The Development of the JDJ Jujutsu Grading System Part 2.5: Shodan (Part 4.3: Ken Tai Ichi no Kata)

This post looks at the individual attack-defence sequences in ken tai ichi no kata taught by Jan de Jong (JDJ).

From the post 'Part 2.3: Shodan 4.1 Ken Tai Ichi no Kata': 

The JDJ jujutsu 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.

An example of the JDJ kata was posted on YouTube by the Hans de Jong Self Defence School (HDJSDS), a JDJ ryuha.

We saw in the post titled ‘Ken Tai Ichi no Kata Example’ that ken tai ichi no kata is a Yoseikan Budo (YB) kata. An example of the YB kata was posted on YouTube as part of a larger video taken from the Yoseikan Sogo Budo DVD set by Minoru Mochizuki, the founder of YB. The ken tai ichi no kata is located at the 22:40 mark in the aforementioned YouTube video. 

The order between the JDJ and YB kata is different as reconciled in this post.

The YB kata consists of five sword v. sword, five unarmed v. sword, and five unarmed v. unarmed attack-defence sequences. The subtitles on that video refer to these sequences as ken (sword) and tai (unarmed), thus: ken-ken, tai-ken, and tai-tai. Those are the terms that will be used in this post.

JDJ did not include the tai-ken sequence in his ken tai ichi no kata. The reasoning behind that omission was explored in this post.

The following commentary will be initially based on the HDJSDS Jan de Jong Self Defence School (JDJSDS) representative video (see above). 

The core of all learning - the identification of similarities and differences - will be used in order to provide insights that can lead to a new and better understanding through asking, 'What's going on here?' (see Klein).

Nomenclature

The first thing to note is that JDJ sometimes uses a different nomenclature than that commonly used in the Japanese martial arts. For instance, most use kote to refer to wrist whereas JDJ uses tekubi. JDJ's tekubi te nage (wrist hand throw) is more commonly known as shiho nage (four corner throw) in aikido. What's going on here? Exploring why JDJ uses different nomenclature is another anomaly and a potential rabbit hole that I am going to avoid at this time.

1. Yoko Tekubi Hishigi (Side Wrist Crush): Tori – Seigan Kamae, Uke – Seigan Kamae

Tori assumes seigan kamae, which a previous post explained is a totally defensive posture. This means that uke has to either move tori's sword off-line in order to attack down the line or to move off the line to attack in order to attack. In this case, uke moves tori's sword off the line in order to attack down the line. This is a tactical lesson that if generally not shared/taught. Why not?

This kata is generally learned and taught solely as a requirement of the shodan grading. It is not used as a teaching-learning tool for broader insights and understanding. Nobody studies this kata (other than me) other than in relation to satisfying a performance requirement in the shodan grading. It will be seen through the following analysis that a great deal can be learned from the study of this kata, which includes the flaws in the kata.

Tai-tai - the technique is called kote kudaki (wrist crush) in the YB video. The attack is a wrist grab which is then countered, recountered, and countered again. Back, forward, back, forward ... JDJ's yoko tekubi hishigi (side wrist lock) is applied more directly without the toing and froing. Was this a deliberate change by JDJ to make the tai-tai technique more efficient and effective/practical?

The JDJ technique involves an initial unbalancing (kuzushi) move; one that is actually taught in YB. Giving tori the benefit of the doubt in the HDJSDS video in terms of unbalancing uke before applying the technique, the unbalancing is different to the ken-ken technique. With the ken-ken technique, there is a deflection of the sword, however, with the tai-tai technique, there is a physical unbalancing of uke which is unavailable in ken-ken. Rather than attempting to demonstrate the similarities between sword and unarmed techniques, would a more complete understanding of tactics and techniques be provided by identifying the similarities and differences between sword and unarmed techniques? 

2. Ude Kujiki (Arm Crush/Breaking): Tori – Seigan Kamae, Uke – Gedan Kamae

The HDJSDS video reflects the tori ken kamae as described above, which is as per the grading sheet, however, we saw in a previous post that (a) the grading sheet was not complete, and (b) uke would not advance on a ken seigan kamae without deflecting the sword first. At the very least, the instructor and the candidates should have said, 'That can't be right,' which is Klein's operationalisation of the contradiction path to gaining insight. The candidates might justify their performance in terms of doing what they've been taught, even if they question such teachings, however, that does not excuse the instructor's lack of understanding. This situation was also present in the JDJSDS at times, e.g., the JDJ misremembering the attack in the final ken-ken sequence discussed in a previous post dedicated to that issue.

