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.
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 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
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.
Thanks again, John, for raising these issues and for asking pertinent questions.
ReplyDeleteAs you might expect I have a different perspective on some aspects of the kata (and of some of the techniques). I will "dot point" a few things that come to my mind on a first reading of your article.
Re tekubi and kote. I asked a friend who is a translator for some ideas. Tekubi was immediately recognized as meaning wrist. One meaning for kote is "gauntlet." I believe that this is significant.
Mukae daoshi is a term used in the Yoseikan sphere. It is "an irimi nage" but is not a perfect synonym for irimi nage. A deeper understanding of the technique (or principle, or set of techniques) comes from comparing the mae and ushiro forms / variations. The"introductory form / kata" that I learned was shomen uchi / irimi senkai / mukae daoshi. As I was first taught it, it does indeed rely on uke's momentum. It is a very good question to ask whether this form is appropriate to the sword/body kata. I always understood that the technique which "arches uke's back" was a legitimate technique that was not mukae daoshi.
As for the back/forward/back/forward motion (side-wrist lock), I believe it comes from a direct adaptation of a "Kodokan kata." It is my recollection that, on multiple occasions, Jan said that he did not like anything that taught or implied multiple changes: a technique was either on or it had failed. At best you might get one chance to recover from a failed technique.
Yes, I agree that the grading descriptions do not seem complete. The kata, as I learned it, required changes to the kamae before the attack-defence sequence - completely in line with your suggestion of creating openings.
With regard to the ude kujiki / hiji kudake form, I always performed the ken/ken sequence with a deflection and evasive body movement. More accurately "the whole" was a circular horizontal strike in which the deflection was incidental.
For the tai/tai sequence, the apparent brushing block is, in part, an "aiki" part-move (distraction) that helps to set up kuzushi and / or sticky hands. There is a brutal version of a bunkai that appears to be a kind of simultaneous double block, but isn't.
On shihonage, if the ken-ken defense starts tsuba-barai, then one is committed to step to the outside. There is a form / variation of the empty hand technique which also steps to the outside, but is circular. Alternatively, one can strike or feint to the neck (assuming a large overhead attack) and step through on the inside ......
These are great questions that you are asking. I hope I am providing a useful alternative perspective for at least someone.
On the
Thanks Ross. It's always good to receive thoughtful comments. A couple of comments on your comments.
DeleteTotally agree that JDJ was not a fan of multiple changes. In fact, he was dead set against teaching changing techniques which was all the rage at the time. He was dead set against it because he said it was training to fail in the first attempt. ... so why then did he include a changing technique grading in his jujutsu nidan grading? :) Stay tuned :)
Re the ken-ken ude kujuki/hiji kudake comment. Whenever the words deflect and EBM are used to describe a defence, as Kevin Klein's character says in French Kiss, it makes my arse twitch. Does the 'incidental' deflection mean that the attacking movement was slow? I've performed this technique many times where the focus was on an EBM and an attack and there is no incidental contact between swords.
Re the tai-tai comment to the above, finally, someone gets it. You are spot on. In this defence, the so-called brushing block is used to position the hands to execute the decisive technique. It's not used to 'unbalance' the person, as has been suggested in the JDJSDS. It's not used as a distraction, as is suggested above. It is simply doing the 'sticky hands' thing as you described. The point of this exercise, and which will be expanded upon in a post on blocking techniques in the mon system, the question should always be asked when a blocking technique and EBM are used together. What is the point of them both? It's not to avoid injurious contact with the body because the EBM takes care of that problem.
If I'm using the tsuba-barai concept correctly, all that has to be done is change the sides on which they meet. E.g., in JDJ's version, tori's sword goes to the right of uke's (from tori's perspective), which does commit tori to step to the outside. However, if tori's sword goes to the left of uke's, they are committed to step to the inside, a la Yoseikan Budo's original version. Again, I've trained and taught this move, although it would never have been accepted in the grading.
And thanks again. It's great to receive comments from someone who has thought about the issues that I'm writing about.
Ross Lander, not anonymous. :)
ReplyDeleteKudos. Someone taking ownership for their comments. A rare thing indeed in this day and age. :)
Delete