The previous post looked at Part 4 of the Jan de Jong (JDJ) jujutsu shodan grading. That part includes suwari waza no kata and ken tai ichi no kata. The previous post looked at suwari waza no kata (which is part of Kodokan Judo’s kime no kata). This post looks at ken tai ichi no kata.
The name ken tai ichi no kata has been translated as, ‘form of sword and body as one.’
The description of this kata in Jan de Jong: The man, his school, and his ju jitsu system is: ‘Demonstration of katana and the unarmed applications’ (Jan de Jong Self Defence School, 1997, p. 50).
This kata as taught within the JDJ jujutsu shodan grading consists of five sword v. sword and five unarmed v. unarmed attack-defence sequences.
The grading sheet reads:
1. Yoko Tekubi Hishigi: Tori – Seigan Kamae, Uke – Seigan Kamae
2. Ude Kujiki: Tori – Seigan Kamae, Uke – Gedan Kamae
3. Tekubi Te Nage: Tori – Seigan Kamae – Gedan Kamae, Uke – Jodan Kamae
4. Ude Hiji Nage: Tori – Hasso Kamae, Uke – Hasso Kamae
5. Ura Tai Otoshi: Tori – Gedan Kamae, Uke – Gedan Kamae
The first phrase represents the unarmed technique that is being demonstrated. The tori and uke kamae description refer to the ‘combat engagement posture’ (see Donn Dreager) for the sword attack-defence sequence.
Video Examples
An example of the JDJ kata was posted on YouTube by the Hans de Jong Self Defence School, a JDJ ryuha.
Purpose
What is the purpose of this kata? What are the lessons to be learned from this kata? What benefits are the students supposed to derive from learning this kata, other than progression in the grading system?
I suggested in a previous post, based on what my instructors told me, that it was to demonstrate the similarities between sword and unarmed techniques. Why? What is the point?
A comment that I received to a post on Facebook that provided a link to my latest blog posts suggested that the three different parts of the YB kata represent kenjutsu, jujutsu, aikido: kenjutsu – sword v. sword, jujutsu – unarmed v. sword, and aikido – unarmed v. unarmed. Now that is a very interesting proposition, and one that I had never heard before.
The commentary on the above linked YB ken tai ichi no kata video explains that:
The founder of Aikido Ueshiba, used to tell his followers that the principles of Aiki-jutsu came from those of Kenjutsu. But how the techniques were modified from Ken (saber) to Tai (empty hand) is not known precisely. ... Mochizuki acquired Kendo and Koryu-kenpo before learning Aiki-jutsu therefore he could figure out the technical relations between Kenjutsu and Taijutsu (Jujutsu). These kata represent his completed work out of many years of training and simple techniques that define the transition process from Ken to Tai.
Ken tai ichi no kata in this instance would appear to suggest that Mochizuki is attempting to demonstrate the evolution from ken-ken to tai-tai, kenjutsu to aikido, and that he found the missing link: tai-ken, jujutsu.
Why would JDJ not include the 'missing link', jujutsu, in his ken tai ichi no kata in his jujutsu shodan grading?
Then, of course, the abovementioned premise has to be questioned. Did the principles of aiki-jutsu come from those of kenjutsu, or is it some attempt to link the tai with the samurai ken for some sense of superiority and credibility? And what does that have to do with JDJ's jujutsu?
Even if it is meaningless, the argument might be made that the kata is included in YB due to tradition because Mochizuki developed and taught the kata, however, can the same argument be made for the jujutsu taught by JDJ?
Eliminating Tai v. Ken
There are some possible reasons that might explain why JDJ eliminated the tai v. ken element of this kata.