The ken defence involves an evasive body-movement (EBM) and a 'brushing block' in the JDJ and YB demonstrations. What is the purpose of the brushing block? It's not to avoid injurious contact with the body because the EBM takes care of that problem. Why not just use an EBM and a strike? This is an issue that appears time and time again, in JDJ techniques and that of other jujutsu schools and martial arts. Sometimes there are answers, sometimes there are reasons, but more often than not there is shoehorning.

This issue will be explored more thoroughly, including the concept of 'blocks', in a future post when discussing the mon system.

A final comment. Tori finishes the defensive performance with a dramatic flourish of the sword. JDJ would, quite rightly, not approve. Tori is training to miss the target. With enough training, they will become expert at ... missing the target. This is an issue that is reflected in weapon attacks within the JDJSDS and the JDJ ryuha. A poor weapon attack affects the distancing and thus the student is training poor distancing that will negatively affect the effectiveness of the defence against a real attack.

Think of the sword training scenes in The Last Samurai were Ujio and Cpt Algren finish with their bokkens placed on each other's necks when they draw in their contest.

3. Tekubi Te Nage: Tori – Seigan Kamae – Gedan Kamae, Uke – Jodan Kamae

JDJ's tekubi te nage is aikido's shiho nage. 

In the YB ken-ken and tai-tai sequences, tori move to the inside of uke. In the HDJSDS/JDJSDS tai-tai sequence, tori move to the inside of uke but in the ken-ken sequence they move to the outside of uke. 'What's going on here?'

The YB sequences demonstrate the similarities between the armed and unarmed techniques by moving the same way. What is the JDJ sequence demonstrating?

Did JDJ deliberately change the ken-ken sequence? If so, why? Maybe it was a tactical decision. Maybe he considered tori moving to the inside and turning their back on uke was not tactically the best move and thus changed to moving on the outside instead. But doesn't that negate the similarities demonstration purpose of the kata?

Is there a need to change the ken-ken sequence back to the original? Or should we, instead of focusing on similarities, also be considering differences. Differences between ken and tai techniques. Differences between JDJ and YB techniques. Not just identifying the differences but exploring possible explanations for those differences. Exploring answers to the 'What's going on here?' question that may give rise to insights that provide a new and better understanding.

Btw, I identified this difference when I was being taught the kata for my grading and raised the issue with my instructors, the senior instructors in the JDJSDS. I received no answers, and so I did what I was taught for the sole purpose of passing the grading.

The same issue regarding the dramatic flourish with the sword when finishing the technique in the HDJSDS video is present in this demonstration. It's training to miss the target.

Finish Here

I'll finish here as to complete a full analysis would entail an even lengthier post where a lot of the same ideas emerge. Many of the same issues arise in the analysis of the remaining two sequences. 

For instance, in the final sequence, there was an error in the teaching of the ken-ken sequence that was discussed in this post. There is also a difference in the tai-tai sequence between (a) the HDJSDS/JDJSDS and YB tai-tai technique, and (b) the ken-ken and tai-tai techniques in the JDJ demonstration.

The effectiveness of the YB tai-tai technique is questionable. The technique should probably cause uke's back to arch 'limbo' style as tori's hand is driven down and behind tori thus lifting uke's head with the crook of their elbow. JDJ would have no 'truck' with that technique. 

For JDJ, there was only one way to perform mukae daoshi (known in aikido as irimi nage), and that was for tori to project their hand-arm upward, never downward. What this means is that JDJ's mukae daoshi relies 100% on the momentum of uke, which is facilitated by tori's unbalancing technique. The unbalancing is around the corner in the tai-tai case for this technique but is not required in the ken-ken case. 

