Відео

@@bristoncraigson9151 Thanks mate! 🙏

Thanks for sharing your story here, mate. It is one I have heard constantly, to be honest. This is nothing against traditional martial arts, of course. I have a soft spot for the cultural influences and values in those contexts, and I think it is something that HEMA could learn a bit from in regards to respecting the history and culture in which those systems were brought into being. Nothing against kendo either as, despite the rule sets, it is great for developing other skills that are important for fencing. However, there needs to be something on offer for people who want to learn first and foremost how to use a weapon in a combative context. I very much think that HAMA, HCMA, HKMA, and HJMA are all new disciplines in the realm of historical martial arts - particularly when compared with HEMA. It’s why I and others are doing the work that we do and slowly expose these new fun and totally possible to practice disciplines into the community and provide as much support as people require to get started 😊

Thanks for sharing in the comments, I think you have made a good point here that we all must keep in mind. Martial arts are a product of their time and culture. It’s why I think it is even more important to, when looking at anything from the past, to make it a priority to read sources written by those from that time. Otherwise, if we approach it ONLY from our modern view, we are going to be left with a swathe of misinterpretations. The traditional martial arts, as they are practiced today, seem very much to focus on the curriculum and the self first and foremost, which I think is more than understandable for its context.

@@brisbaneswords8563 Thanks for leaving your thoughts and feedback. If I get more people complaining about the transition then I am happy to adjust for next time. I think the way weapon adds were taught in period, at least in Japan, are not only likely different but also mostly unknown today; very few sources from the time exist that tell us their training process. What I have had to do for my living history group is mostly use a backwards mapping approach: look at their end goal of training based on the sources and other clues we can get, and work from there. Bunkai is an interesting one, as I personally find it a bit counterintuitive to separate the meaning of the practice’s application from the practice itself. That’s just me though. You mention some good points with kata, the live kata in particular is interesting though I have my own opinions on it. You might find one of my upcoming videos interesting. Specifically, I will be releasing an upcoming video looking at kata (dead and live) purely from my own professional background, an education perspective.

@NathanaelTheAussie I think the written texts are likely just outlines and records, definitely not the closed teaching (menkyo kaiden?) (sorry I've forgotten most of my Japanese language). I think the modern resurgence of ecological or an constraints based coaching are actually rather old teaching styles that were overtaken for a while but the class based repetitive teaching styles. I wouldn't separate Kata and bunkai but I can guarantee that many martial artists do not know bunkai. Also there is a difference between bunkai/application, and variations (IE dealing with non optimal circumstances to apply techniques and how to adjust)

⁠@@brisbaneswords8563There do seem to be closed teaching documents out there, whether they are menkyo kaiden and if they were even a common period concept is another matter 🤔 these documents vary from barely any detail to a decent amount, but almost all of them assume a level of ground knowledge from the reader. I very much agree with your point in coaching, it is something that I found fascinating the more and more I began to realise. The way I see it personally, there is no difference between a technique/skill and application and variation of it. We see this advocated for in the historical sources as well. Separating the approach and the application I find a comparatively modern concept when it comes to HJMA. I very much agree that many who do kata likely don’t know bunkai and, even if they did from what I have seen it is often a very shallow understanding.

​@@NathanaelTheAussieThe movement of the text delays our ability to read it. It's extremely distracting.

Oh I very much agree 👍 you see this same pattern being echoed across the planet and history among various systems. Thanks for leaving your thoughts 🙏

@@NathanaelTheAussie I also think this is essentially what Bruce Lee was saying in his book "Tao of Jeet Kune Do". Anyway, best of luck!

I find this interesting and, therefore, have many questions. In your opinion, what is the second term ‘kata’, how is it different to the first term, and what are its links to practical application? How are the quotes provided not at odds with what you practice, from the perspective of your training background? While there may be differing opinions, the definition of kata I have used is from a koryū source/practitioner (see vid), and the term ‘kata’ isn’t even mentioned once in any of the texts I have referenced or the other two I own that I haven’t 🤔 Am only asking as not only do these quotes seem to be at odds with the majority of koryū practice I have seen but also, from my own experience, any form of purely preset drill doesn’t really translate to practical application against a resisting opponent as you have two conflicting contexts (preset and non-preset).

