Variations???

[mrind001]

I have a question- why are there so many variations of technique in iaido from style to style? I have seen like 5 different variations ippon mae from a standing position to a kneeling position.

[Jonathan Anderson]

Oh, big fun question... ;D

For one thing, you may not be seeing Mae every time. It may LOOK like, but not be the same kata. For instance, Muso Shinden Ryu's first kata, Shohatto, looks very similar to Mae - or, rather, Mae looks very similar to Shohatto. Let's remember that Mae, as well as the other eleven Seitei Waza have only been around for about 50 years give or take; while the Koryu have been around... a bit longer. Hence, it's really more that the modern reflects the classical. Bear in mind, the Seitei Waza were created for a number of reasons:
1. To remind Kendoka - particularly those that didn't take the Kendo no Kata seriously - that they are supposed to be training in swordplay, not "stick tag-play."
2. To standardize Iai training and grading with a set of across-the-board, established waza so that promotions across the All Japan Kendo Federation would be uniform.

So to come back to the original first point, assuming that the variations you're seeing are in videos on-line (and accepting that those videos may not always be accurately titled), you are likely looking at entirely different waza without realizing it. To further complicate things...

At the height of the warrior caste in Japan, there were literally hundreds of different sword schools, each with their own specialization. Remember, just because this all took place hundreds of years ago, that doesn't mean that people were all that different. Each school wanted to have something unique that nobody else had; for lack of a better metaphor, a "selling point" for the school. Something they could advertise they had that no other ryu had. Just as retailers and manufacturers in our modern age try to keep an image of being new, fresh, and relevant - I just saw an article about a car with a gauge that keeps track of how much time you've kept the convertible top down, calling it something like the "openness meter" (are they kidding?!) - sword schools in Japan's feudal era did the same thing. If nothing else, they all wanted the coveted position of being the favored school of the Shogun, so they developed special, secret techniques that were unique to their school. Further, and this is true of all martial arts, each school was founded by someone that went into combat - be it a personal duel, or a full-scale battle - and survived because of certain techniques that they happened to use. Seeing that those techniques had obvious value in the given circumstances, terrain, etc. they were in, they started to build a school around those techniques. Of course combat is never the same animal from engagement to engagement, so a different person fighting in a different (or even the same) battle would come out with a completely different view, and therefore different techniques. So we have a scenario where several tens of thousands of warriors go into a single battle, and, just for the sake of argument, let's say that a few hundred samurai come out alive. Let's further say that a few dozen of them had battlefield epiphanies, but only, say, 20 have the authority, capital, materials, etc. to create a sword school of their own based upon their insight. Now we have 20 different schools from one battle, not all of which will stand the test of time, but that will influence each other. Then, as the surviving schools do propagate to the point that they are passed on to the next generation, that generation's Soke will possibly adjust the school's teachings based on his own thoughts, ideas, experience, etc. subtly altering the school as time goes by.

Have a headache yet?

The short version is that over the course of history, Japan saw hundreds of different Iai ryuha, of which a few dozen survived to the present, each with their own way of doing things. That being said, there are really only so many ways one can employ a bladed weapon. For example, when I trained in Kali, which employs single or paired 2 foot long sticks (which are supposed to stand in for 2 foot long short swords, mind) despite the differences in footwork, mindset, etc from the Japanese Sword Arts, I couldn't help but notice many similarities. Now, if there are similarities between martial arts developed in two separate places in the world, with vastly different cultures, using wildly different blade styles (heck, even WITHIN the FMA, there's something like 2 dozen different types of blades), how many similarities do you think will exist between the sword schools that emerged in the same culture, on the same piece of land, using the same style of sword?

Now, if all that hasn't been confusing enough, the Seitei waza are a standardized kata set, but each Iai ryuha will put their own "flavor" on them. For example, Muso Shinden Ryu, and Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu are sister styles of Iaido. The waza in both styles are extremely similar to each other; however, there are several variations, for instance, MSR utilizes the horizontal Noto, whereas MJER performs Noto with the Ha held vertically. No bonus points for guessing which school I've trained in. As such, Iaidoka that train in MJER will perform their Noto vertically when practicing the Seitei Waza, while MSR Iaidoka will perform it horizontally - and they're both JUST AS CORRECT. In the modern age, Kendo is Kendo is Kendo no matter where you go (so long as it's being practiced correctly), but Kenjutsu, Iaido, Iaijutsu, Battodo, and Battojutsu have numerous different ryuha.