Through the above analysis, the reader should now be able analyse the kata using the identification of similarities and differences as the base of that analysis. They should also be encouraged to question teachings when 'What's going on here?' or 'That can't be right' reactions are experienced, if they are experienced that is. The reader should now be aware of the tendencies to shoehorn answers when possessing no insights and real understanding of their own. 

What to Do?

What should be done? Should the JDJ kata be changed to reflect the original YB kata? Should the errors in the JDJ and YB kata be corrected? Should the kata be eliminated from the grading system as it seems to serve no useful function*? After all, JDJ's grading system is overly burdensome and overly cumbersome as has previously been explained. Would the student be better or worse off if the kata was not included in the grading system?

Here's the thing though. If the errors are eliminated; if the differences are eliminated; then so is the opportunity of gaining insights and a new and better understanding. There are numerous lessons that a study of the JDJ kata can teach, but the most important lessons are in the apparent faults and flaws, the differences. Those differences include those between different interpretations, different martial arts of the same genre, and different martial arts.

_______________________________________

*In a previous post, I speculated over the purpose of JDJ's inclusion of this kata in his shodan grading. One of the reasons may have been/probably was to be able to demonstrate some weapon techniques when teaching in Europe. You will recall that the sole purpose for developing the shodan grading was so that JDJ could have black belt instructors accompany him on his teaching tours in Europe.

JDJ shared with me that there were no, or very little, weapon techniques being taught in jujutsu in Europe before he began teaching in Europe. After that, there started to appear more and more weapon techniques being taught, particularly in World Ju Jitsu Federation affiliated schools as it was those schools that he primarily taught for.

Marketing 101 - differentiate the product. Everyone taught a hip throw, but nobody taught sword techniques. Jujutsu is supposed to be the product of the samurai, whose primary weapon was the sword. The link to the past, the link to the warrior tradition were sword techniques. And there was the supposed lesson of demonstrating the similarities between sword and unarmed techniques in these warrior arts, suggesting a deriving origin of the unarmed techniques. As a marketing tool, it was genius as the target audience had not been exposed to YB. 

    

The Development of the JDJ Jujutsu Grading System Part 2.4: Shodan (Part 4.2: Ken Tai Ichi no Kata)

The post before last 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 aforementioned post looked at suwari waza no kata (which is part of Kodokan Judo’s kime no kata). The previous post began looking at ken tai ichi no kata. That post focused on the purpose of the kata and kata in general in JDJ’s jujutsu grading system. This post begins to look at the specific attack-defence sequences in the kata and the lessons that can be learned from their study.

Background
‘Previously’ ...

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).

The 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.

An example of the JDJ kata was posted on YouTube by the Hans de Jong Self Defence School (HDJSDS), a JDJ ryuha.

We saw in the post titled ‘Ken Tai Ichi no Kata Example’ that ken tai ichi no kata is a Yoseikan Budo (YB) kata. An example of the YB kata was posted on YouTube as part of a larger video taken from the Yoseikan Sogo Budo DVD set by Minoru Mochizuki, the founder of YB. The ken tai ichi no kata is located at the 22:40 mark in the aforementioned YouTube video.

The YB kata consists of five sword v. sword, five unarmed v. sword, and five unarmed v. unarmed attack-defence sequences. The subtitles on that video refer to these sequences as ken (sword) and tai (unarmed), thus: ken-ken, tai-ken, and tai-tai. Those are the terms that will be used in this post.

JDJ did not include the tai-ken sequence in his ken tai ichi no kata (see above). Interestingly, when looking for video examples to assist the readers of this post, I came across a YouTube video of Mochizuki demonstrating this kata in which he also does not include the tai-ken sequence. 'What's going on here?'

‘What’s going on here?’ is how cognitive psychologist Gary Klein operationalises the curiosity path to gaining insight that can lead to a new and better understanding. It is a new understanding because it did not exist before, and it is a better understanding because it is more accurate, more comprehensive, and more useful than the one that existed before.

The ‘What’s going on here?’ reaction does not contain the insight, but it can start the person on the road to gaining the insight if they go looking for an answer to their question. This can never happen if teachings are never questioned.