​@@NathanaelTheAussie The distinction is that kata (型) are done purely by rote, like a dance, as opposed to kata (形), which are done with a sense of liveness and a certain amount of resistance from the opponent that increases substantially with the experience of the two practicing the kata. They are most certainly "agreed upon" in terms of content, but as you progress, the uchitachi (the usually senior person "receiving" the kata) will try, to various degrees, to either forestall your technique or counter it. They may even just go outside the kata entirely, if they sense that you're anticipating what's coming. As for historical references to kata, Karl Friday notes: "Certificates of achievement and similar documents left by fifteenth- and sixteenth-century martial art masters suggest that kata had become the principal means of transmission by this time." (Legacies of the Sword, p. 108). According to the related notes in the appendices: "Examples of such documents are reproduced in Imamura Yoshio et al., eds., Nihon budō taikei, vol. 1: 14, 20-21; vol. 2: 402-403, 439-462; vol. 3: 12-13; and Seki Humitake, Nihon budō no engen: Kashima-Shinryū, 30-32." (Legacies of the Sword, p. 202, note 17) Really, a few quotes here and there from Dr. Friday's book won't do it justice, so I really recommend you just read it if you find the opportunity. It's cheap on Amazon, and Dr. Friday is well respected in his field, being both a historian and a high level exponent of the Kashima Shinryū. In any case, there's also just straight up shiaigeiko, *which is sparring*. Shinai and bōgu predate sport kendō by a lot. It's also quite well known that katageiko and shiaigeiko existed pretty much simultaneously. Many koryū do practice shiaigeiko, but a lot of those also do not allow beginners to engage in sparring.

if you do check the book out btw, Karl speaks at length wrt sparring vs forms from a historical perspective as well. pp. 108-119

​@@gontaiyuuI can't wrap my head around how a PhD in History could write something so poorly cited. That particular section of the "LEGACIES OF THE SWORD The Kashima-Shinryu and Samurai Martial Culture" cites two sources in note #17, both of which are modern publications and not proper historical citations, which would be the actual documents themselves. He does not even cite the pages on which his supporting evidence can be found, and at least one of those sources has 10 volumes! However, one thing that he completely fails to clarify Is the modification of the definition of Kata over time. That statement is technically true, that Kata were very important to the training of swordsmen in the 16th century. But Kata back then referred to a stance literally "form", which is definitely fundamental for other traditions or swordsmanship across the world. In the modern world, the word Kata has a different definition, which he consistently uses throughout his book, referring to the predetermined exchange of techniques between two practitioners. That is what Kata means today, but it is not what Kata meant 400 years ago, and so the statement is making a conclusion about historical Kata which we now know to be incorrect. He is likely referring to mokuroku, which is a graduation scroll that lists all of the fundamental techniques by name, and accompanies it with an artistic depiction. The mokuroku alone Is not enough to know the technique. But they were never given as a learning tool like a textbook, but instead more of as a quick reference or study guide to remind the graduate of what they had learned, but not to instruct them. It definitely implies training With a master is necessary, but does not imply anything about Kata in the modern sense. All of the other 16th century documents That are not mokuroku, but are instead actual instruction techniques (Heiho Okugisho by Yamamoto Kansuke is the prime example), completely lack anything that is similar to a modern Kata. With that, I would say that this small statement is incorrect, within a larger book that does not necessarily cover that topic.

@@gontaiyuu In regards to shiai with shinai, shinai often make it difficult to apply historical skills and techniques from the texts we look at mainly because they were designed to work with steel blades of a curved shape. While any form of sparring is certainly better than no sparring at all, comparing sparring with light and straight shinai with sparring with steel blades (even wood to.an extent) is like comparing apples and oranges. They are radically different. Not exposing the student to sparring or sparring-like activities until they are ‘of a certain level’ is a comparatively modern approach - For example, Yagyu Munenori explains that his chapter in regards to martial arts application needs to be taught and understood through sparring specifically, a statement which is echoed across two other different authors writing within 80 years of each other in different locations.. Thank you for the text recommendation, I have already read the majority of this document, not quite finished it yet. The primary purpose of HJMA's research is to use historical documents directly from the period and, if any specific terms are used, to then use them within the context of the period. If we try and apply a modern lens onto historical terms it leads us to minor to significant misinterpretations (eg: Zanshin and kata having changing definition tremendously overtime). Karl Friday's book seems to be applying the 19th century-today meaning of the word kata to in period (early Edo and earlier). Friday also makes some bizarre references in that section on kata in history, referring to what appear to be modern publications (not historical) and also not even reference which sections of historical texts he is referring to and what they say - in short, we are just expected to trust him there at face value. From the sources we have, kata simply means something along the lines of ‘technique’ or ‘guard’; it does not refer to a patter or preset sequence of any sort. To put it into context, in period, stating that someone has ‘mastered all the kata’ seems to more mean something like ‘mastered all of the techniques’. I have read documents from Miyamoto Musashi, Yamamoto Kansuke and his successors, Ito Ittosai and his successors, and Aisu Ikosai; non of them mention kata even once in their original writings that I have read. While these historical writers don't specify the exact learning process, they do provide may crucial clues which, interestingly enough, coincide with some of the modern research today conducted into educational and coaching approaches. All of these historical masters aforementioned advocate an approach that involves the teaching of basics to be understood in light of their application, rather than learning the basics and then learning how to apply them later like we see today (eg: kata and bunkai in karate) - one of the many examples of this are Musashi’s quote regarding the principles of weapon use and winning in combat are one in the same, i.e. not to be understood in isolation at any point. I am not trying to invalidate Koryu as a practice, not by any means. I think Koryu has crucial importance in Japanese culture and tradition, as well as a role to foster this passion across the world and in its own schools. Despite the points of disagreement raised here, I wanted to thank you for inviting the discussion and conducting it in a genuine and well-meaning way. I believe this is crucial for the martial arts community as a whole and there needs to be more people who will do this.