This is one of the biggest reasons why, as my experience in Iaido grows, I try not to criticize other demonstrations of Iai without first doing a LOT of research to determine a) is it actually wrong? b) who is it that is doing the demonstration? I've seen people in other on-line forums start tearing into a Youtube video, only to soon discover that the person in the video was a Rokudan.

[glow=green,2,300]Discuss.[/glow]

[mrind001]

Wooowwwwww.......
That was well put and very true. I've done a lot of reading (i'm a book whore) over the years and really didn't start looking at you tube until recently.
I would have to compare it to mathematics......and kids solving problems. Two or mayber more would be given the same problem, but they would solve the problem with different methods and would come to the correct answer on their own.....would have to respect how they got to their answers.
This would also lead into a huge debate that could go on and on...... ;D
So another question- how can two different cultures who have no contact with eachother (separated by physical boundaries, etc....), develop similar fighting methods?

[Jonathan Anderson]

That is an excellent question with, I think, a fairly straight-forward answer... that doesn't mean that I probably won't answer it in my typically long-winded manner. ;D

First, let's all remember that every martial system in the world was originally based around one concept: how to kill one's opponent as quickly, surely, and safely as possible. No one on a battlefield WANTS to die - at least, providing that their mind is in the right place. So assuming that every warrior on a battlefield is neither suicidal or deranged, they all desire to return home; in one piece, if possible. Further, no military commander that is deserving of their position wants to unnecessarily sacrifice their forces - they have a responsibility to their people to try their best to keep them alive, and there are likely more battles to be fought/won. That being said, equipment (read: weapons and armor) evolved to become more and more sophisticated over the years, but the one constant has been the need to develop highly skilled and disciplined troops. The point I'm laboriously trying to get to is that martial systems have always tried to be as efficient as possible, based around the chosen tactics of the system's founder. Some martial arts are extremely linear while some are very circular (unless I'm mistaken, Kempo as opposed to some Kung Fu styles). Some favor heavy crushing blows while some take a rapid-fire, multiple hit strategy (Muay Thai compared to Kali).

Now let's compare/substitute our martial systems that arose around the world to equipment. For instance, one of the more glaring differences in weapon approach is that of feudal England to that of feudal Japan. The English knights' sword was typically not very sharp, double-edged, straight-bladed, very heavy, and two-handed in some cases. The Japanese sword, as we know, was exceptionally sharp, single-edged, curved, relatively light weight... and two-handed in some cases. The reasons for this are likely numerous, but I believe that it's partially due to biology - people from Europe tended to be physically larger, and as such, more easily able to swing around, and carry much heavier gear; most likely due to their more red meat/potato diet. Compared to a more fish and rice diet that was likely the staple of the Japanese islands, you have a natural difference in body style. (Granted, Sumo practitioners show that it's by no means an absolute given) Due to the design of their weapons, the two different cultures developed different styles of armor: English/European swordsmen wore heavy plate and chain-mail armor, while Japanese swordsmen wore armor that was much lighter. This is due to the fact that the European broad and bastard swords' purpose was to crush one's opponent, rather than to really cut them; and even if they did break flesh, it was more of a hacking cut. The katana, by comparison was designed to be very adept at slicing, hence the armor was designed to protect against the lightness of the blade, and to protect the body from the more likely areas of attack. There are, I'm certain, more reasons for why various cultures designed the weapons they did, such as the values of the indigenous population, for instance, but to keep from going off topic too far, that's as far as I'm going to take this point right now.