JDJ had a different attack-defence order to that of the kata demonstrated in the YB videos:

JDJ's #1 = YB's #2
JDJ's #2 = YB's #1
JDJ's #3 = YB's #5
JDJ's #4 = YB's #4
JDJ's #5 = YB's #3

This ordering is provided for those that want to visually compare like-with-like as I discuss the kata in JDJ's system and that of YB.

Core of All Learning
In Classroom Instruction That Works: Research Based Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement, Marzano, Pickering, and Pollock (2001) explain that the ‘core of all learning’ is the identification of similarities and differences. They go on to explain that the four proven highly effective ways of identifying similarities and differences are classification, comparison, creating metaphors, and creating analogies. I devote a chapter in my book on the science behind all fighting techniques to this subject providing examples within the martial arts of the use of these ways of identifying similarities and differences to teach techniques.

Identifying similarities and differences provides the opportunity for gaining insights that can lead to a new and better understanding (see above). It behoves all teachers and learners to understand and apply this concept. Teachers will be better teachers and learners will be better learners, in addition, learners will not be as reliant on their teachers being good teachers.

The core of all learning – the identification of similarities and differences – will be used here when studying the ken tai ichi no kata attack-defence sequences and which can provide insights that lead to a new and better understanding not only of the kata itself but of principles in general.

Comparing Tori Kamae
‘What is the difference between the kamae of tori in the first ken-ken defence and that of the other four?’ That is a question that I posed/pose to those learning this kata.

Answer: the tori kamae in the first ken-ken defence is seigan no kamae (see image below) which is totally defensive. The tip of the blade is pointed at uke’s throat or eyes and if uke attacks straight down the line they will be impaled on tori’s sword if tori does not move.

In the other four kamae of tori, they are not seigan no kamae and invite an attack. It is a genuine invitation as tori is providing a genuine opening, however, they are also setting up with an attacking kamae of their own. If uke is good enough, their attack may prove successful as the opening is a genuine opening.

This comparison (identification of similarities and differences) provides a strategic lesson which is not forthcoming for those that simply train what they are taught without question in order to pass a grading. Ditto for those that teach what they are taught without question because it is part of the curriculum. No, or very little, insight is achieved in those circumstances.

Tori Kamae #2
Another path to insight is contradictions. Klein explains that, ‘Contradictions are different from curiosity insights. Curiosities make us wonder what’s going on, whereas contradictions make us doubt— "That can’t be right."' (2013, p.61).

When researching this post and attending to the detail, I noticed that the JDJ grading sheet for the ken tai ichi no kata grading included seigan no kamae for both #1 and #2 ken-ken sequences. ‘That can’t be right.’ It isn’t.

I studied the Jan de Jong Self Defence School (JDJSDS) representative HDJSDS video (see above) and found that tori in that video did in fact assume seigan no kamae and uke attacked down the line thus risking being impaled on tori’s sword if tori did not execute a block/deflection or an evasive body-movement (see future post about the 'dog's breakfast' that is the blocking sections in the mon gradings). ‘That can’t be right.’ It isn’t.

I studied the YB video and found that tori assumed seigan no kamae before lowering to gedan no kamae to invite at overhead attack. That is how it was taught in the JDJSDS, although that is not how it is described on the grading sheet.

While misremembering an attack can be forgiven (also see JDJ misremembering the attack for the final ken-ken sequence). While not providing an accurate description on the grading sheet can be forgiven. While being misled by an incomplete instruction on the grading sheet can be forgiven. What cannot be forgiven is the teaching and/or performing techniques, defence and/or attack, that are clearly flawed. It shows an astonishing lack of understanding ... or indifference.

Insight Applied

The insight gained from the above analysis applies to the te nage defence from ryo te dori in the shinken shobu no kata grading in shodan (JDJ misinterpreted/did not understand the aikido/YB technique). It applies to the irimi uke, te gatame ude kujuki defence from jodan tsuki in the 5th kyu grading (see previous). It applies to the oshi otoshi technique in the taoshi waza no kata grading in sandan (JDJ did not understand the YB technique taken from a single hand-drawn image from Mochizuki's book; see future post re sandan grading). It applies to the belt drop, back fist defence from rear body-hold over elbows in the HDJSDS shinken shobu no kata grading in their shodan (misremembered the attack taught in the JDJ grading).    