Anytime mate 👍 The more I read into this period, the more it has become clear to me that the martial writers support the practical approach.

This 100% 👆

Whether you agree with the way they do things or not, it is important to do so in an honest, genuine and respectful way. Simply labelling someone as “a LARPer” and “making stuff up” doesn’t do anything to help anyone except for spreading unnecessary negativity. For me, while there are a couple of approaches shown by Ghost I disagree with based on my own experience, it would be quite moronic of me to then give people labels and names.

I think the second example highlights the point I wish to make. The fact that the angle was wide open on you from that blade I think is where I feel I would prefer doing it differently; he didn’t take it of course, as you point out, but that is my 2 cents on it. This connects with my preference to not move in as far so the double is less of a risk, that’s just based on my own experience though. The messer clip looked like it connected or nearly connected with your hand at the base of his blade (hard to tell 100% due to the camera angle). I feel this goes back to my original point of preference, specifically the approach of not moving in as far unless I am trapping their blade and moving in for a grapple. Happy to give benefit of the doubt as you were there and I wasn’t. My approach so far has been higher percentage for me due to lessening the chance I will be in measure of my opponent. Specifically, less about moving far in chasing a hit and more taking advantage of a hit when it presents itself (if that makes sense). However, if this comes down to personal preference and not much else, then very much get it 👍

@NathanaelTheAussie Point made. I agree that it would be higher percentage to be further out in distance, and it is indeed safer. I just wanted to put out the clarification that those specific exchanges were clean but the way you describe it is correct, and there is no guarantee that I will get a clean hit the same way again. This is merely a way that you *can* hit clean if the attack is timed properly. In my attacks, especially for deep targets, I am still within their threat area for an afterblow and I still have to deal with this extra threat. Whereas you would be at a safer distance to not have to deal with this counterattack. This is the cost of me abiding by rule of cool, and stepping in closer for deeper targets, but it must be done. Those end up being some of the most satisfying clips

@@NathanaelTheAussie i guess this is where my mentality comes in - it’s scary to advance forward, especially with swords. For me, i like that it strengthens my resolve and i try to take as few steps backwards as possible. Plays quite well to whats said about the samurai spirit in battle

@@GhostoftheDojo Appreciate the honesty mate and, to be fair, I think we all fall into the “cool trap” every now and then particularly when we are fencing our mates 😅 I know I do on the occasion. Nothing wrong with advancing forward I say, just do it in a smart and tactical way 😎👍 tactical and smart fencers I find a lot scarier to fence than overly aggressive ones, as the former are so much harder to predict; similar to loud and arrogant martial artists being far less scarier than the quiet/relaxed/friendly ones 😄 When you mention “samurai spirit”, I think this is something that can be easily misconstrued. The idea that it means “back to the wall all guns blazing/constant aggression without caring if you are hit” is a bit of a misconception which, while it happened on the rare occasion I am sure, humans and are humans and effective martial artists in war want to kill and not be killed. Not claiming this is what you are saying of course 😅 no straw manning here, just making a disclaimer statement for the wider audience.

I've been doing the same thing as Ghost shows with a high bind followed by a rising cut in steel sparring for two years. Definitely approve the interpretation! 🙏🏻🙌🏻 I've interpreted Musashi's Katsu-Totsu to be a rising thrust (which forces the opponent to bind high to intercept it) followed by an under cut to the now exposed arms. I feel this is a bit safer than opening up with a downwards cut. Any thoughts on this? (Nate, you know who I am 😁) Cheers Nate, good content, keep it up mate!