Now that we've made martial systems analogous to equipment, let's make discipline and training analogous to the human body. As I said earlier, all professional warriors seek to cultivate the most effective and efficient methods to do their job - kill the enemy - while managing to survive if possible. To that end, strict training, and a disciplined mind, heart, and body are needed. If we accept that this is a constant across the entire planet, then the correlation to the human body should become easier to see: barring birth defects, injuries, etc. we all have 2 arms, hands, legs, feet, eyes, and ears; and 5 digits on each hand and foot. Same number of joints in the same places - basically we're all, essentially the same from an anatomical standpoint with regard to fighting techniques. That is to say, there isn't a fighting move that, for instance, a Russian person can do that a Brazilian cannot. A punch is a balled-up fist pushed at one's enemy regardless of where you go. There are different ways of throwing punches, surely (which brings us back to the original question of the thread), but no matter where you go, a punch is a punch. By the same token, there are only so many ways to take a long strip of sharpened metal and try to effectively kill someone with it. Lines of attack, with regard to the most efficient way to bring an enemy down, do not change.

Hopefully, based on this, I've helped point out how different cultures might develop similar techniques. They wouldn't be identical, obviously - aforementioned subtle differences in body styles, cultural values and sensibilities, etc - but they will, without a doubt, share some similarities.

It is inevitable.

[mrind001]

Very true....a punch is punch and a kick is a kick no matter where you go, and the physiology and technology of the culture at hand would have big influence on the development of the martial arts. I think the biggest simalarities in the martial arts comes in the area of open hand techniques. Like you said, as people we all (barring some abnormality) have one head, a body, two arms and hands with two legs and feet, so there is really only a finite set of hand to hand techniques that the body can do.
When we add weapons to the picture, that is where you have the wide variations in techniques, based on the tech level of the culture and what weapons are available, and thanks to the people who came up with firearms, that really muddles the picture up...
So if we are to compare weapons and techniques, lets try say our favorite- the samurai and katana vs. a rennisance fencer and rapier & dagger....who would have the advantage and who would actuallly win?

[Jonathan Anderson]

I think you're starting to get into dangerous territory here, as you're now comparing apples to oranges... at least somewhat. Granted, both people are sword wielders, but that's pretty much where the similarity ends. The rapier is generally considered to be the pinnacle of thrusting/stabbing technology with regard to sword design. By the same token, the katana is the best slicing design. Each weapon can perform the other's specialty, but not quite as well. Further, the Highlander series notwithstanding, there is a correct way to wield each weapon (as we know), which suggests that what is actually being addressed by this question is: Which is better, the art/way of the katana, or the art/way of the rapier?

I've said for many years that no given fighting system will always automatically defeat any other system. Some styles have inherent strengths or weaknesses with regard to a different styles, but they must be tempered compared to the strengths, weaknesses, skill, and personality of the practitioners. Even though it may seem like a cop-out, the true answer to such a question is that it's impossible to know if any given practitioner of a fighting system can beat a practitioner of any other given system until they actually fight. This is because when all is said and done, who wins a fight ultimately comes down to one thing: Who wants it more. Granted skill and experience play a large role in the outcome as well, but the will to succeed and deny failure can, I believe, overcome such things within reasonable limits - a person in their first month of Kendo isn't going to overcome a Nanadan, but two people with reasonably similar skill/experience levels are a different matter.

[mrind001]

This is what ya get for someone who likes to ask questions ;D

Anyway.....you are correct in it's like comparing apples to oranges, in that each weapon was designed for a specific purpose....one to slice the other to stab. I think where they are really alike would come to footwork with the major difference in that european fencers have a tendancy to show the bottom of their foot and use a lot of the wrist where as the japanese fencers would not (or is it better NOT) show the bottom of the foot and use the shoulders.

As to the inexperienced vs the experienced....that's a no brainer, the experienced are gonna (or should) win, but I do believe in the phrase "any given sunday" which would really suck if you're the victim to such a thing.

[Jonathan Anderson]

Yes, but the point I was (unsuccessfully) trying to make is that, except in such extreme situations, the desire to win can make all the difference in the world. In such cases even one that shouldn't normally win may prevail if the desire to win is strong enough to overcome their disadvantage with regard to skill level. Fairly classic underdog scenario, granted, but they do happen from time to time.