Next Post

These posts are long; longer than intended. I will be trying to break them up into more 'bitesize' portions. The next post(s) will commence analysing each of the individual attack-defence and which will include a comparison with those taught by YB from whence they were appropriated.

PS: It would appear that this is part of my JDJ martial arts legacy. I doubt that I'll ever teach again, so, I am sharing some of my unique insights and understanding through these posts. 

The Development of the JDJ Jujutsu Grading System Part 2.3: Shodan (Part 4.1: Ken Tai Ichi no Kata)

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.

We saw in the post titled ‘Ken Tai Ichi no Kata Example’ that ken tai ichi no kata is a Yoseikan Budo (YB) kata. An example of the YB kata was posted on YouTube as part of a larger video taken from the Yoseikan Sogo Budo DVD set by Minoru Mochizuki, the founder of YB. 

The acquisition of these two DVDs by myself was the second step in my developing an understanding of just how much of JDJ’s jujutsu and aikido teachings were taken from YB. 

The ken tai ichi no kata is located at the 22:40 mark in the abovementioned YouTube video. 

The YB kata consists of five sword v. sword, five unarmed v. sword, and five unarmed v. unarmed attack-defence sequences. 

JDJ did not include the unarmed v. sword attack-defence sequence in his ken tai ichi no kata (see above). Interestingly, when looking for video examples to assist the readers of this post, I came across a YouTube video of Mochizuki demonstrating this kata in which he does not include the unarmed v. sword attack-defence sequence. 'What's going on here?'

Attack-Defence Order

JDJ had a different attack-defence order to that of the kata demonstrated in the YB videos:

JDJ's #1 = YB's #2

JDJ's #2 = YB's #1

JDJ's #3 = YB's #5

JDJ's #4 = YB's #4

JDJ's #5 = YB's #3

This ordering is provided for those that want to visually compare like-with-like as I discuss the kata in JDJ's system and that of YB.

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.   

The Development of the JDJ Jujutsu Grading System Part 2.2: Shodan (Part 4: Suwari Waza no Kata and Ken Tai Ichi no Kata)

This post continues on from the post before the last post and looks at part 4 of the shodan grading in Jan de Jong's (JDJ) jujutsu grading system.

Note: The description for each Part is reproduced from Jan de Jong: the man, his school and his ju jitsu system (Jan de Jong Self Defence School, 1997).

Part 4: Suwari waza no kata and ken tai ichi no kata
Suwari waza no kata
‘Demonstration from seiza postion.’

Suwari waza no kata is a kneeling kata consisting of five specified attack-defence combinations.

Every year in the instructors class, JDJ would go over this kata and the final defence would be debated. The attack is a ‘bear hug’ from behind and the defence is a shoulder throw. The debate centred around which leg to throw back when performing the defence. This debate was never definitively resolved. 

The answer to that question was contained in a book for sale in the Jan de Jong Martial Arts Supplies store at the front of the building – in Kodokan Judo, authored by Jigoro Kano, founder of Kodokan Judo, and published in 1986 (first published in 1955).

JDJ’s suwari waza no kata is Kodokan Judo’s kime no kata, or part thereof, without JDJ acknowledging the source of his suwari waza no kata. That is a theme that was a feature of JDJ’s teachings. The following is the description of kime no kata from Kodokan Judo:

Kime no Kata is also known as Shinken Shobu no Kata (Combat Forms) and is designed to teach the fundamentals of attack and defence in an actual combat situation, as both names imply. Its twenty techniques, which include strikes at vital spots, are all applicable in real-life situations, but are banned in randori. They are divided into two groups, idori, where the basic position is kneeling, and tachiai, where techniques are executed in a standing position. (Kano, 1986, Kodokan Judo, p. 146)

Note: See this post for a discussion on JDJ's use of the term shinken shobu no kata.

JDJ only included the first five technique from the idori group in his suwari waza no kata. Why only the first five? Why introduce this kata at all? Was it, in whole or in part, to ‘pad out’ or ‘beef up’ his shodan grading given that ikkyu was the previous instructor grading and it was a comprehensive instructor grading in itself? 

Was it to introduce some traditional Japanese teachings, e.g. kata, into his teachings (there were no kata in his kyu grades)?