JDJ was above all else, for the most part*, a practical man. He was all about practical, effective techniques, for the most part*. When you see the tai v. ken element demonstrated in the above YB video, the kamae (tenchi no kamae (Guard of Heaven and Earth)) assumed by tori is, well, to be diplomatic, it does not look good. It doesn't look good and is clearly impractical in defending against an opponent armed with a sword. To the best of my knowledge, this kamae is only assumed in this kata in YB teachings and is not assumed anywhere else, even against other weapons. Would any instructor in the JDJ or YB tradition teach a practitioner to assume that kamae against an opponent armed with a sword or any other weapon, or even unarmed? If not, what is the point in teaching it?
Another Facebook comment suggested that the tai v. ken element was included in the kata in the JDJ aikido grading system. If so, why would he not include it in the kata in his jujutsu shodan grading? Was it because he was looking to make his aikido look more Yoseikan? Was it because he was just trying to populate his shodan grading given that the ikkyu grading was designed as a one-off, ultimate, instructor's grading?
A Facebook comment that was received, but which unfortunately I cannot locate, was that JDJ explained to a highly ranked aikidoka in his school that the original YB kata which included the three phases took two hours to perform. JDJ was more action oriented (not very patient) and may not have included the tai v. ken attack-defence sequence in order to reduce the time spent performing, and grading, the entire YB kata.
*The 'for the most part' will be discussed when the te nage (hand throw)/robuse (rowing throw) defence from ryo te dori (two hand grab) is discussed in a future post.
Kata
In line with the above action orientation of JDJ comment; a senior JDJ jujutsu instructor suggested that JDJ was not a fan of kata full stop. Why not? It was suggested that it was because kata was a major form of training under his original instructors, the Saito brothers, and he was 'sick of it.' If that is true, it raises a raft of questions (besides the question as to whether this is an example of 'shoehorning'). Why are there no Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu kata in his grading system? Why did JDJ have to go looking to other Japanese martial art traditions in order to find kata to include in his grading system? Why did he include kata in his grading system at all?
There is happoken no kata in 8th kyu (part of the mon system; see future post). Happoken no kata is another YB kata which JDJ included in his grading system to teach and train striking and blocking techniques - a practical training purpose.
JDJ developed wakai no kata which he included in 7th kyu (part of the mon system: see future post) for the same practical purpose (also see 2nd kyu).
The newly added revision grading in 2nd kyu included itsitsu no kata, another YB kata. It is a YB kata teaching the five basic taisabaki (evasive body-movements) of YB. This kata supported the taisabaki taught within the newly introduced mon system, which is largely based on YB teachings, as we will see in a future post.
What is the purpose of ken tai ichi no kata, and suwari waza no kata in the JDJ jujutsu grading system? Were they included in shodan simply to 'pad out' the grading given that ikkyu was designed to be a one-off instructor grading, as speculated upon in the previous post? Was it to introduce some 'traditional' teachings into his practically oriented system that was his kyu system?
Kata - Rokkyu to Sankyu
Speaking of the introduction of kata into the JDJ grading system, at the end of the 6th-3rd kyu gradings, there is a kata section: 'Examined on technical analysis and kata presentation. Refer to page 55' (Jan de Jong: the man, his school and his ju jitsu system, 1997).
Page 55: Kata - Rokkyu to Sankyu
'[JDJ] supported the AJJA by introducing the competition kata (refer page 18) into his grading system.'
Page 18: Australian Ju Jitsu Association
The Australian Ju Jitsu Association (AJJA) was founded in Brisbane in 1985 with the aim of:
... providing activity for the affiliated state ju jitsu associations on both an instructional and competitive basis;
organising and participating in both national and international seminars and competitions ...
[JDJ] and his instructors have made significant contributions to the AJJA. In 1987 [JDJ] was invited to fill the positions of President and National Coach which he accepted and held unopposed ever since.
In an effort to achieve the aims of the organisation the AJJA executive approached [JDJ] for his advice concerning the development of some form of competition. He advised that a kata competition rather than any form of free fighting would be the preferred option as it encourages good technique whilst introducing the desired competitive element. The kata competition he subsequently developed was adopted by the AJJA and has been used as the national competition ever since.
