of launching attacks from a low "ichimonjoid" sort of posture in kata training is also misunderstood. . .not only by the sportive types, but by many in the Bujinkan as well. . .and it actually is a separate issue from the same-side hand and foot thing. In my opinion, assuming and moving in these low postures is simply for the purpose of what the sport folks would refer to as "attribute development" -- not unlike practicing a lot of cuts with a extra-heavy suburito bokken if you're a kendoka. Doesn't mean you're going to bout with one against your opponent's bamboo shinai: It's "baby step" conditioning stuff for early in the learning process.
To play devil's advocate: Why train this way now, if we dont have the need for swords and such? Wouldnt it be easier to adapt to todays threat rather than yesteryears?
You seem to have missed the second and third of the three items I mentioned here: Are those enough of "today's threat" to suit you? Since a number of those I'm teaching are in law enforcement, the military, or security work (and I am, or have been, involved in all of those myself), these considerations are very relevant to me. You are, of course, welcome to provide evidence that this is no longer the case in these modern times. Just to further clarify the kind of thing I'm getting at: Let's say you're with a squad of Marines clearing a suspected terrorist "safe house" in Fallujah. You thought the room you went into was clear, but suddenly someone's coming at you and "the space isn't right" for you to effectively deploy your weapon. . .
Dale, are you able to supply a short video or animation of this walking style so we can get a better idea?
Dale, great post, and in relation to what you put I remember on the "Way of the Warrior" series on TV a Japanese martial artist saying that the reason the Japanese moved the way they did in combat, i.e one leg in front of the other and hips low is because it is the same action as using a hoe to make a rut in a field. Now I don't know how true this is but it made me think. Any way to get back to this lunging punching style I would guess that its not just related to the Bujinkan, but to any art which has been used on the battlefield. Firstly it makes sense to get low and get a wide stance. Why? Well the main reason is balance. Imagine being on a battlefield with dead bodies, body parts, slippy entrails, blood, weapons, mud etc. Any one would quickly find out that to take up a modern kick boxing type stance would have them very quickly on their back, through having slipped or tripped over something. Another reason is to close the distance. This lunge punch was a way of very quickly closing the gap on an opponent. Unlike to day one would not just be able to walk up and grab the jacket, as the opponent would probably draw his sword and cut you down before you got half way there. So this lunge punch or grab was in a way a leap of faith. In other words clearing distance and being able to hit or grab before they could respond. There are other reasons for this low stance, such as power delivery, avoidance etc, but I'm not going to go into all these here. Now today in various dojos this lunge punch is stil practiced, and is indeed a great way for beginning students to learn how to get there body and weapon flow as one (Ken Tai Ichi Jo) and also so that their partners can get to practice some defences against that punch or grab. I also teach this to my beginning students in To-Shin Do and also in the Classical Ninjutsu. However, and this is where the problem lies I think. This punch is totally outdated in todays world, in that it is very unlikely that an attacker will punch you in this fashion today. So I find it really funny and strange when black belts are still defending against this type of punch, and telling their students that this is real self defence. And of course they are right. It is self defence. For the 15th and 16th centuries on the battlefield, not for the 21st century western world. No after we have got the basics of receiving against this punch, then one should also practice against hooks, jabs, crosses, uppercuts and other types of punch attack. Now if one is practicing the ryu ha as a classical reenactment, or as a means to historically understand the ryu ha then that is fine, but don't think that this lunge punch is the kind of thing that one is likely to encounter today on the street, unless you get attacked by another practitioner of ninjutsu. No today this lunge punch is a way to start our journey on the path to self protection in todays modern world where the battlefield is the concrete jungle. So should we just forget this silly lunge punch. No absolutely not. I always tell my students that if Britain became invaded by a foreign power where the soldiers were wearing helmets, flak jackets and carrying rifles with bayonets, then we might have to revert back to techniques of the fifteenth century as we would in eccence be defending against a samurai in armour with a spear, but until then we have to stick with whats relevant today. Gary Arthur
I agree with the second part of your statement. . but it's not at all outdated if you are using it effectively against someone else. I totally agree, and we certainly do this in my own dojo.