Why not acknowledge the source of the kata?

Why didn’t any of the instructors know that JDJ’s suwari waza no kata was a part of Kodokan Judo’s kime no kata? It is because in the Jan de Jong Self Defence School (JDJSDS), JDJ was considered to be the ‘fount of all knowledge’ and nobody looked outside of his teachings. To be fair, his knowledge was extensive and mostly accurate, so why would anyone look outside of his teachings. And remember, these were the days before the internet and YouTube.

When I found the source of JDJ’s suwari waza no kata and brought it to the attention of a senior instructor, their explanation was that it was probably an example of what Tsutsumi Hozan Ryu* (THR) had contributed to Kodokan judo. That is an example of what I have come to describe as ‘shoehorning’ – forcing something to fit where it may not naturally fit or belong.

*THR being the style of jujutsu that JDJ supposedly taught or supposedly was taught, and THR supposedly having contributed to the teachings of Kano in Kodokan judo.

Ken tai ichi no kata
‘Demonstration of katana defences and the unarmed application.’

We saw in the 'ken tai ichi no kata example' post that ken tai ichi no kata is a kata taken straight from Yoseikan Budo without the source being acknowledged (see above). The same questions that are raised in connection with the inclusion of suwari waza no kata from Kodokan Judo (see above), in JDJ’s shodan grading are applicable to the ken tai ichi no kata as well.

Ken tai ichi no kata will be discussed in further detail in the next post dedicated to JDJ’s adoption of the kata, or part thereof, and what can be learned from that adoption.

Postscript

The abovementioned Kodokan Judo is a book to be studied and not just read, however, it can only be truly appreciated if one has an understanding of (bio)mechanical force. 

In my as yet unpublished book on the science behind all fighting techniques, I devote a chapter to the subject of force as it applies to fighting techniques. I explain that forces are what makes all fighting techniques work, or not, and that the concept of mechanical force is easy for the layperson to understand and apply. Kano's Kodokan Judo is a classic example of that in his descriptions of the techniques being taught. Those descriptions are succinct and focus on what makes the techniques work. And this without Kano having an understanding of mechanical force. Instead, he was a qualified teacher who knew how to teach and so he knew what to focus on when teaching techniques.

An understanding of mechanical force should make for better martial arts teachers, particularly those teaching grappling techniques/arts. It should also make for better martial arts students, particularly those studying grappling techniques/arts. The students would know what to look for when a technique is demonstrated/taught, and they would not be so dependent on their teacher's teaching abilities. For many martial arts teachers however, that might/would be seen as a threat by those teachers.

Inflated Timelines of JDJ Jujutsu Rank/Certificate Promotion & JDJ Endangered Species

This post will interrupt the current series of posts about the development of the Jan de Jong (JDJ) jujutsu grading system as it is very pertinent to the discussion.

The following was recently posted on Facebook by Aikido Sangenkai (The Aikido Sangenkai is a non-profit martial arts dojo (school) affiliated with the Aikikai Foundation in Tokyo Japan. We are located in Honolulu, Hawaii on the island of Oahu (https://www.aikidosangenkai.org/about.html).)

The abovementioned Facebook post has attracted a great deal of attention with most of it being supportive based on personal experience. 

Note: I have not confirmed the information detail.

Minoru Mochizuki's sho-dan certificate in Judo from Jigoro Kano, 1927.

He would begin training with Morihei Ueshiba three years later, in 1930, still a relatively junior student in Judo. One year after that, in 1931, he would open his own Yoseikan Dojo in Shizuoka. One year after that, in 1932, he would be awarded the two highest level Daito-ryu scrolls being given at the time, "Goshinyo no te" and "Hiden ogi no koto", after 2 years of training in Daito-ryu under Morihei Ueshiba and 7 years total of training in grappling arts. His fellow Daito-ryu student, Takuma Hisa, would be awarded the highest certification in Daito-ryu, the Menkyo Kaiden after around 6 years of training (3 with Morihei Ueshiba and 3 with Sokaku Takeda).

This is in line with a comment by Ellis Amdur on e-Budo:

"Records indicate menkyo kaiden in 5-7 years in the Meiji period. It is my belief and experience that koryu training takes far too long, because many teachers, greedy for power and status, withhold information or drag out the teaching."