Page 55 continued:
The techniques are quite advanced and after several years use, he concluded that they imposed an additional hurdle for his students who are already engaged in a very challenging grading system. However, he had observed the students were receiving benefits from training kata. The solution he devised was to keep the kata format in the gradings but allow the students to choose the techniques.
Students are required to demonstrate five techniques in Rokkyu and Gokyu and ten techniques in Yonkyu and Sankyu. The aim of these kata is to gain the benefits of the disciplines of kata training, and to gain experience in demonstrating ju jitsu techniques.
Students select the techniques themselves from any previous grade, including their current grade. No atemi techniques are to be selected and locking to finish is required. Atemi to finish can be used once in the first two grades and twice in the next two grades but only when a lock is not appropriate.
Now that was a stroll down memory lane :).
I was the sole author of the book which was fact-checked ad nauseam by JDJ at my instance because it was representing/promoting him and his school both internally and externally.
Page 2: Acknowledgements
This book has been researched, written and edited by John Coles B.Comm., ACA, MBA, one of [JDJ's] senior instructors, to whom thanks are due for the considerable time and effort he has spent in fact-finding and writing this eagerly awaited book.
The contributions of Robert Hymas, Maggie de Jong, Greg Palmer, Paul Connelly, Peter Clarke, Debbie Clarke and Hans de Jong, all of whom are also instructors of [JDJSDS], are acknowledged and appreciated.
The other instructors' contributions primarily consisted of 'signing-off' on the content, however, Peter Clarke did provide some background on the contributions to the AJJA as he was responsible for those contributions on behalf of JDJ.
The Jan de Jong: the man, his school and his ju jitsu system book was written primarily to promote JDJ and his teachings, thus, certain license was taken with the content. For instance, the reference to JDJ concluding that the kata imposed an additional hurdle for his students who are already engaged in a very challenging grading system - that was 100% me, and the reference to the 'challenging' grading system is reference to an over cumbersome and over burdensome grading system as I have described the JDJ jujutsu grading system in a previous post.
JDJ included the kata in his grading system for one reason, and one reason only - to support the AJJA kata competition that Peter Clarke had developed on his behalf (see above), even though no JDJ students participated in the competition, there was no competition in the JDJSDS, the AJJA quickly abandoned the concept, and JDJ resigned and removed his school from the AJJA, yet JDJ retained the gradings. Why?
JDJ is a 'set and forget' sort of fellow, not prone to reflection, as I explained in a previous post. I lobbied for the removal of these kata gradings from the grading system altogether for the reasons explained above. I lobbied for a number of years for the benefit of the students. A concession was that as described above, however, the reasoning was a concession on my behalf. JDJ did not see any benefits in kata training but was reluctant to change what had been introduced in the past because he was a set-and-forget sort of person.
Why didn't the other instructors lobby likewise for the benefit of the students? Was it a matter of teaching what is taught without question?
My lobbying was successful, although in all honesty I did not remember that the compromise was included in the grading system. And I don't remember if I was eventually 100% successful and the entire idea was given the kibosh. I don't know if the kata gradings are included in the JDJ ryuha grading systems in whatever form.
'Those that cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.'
I do know of one JDJ ryuha that has reinstated the original AJJA competition kata within their kyu grading system as per JDJ's original introduction. While it has been introduced with the intent of introducing kata training in the grading system given their association with karate, I'm hoping that an understanding of the development and change of this aspect of JDJ's grading system might make them rethink the re-introduction of an element in the grading system that simply increases the burden on the student which far outweighs any benefits that they may receive.
Next Post
These posts are lengthy, and apparently these days, reading anything beyond a few sentences is not popular (modern attention span of a brick). I was going to include a review of the attack-defence sequences in this post, however, it quickly turned out that a general discussion of the kata and kata in general in the JDJ grading system was already producing a lengthy post. The next post will consider the attack-defence sequences in detail and the lessons that can be learned from such an analysis.
No comments:
Post a Comment