I can agree with you here, this punch as i see it is not the greatest attack in the world, it is often seen before it arrives, but to use the movement and the kamae on a regular basis gives a better understanding of how the body structure works, getting students to relax too early will only produce a lazy sloppy punch. Using this extended punch produces good leg development and a strong spinal structure and a better understanding of distance, once this is accepted as the norm by the body then bringing in the length of punch ie closing in the kamae to make the leg work shorter will result in a quicker stronger punch. IMO
What a great thread and a subject very close to my own heart. I've got a video at home by Mike Loades on the development of European swordsmanship. Can't remember the exact title but I'll check later and post the details. In it he explores how footwork has changed over the years and why. Funny enough, the style of footwork used during periods of warfare was what he terms "on the pass". In this type of footwork, the rear foot (and thus rear arm) passes the other foot and becomes the front foot. Exactly like the standard model of movement we use in the Bujinkan et al. Dale has already covered the reasons why and I agree with them so there's no need to repeat. I also agree that, in modern times, the prevalent method of delivering punches has shifted from this "on the pass" style to a more "cross" style. This too is covered on that video I mentioned earlier. The method of punch delivery has altered in modern times for the majority of people because they are operating from a different paradigm to that found during periods of warfare. You've only got to look at the differences between Sengoku period martial techniques and Edo period martial techniques to see what I mean. If we practice our "old style" footwork against "old style" footwork which is the way things are normally done in the Bujinkan et al then that's great. However I agree with those above who say that we should also practice applying those movements against "modern style" attacks. That doesn't mean that we practice those attacks so as to use them ourselves because they are often flawed when viewed from our particular paradigm. However we do need to practice them to some degree so that we can:- a) effectively recreate such an attack for training purposes and b) understand the dynamic of the movement so that we are aware of what may be happening during an attacker's movement. Keikai pointed out that this "old style" punch is often seen before it arrives and this is true in many cases. However this is simply because the practitioner has not learned good movements. These punches are indeed slower than some "modern style" punches but they should not be recognised as punches until it's too late in the movement. The movement of the punch should be hidden so that, by the time the bad guy realises the danger it is too late to avoid it. I used to have a student who had trained in a huge variety of martial arts, mostly to at least dan grade. These included Wing Chun and Lau Gar. We once had a sparring match just for fun and I slipped an "old style" punch straight down the line and clocked him in the gob. Afterwards he commented that he'd never even realised there was a punch coming until too late. A punch needs to be delivered in such a way that there are no visual triggers, audio triggers and so on. Oh and one small point, the Bujinkan punch is not a "lunge" punch. A lunge, such as found in Western fencing is a totally different concept to the "on the pass" method of power delivery. I'll have a lot more to say about power delivery too but I'll leave that for later. EDIT - Just checked and that video is called "The Blow By Blow Guide to Sword Fighting in The Renaissance Style" by Mike Loades.
Fantastic post Dale, and great thread to all. One of my goals in 2006, my first year in training, is to become a better Uke, and better understanding of our punches is really helpful.
Excellent. This is one of the things that Dale didn't go into in his post. Probably because he is such a selfish guy. I remember spending a lot of class time learning how to attack. One of the things that Dale always tried to instill was the idea that the attack is actually how you shape the space to get a reaction from the opponent. Dale's exact description was, "move in such a way as to suppress the opponents options", if I remember correctly. This was one of the things I tried to work on with my guys in full armor. Easier said than done. :bang:
Quite right. I simply used the phrase because that's what its detractors generally call it. Another criticism from the sport perspective is that we don't -- necessarily -- immediately retract/re-"chamber" the striking hand. Certainly there could be times when you'd want to do that; but we have a tendency to often leave the hand & arm out there in order to "shape and hold space" in transition to further strikes, grappling, etc.
Dale said:- Of course. I just thought it worth pointing out because when people hear "lunge" punch they have this image of a massively over-committed thrust which just isn't true of the basic punching method used by the Bujinkan et al. Dale said:- I agree completely. When we punch, our first punch is often not the real punch, we're simply "punching space" so as to dominate and control the ground, gradually shaping the battlefield to our requirements. In that sense I fully agree with what Dale wrote. However I honestly believe that a high percentage of practitioners don't actually understand the above. I don't mean this as a criticism, it is simply an observation based upon my own experiences. Too many people actually do stick their arm out and wait for their training partner to do their thing. Okay, sometimes that's necessary, especially with beginners. But once the basic mechanics of the punch have been learned, it's more important to work on timing and rhythm and disrupting the bad guy's ability to match rhythm. If I punch at my training partner, one of two things will happen - I'll either hit or miss. Regardless, something is going to have to come next. I'm either going to:- a) follow up with another punch, in which case I will indeed leave my arm extended to dominate the line of approach of my next attack, or I am going to b) remain where I am to perhaps see what happens next. In that case, I don't want to be leaving my arm out in mid air. Under those circumstances I will indeed want to retract my arm by resetting my whole kamae, consolidating my position so that I'm fully protected and ready to go if necessary. Well if nothing else, I know what I'm covering in tonight's class.