This underlines the inflated timelines of modern day rank/certificate promotion, where such advancements normally take 30 or 40 years, or more.

Many, including myself, would suggest that the Jan de Jong (JDJ) jujutsu experience would bear out Amdur’s belief and experience in terms of koryu training taking far too long and the inflated timelines of modern-day rank/certificate promotion, however, the reason for doing so in the JDJ jujutsu case is not as Amdur suggests (see below).

How long does it take to get a black belt in jujutsu at the Jan de Jong Self Defence School (JDJSDS)? It was said that it takes at least 10 years. How did that number come about?

Peter Clarke and Robert Hymas are two of the only three that JDJ awarded rokudan. He did so shortly before he passed away in April 2003.

Clarke commenced training in 1971 (source: Jan de Jong Self Defence School, Jan de Jong: the man, his school, and his ju jutsu system, 1997) and was one of the first three to be awarded shodan (the 'first wave') in 1981 (source: Greg Palmer). That is 11 years, however, you will remember from a previous post that there were only gradings up to ikkyu until the late 70s when JDJ developed the shodan gradings so that he could have black belt instructors accompany him teaching in Europe. If there were shodan grading attached to the kyu system, would Clarke have graded shodan in less than 10 years?

Hymas commenced training in 1975 (source: see above) and was one of the first three to be awarded shodan in 1981 (source: see above). That is seven years. That is the fastest ever to be awarded shodan in the JDJ system, and it was also under the abovementioned limitation, however, Hymas also worked as a full-time instructor from 1978 to 1988 (source: abovementioned book) and he did not go through the mon system which was introduced in 1978 (source: abovementioned book).

That is something that has only come to light when researching these posts; my instructors (which included all instructors teaching at the JDJSDS in 1983) never went through the mon system. They teach it but they never went through it as it was introduced after they were already higher graded. This will become relevant when the introduction and interpretation of the mon system is explored in a future post.

I am the first shodan to have gone through the mon system. I was on track to at least match Hymas’ feat in terms of shortest time to be awarded shodan, and that was with going through the mon system and not being a full-time instructor as Hymas was, but I did have an insane training regime as I explained in a previous post. I was awarded shodan after nine years and that was with going through the mon system, spending a year backpacking through Western Europe, then a rite of passage for Australians, and engaging in the intense ‘professional year’ of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. During that time, I also obtained a Graduate Diploma in Applied Finance and Investment in which I was awarded state dux and second in Australia. I don’t say those things to aggrandise myself but to show there were other demands on my time, including working full-time, that impacted on my training and progression.

Do I or Clarke or Hymas serve as a measure of how long it takes to be awarded shodan in the JDJ jujutsu grading system? How long does it take the average person to be awarded shodan in the JDJSDS under the regime that includes mon and shodan gradings?

There are a number of JDJ jujutsuka who commenced training around the same time that I did but were awarded shodan by the principal of one of JDJ’s ryuha after JDJ passed away in 2003. That is 20 years to be awarded shodan.

There are many factors that contribute to the length of time to be awarded shodan in the JDJ tradition, however, it is safe to say, as Amdur argues above, that it takes far too long in the JDJ jujutsu grading system.

I have come to refer to JDJ's teachings and therefore his ryuha that have been established after his passing as 'endangered.' If JDJ's teachings are to survive, the issue of the grading system and its dysfunction needs to be addressed. Part of that dysfunction is the training taking far too long and the inflated timelines of modern-day rank/certificate promotion. That dysfunction is the product of the development of the JDJ jujutsu grading system. Problem solving 101: identify the problem and its root causes. That is the purpose of this series of posts.

A final word: there are many ikkyu within the late JDJ tradition that are deserving of a black belt - shodan, nidan, even sandan - because they had the expertise and knowledge the equivalent or better of most within the jujutsu world, but they are denied a black belt because of the grading system that they were engaged in.

This is often credited to intensity of training, or to intensity of contact, but when we actually examine the records of how much many people trained, and how much contact they had with their instructors, that's really not the case. In many cases the practitioners were working, and training no more than many people do in modern times, or actually had limited contact with their instructors - as little or less than modern practitioners.