@@GhostoftheDojo Thanks for coming by and watching mate, as well as the extra explanation 🙏 I will take your word for it in regards to those vids, as you were there and I wasn’t. For me, the video you show using shinai is closer to what I would do and, at least in my opinion, is a lot safer. I find myself fencing sometimes people who are not afraid to just double you, competition mindsets 🤦‍♂️, and perhaps this may be one of the reasons I prefer to cover myself in such a way. The main thing is to keep these kinds of conversations going and preach the message for steel sparring in HJMA and with open genuine discussion. This is how good martial arts of any sort are achieved.

@@TheTurtlePenguin Cheers for dropping in mate (I think I remember who this is…maybe….?😂) and also for the kind words. It is important for all of us to feel chilled and safe enough to share what works for us in sparring and why we feel it works. If at the end of the day it just comes down to preference then I can totally get behind that. I would need to check my Musashi text again translated by Alexander Bennett before I comment on Katsu totsu, too many things in my brain at the moment. In any regard, though, I would usually not open up with a first intention downwards cut unless I knew for sure that I could safely land it. As long as good and effective fencing as well as interpreting the manuals is the goal right? 😎

@NathanaelTheAussie agreed. Also, I intend for these techniques to be used against suicidal fencers as well. Afterblows and intentional doubles are absolutely considered in what I do. You can see in my fight videos that people DO follow through or charge into doubles, and I'm still able to take deep steps and land clean hits on lethal targets. It's harder to see when a shorter fencer has to fight larger fencers. Most of the guys I fight are taller and have a reach advantage, so I have to step in closer to land deeper hits, and the exchange will inherently look more dangerous. When you fight taller fencers close to or above your skill level, you'll notice a tendency for your passes to be dangerously close even if you hit deep targets

@@GhostoftheDojo As a shorter fencer myself as well, I find cutting arms from below to be one of my safer options actually. Once the bind is high and there is a decent amount of presence in thr bind it is easy to slip under the opponents wrists due to my shoulder line being lower than theirs, because for me the bind is relatively higher than for them. Something I do to simulate real fighting is once I'm cutting the opponent's arm(s) I tend to keep a firm presence and not let my blade slip off his arm(s). I do this to simulate Händetrücken from German sources, which is controlling the opponent's arms by inflicting pain. If you cut to the bone and hold your sword in place, he cannot simply push your blade to the side. I hope this makes sense.

@@Evander_Pander 2/25th AIF Battalion (reenacted) is a pretty decent group. Am also a member of them myself, and can say the leaders of that group run a tight ship and document all their stuff. Very much recommend checking them out 👍

@@MisdirectedSasha I would pretty much use this as just an extension of the intention principle 😁 This is a great way to explain the concepts as well, mate. Thanks for sharing your thoughts here!

But muh glorious Nippon steel!

That sounds great mate! Would love to hear how it goes 😀

@@aspen77rt Thanks for leaving your genuine thoughts 🙏 Starting from further back is definitely an option, and this is something I feel I could have added here. I also train in HEMA, predominantly German and Italian sources for arming sword, longsword, dagger, pole arms and ringen. I have made a multilayered interpretation of this in a different vid you may find interesting.

@@baronvonboomboom4349 you are a legend mate, thanks heaps for your support 🙏

As someone who has been doing HJMA purely from a living history and historical source perspective, I very much understand 😅 am so glad you sport the video, thanks for your kind words mate 🙏

At the simplest level: connect, compare, and contrast your training and understanding with the "Dog Brothers* folks! Fight under their rule-set-- and if you somehow think it's too restrictive-- odds are they'll meet you in the middle! If you have an inclination towards Choy Li Fut's insane weapon approach, I'd tune in...I don't know how it would go, but I'd watch! Jian(Gim) training absolutely doesn't have the audience/market that it could command!

Cheers mate! 🙏 thanks for your kind words of support. It definitely seems people are wanting more of this and am glad people find it helpful. Will definitely need to continue this series.

To be honest, in my opinion at least, not really. At least for me, I use the term to just be an informal nomen for hand strike or a joke term for those silly people who rely only on first intention hand hits.

Many thanks for your words of support mate 🙏 am very glad they the vid has been helpful.