I think that the 'lunge punch' is a good thing for the beginners to use. Not only is it teaching proper body alignment, etc., but it also teaches Tori distancing and when danger is involved. The quickest way is a straight line and this punch follows that principle. For tori, he can see the punch developing and can learn the timing to move at the last second to avoid. This teaches him what a safe distance is (from his attacker's shoulder, etc) and what an unsafe distance is. As you progress in your training, you can take out the ichimonji no kamae and start throwing punches, and jabs, and the like. The tori should now have a proper understanding of safe distance and be working to keep that space against an opponent irregardless of how he moves. However, many, many people move far too early against this attack and 'cheat'. This is unrealistic and doesn't serve any purpose, and will get you hurt. I agree with the detractors that this is unrealistic. Shame on those instructors who do that/teach that. The kata found in the ryuha have to start somewhere. Most times it just says 'uke migi tsuki' or some such thing with no specifics to the description. Most people take this to mean that its the 'lunge punch', but who knows? This movement is meant to be applied in a combat situation. The kata description is a snapshot taken from inside this combat situation. So you can arrive at this place in very many ways.
Garth, I disagree that a low stance is better for stability on an uneven or slippery surface. Just watch guys working on a fishing boat in high seas with a slippery deck. Don't see many of them in a low stance. I've done taijutsu on ice and low stances don't cut it unless you've done an enormous amount of work in them. Even in that case they aren't more stable than just bending your knees a little. Also since most people don't do their homework they are very unstable in a low stance and tense their legs way too much which makes them immobile and vulnerable to any sudden or unexpected change. Maybe by low stance you just mean bent knees or unlocked legs. In that case I would agree. I would agree that there reasons to do work in very low stances (traditional Togakure Ryu ichimonji, etc). It's good for flexibility, leg strengthening and balance but not in a chaotic environment with poor footing which would require mobility and adaptability, not rooting into the ground. Jeff
there is another really simple thing which this sort of attack teaches in the early days.. how to strike with your body, and not just your limb. as the stance shortens the principle of the body moving as a unit is retained, in a more compact form the power doesn't come from the muscles in the upper torso or the arms, it comes from the thighs and the hips driving the body mass forwards and through the target.
I think the biggest problem is the people who don't understand that the lunge punch is like that so you can learn the principles of how to strike properly first and foremost. From there you need to shorten the moment so it's not only more subtle but also faster, as speed is a huge factor in striking power. Unfortunately, many people don't realize this and you still have people lunging like a fencer.
Oi Tsuki is not a rear hand punch. It is a lead hand punch. The punch happens from close range and with the lead hand. The first part of oi tsuki is about kamae and distance not punching. It is not a "beginners punch". Done correctly, understood correctly it it is a very advanced technique. Things taught in the begining of these old Japanese arts are not basic as in the easiest things to learn, or simple for beginners. They are the MOST IMPORTANT things, THIS is why they are taught first. Rei ho being the most important btw...
How would this help civilian that most likely will never be armed in a self-defense confrontation? I do agree that for kata and also teaching basic principals Oi Tsuki is important heck I even use it in an apllication or two, but for most functionalapplications for both attacking(using) and defense(defending against), there are better strikes. For example Shinden Fudo's punch.
Dales got a great way of explaining it. It is good for beginners to learn to strike using the body, making the legs more important than the arms, it's easier to see for themselves making that mistake this way. Also of course when learning how to counterstrike, uke punching that way. Until of course you have the hang of things, then uke should throw an actual punch. That is something I am not a fan of seeing high level belts working at an unrealistic attack and an unrealistic pace. Just my opinion. I also think that it is important to use spontanious attack/situational attack when practicing.