Note here that Jigoro Kano himself founded the Kodokan in 1882, at the age of 22, in the same year that he graduated from university - after only 5 years of training in jujutsu.

This detailed information is verified. Kano developed his own system which went on to become known as Kodokan Judo. But here’s the thing, Kano was an ‘educator,’ aka a trained teacher.

In his professional life, Kanō was an educator. Important postings included serving as director of primary education for the Ministry of Education (文部省, Monbushō) from 1898 to 1901, and as president of Tokyo Higher Normal School from 1900 until 1920.[4] He played a key role in making judo and kendo part of the Japanese public school programs of the 1910s.

Kano developed a martial arts tradition that became a global phenomenon. Nobody ever accused Kano of being a highly proficient exponent, however, he was able to develop a true martial arts ‘system’ because he was a qualified teacher. He had insights into the techniques that nobody else possessed because he was a qualified teacher. Yoseikan budo is the product of Kano’s approach to teaching because Mochizuki was an acolyte of Kano’s. This issue will be further explored in the post regarding the introduction of the mon system.

There are many reasons behind the timelines or the awarding of certifications in modern times, but the primary reasons that come to mind are:

- Power and control within an organization.

- Student retention (which is related to the above, power and control).

- Financial reasons - the constant income stream generated by stretching promotions over a period of years with greatly inflated pricing (which is also related to student retention).

- Poor instructional ability, often associated with poor or incomplete transmission of information (this is particularly a problem in modern Aikido).

- Deliberate withholding of information, or delays in delivery of information, which is also related to the above, power and control.

Those reasons have been attributed to JDJ in relation to his not providing the possibility of a shodan grading until the late 70s when he needed black belt instructors to accompany him when teaching in Europe (see above). Those reasons were speculated upon by high ranked students and instructors within the JDJSDS and are still proposed now.

Again, NO! JDJ did develop the kyu grading system to support a business, his sole source of income that went on to provide a very comfortable lifestyle, however, he did not withhold a shodan grading for any of the abovementioned reasons. As proposed in a previous post (see previous link) in this series, JDJ did not have a shodan grading because he did not have a shodan grading and did not need a shodan grading at that stage. There were no ulterior motives.

Rationalising the Jujutsu Grading System

Why didn't JDJ rationalise his jujutsu grading system? He kept on tacking on 'bits' based on his personal needs at the time, but why didn't he then step back and rationalise his jujutsu grading system?

JDJ was not big on reflection. That was possibly/probably due of his WWII experience where it was all here-and-now and based on personal survival. Don't look forward, don't look back. Another way of saying this is 'set and forget.' One example of this was the introduction of the kata in the kyu grading system.    

JDJ was involved with the Australian Ju Jitsu Association (AJJA). They wanted a 'competition' format because competition was considered to be important, or at least something that was in demand. JDJ was not a fan of competition as a form of training, which will become the subject of a future post on his introduction of 'free fighting' gradings in his jujutsu grading system. JDJ develop a series of kata that were to be basis for a competition format. In order to support the AJJA, JDJ introduced those kata in the kyu grades of his grading system.

Even when JDJ left the AJJA, he continued with the kata being part of the kyu grades. I argued long and hard for their removal. My argument was based on multiple points, one of which was that the grading system was already overly cumbersome and overly burdensome. Why add more to it just to support the AJJA competition format even when none of JDJ's students competed and JDJ had left the AJJA - set and forget.

I did include in my argument that if JDJ wanted to introduce a kata element into the kyu grades, then all he needed to do was pick five or six of the attack-defence combinations in the shinken shobu no kata grading to be performed in a kata format. The only extra training involved would then be the kata format.  

I was a relatively junior instructor at the time, but I was arguing on behalf of the students. Why waste time training additional things that have no benefit for the students. Eventually, JDJ succumbed to my advocacy and the kata gradings were removed from the JDJ jujutsu grading system. If it were not for me, those kata would probably still be included in the JDJ jujutsu grading system that is used by the majority of the JDJ ryuha that were established after JDJ passed away. Why? Could it be that the common ethos of the JDJ instructors, with the exception of myself, was teaching what was taught without question?