Cheers heaps for the kind words of support mate 🙏 I am grateful

@@NathanaelTheAussie Pleasure is all mine, thank you.

This is a very good way to be, to be honest 👍 thanks for sharing 😊

"pointless"....I see what you did there ;) XD

Thanks for your genuine question and thoughts, I get what you are saying here. I feel I agree and disagree. In the sense of convincing the opponent of the threat of a strike, I agree that the movement needs to be done in order that the opponent feels they have to respond. The human brain perceives this in a variety of ways, and the more trained someone is the more refined these are. The more trained someone is in swordsmanship, the more convincing that threat needs to be. I would argue this is done not only by having the weapon in measure but, also, using the body. After all, the body and hips telegraph far more than the arms do, even more so when fighting against someone who constantly relies on 1st intention counters. The area where I feel I disagree is, the way I see it, making a movement to get a reaction from the opponent and making a movement to hit the opponent are two different things in intention. For example, I can threaten with a strike to which the opponent reacts in order to set up my second strike to hit them (2nd intention) - this seems to be what you are alluding to in your horizontal cut example. You can see in my video examples that if I committed to trying to hit the opponent as a 1st intention it would have either resulted in me being hit or a double at best. The two times I did fully commit in the videos immediately resulted in these exact results. Not saying 1st intention hits are always bad, not by any means. if the opportunity presents itself then definitely take it. The only issue I have is that, because intention = commitment, it is dangerous to be fully commited against a skilled opponent who has not yet committed. If one is intending on having their intention (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc) landing on the opponent every single time repetitively, then one can become more predictable as a result.

I don't think all attacks should intend to hit. Feints need to be believable without actual commitment. Example: Fiore's Punta Falsa is a dedicated 'feint' knowing full well that first cut should not land, exploiting an opponents over eagerness to parry out wide. Most attacks should have an option point where you're able to follow through and hit, but like all things in fencing there is no 'ALL' or "Always" or "Never". There are plenty of situations where the magical words 'It Depends' comes into play. You should respect your opponents skill, but don't attribute magical godhood to them and assume they'll always know when you're feinting versus when you're committing to hitting. If they never make a mistake, you're never going to win anyways, so leave room for them to fail. Another example for us hand-snipers, myself chief among them, is that cutting short is a brilliant way to convince the uninitiated to step into finger-eliminating distance. 'Opps my first intention was bad, I hecked up and now my sword is too low, woe is me who is exposed - PSYCH you stepped into measure as was my plan all along and now your descending cut at my head is met with me clipping your hands while I pass backwards away from your threat'. If that first cut was intended to land instead of 'oops' my opponent would have to parry, as you say, but then they are no longer lured into the place I wanted them. You can absolutly play with every cut intending to land, and as you describe you'll end up in plenty of interesting binds to potentially exploit. But it's not the only way to play.

@@GarldBonkdonk This is a good way of putting it, I agree with what you are saying here 👍

Fun fact: whether to use feints or only attacks that want to hit is up to personal preference in almost every period that has more than one technical source. Fiore and Lichtenauer use feints, I.33 doesn't. Destreza tells you explicitly all feints are bad (and some late Diestros do sneak them in while trying to pretend they aren't feints), Italian rapier loves them. Long and short of it is that feints are dangerous for the user because they depend on your opponent's reaction, and that means they fail badly when your opponent sees through them or doesn't see them at all. On the other hand, they are really, really damn useful when they work, to a point where a whole lot of people thought they were worth the risk even in combat to the death.

​@MartinGreywolf Feints are not dangerous to the user if they are non-commital if the user knows what they are doing. Bolognese has two levels of commitment, one of which is reserved for feigning. If these hit, fine, but they don't have to. Commitment requires more energy and distance coverage and therefore potential danger to the user. Uncommitted strikes are easier to break, but harder to feel through ie they are good for testing the opponent's reactions both with the body and sword. This is discussed or observed in Destreza, pretty much all Italian sources but the Bolognese go into the most detail, and in Kenjutsu. It exists implicitly in all forms of weapons based martial arts and especially in dueling contexts. The more skilled a person is, the easier it is for them to make a decision in the middle of a non-commital action either to turn it into a committed action or to make another test. In becoming aware of this, one can look to their preferred sources and observe the different posta or guards as places of maximal opportunity for certain kinds of actions. Any such position is therefore one which can be used as a point of decision if one faints to it.

Cheers for the kind words mate 🙏 a crucial balance in my honest opinion 😎

Thanks for the kind words mate 🙏hope it all helps.

To be honest, I actually have no idea how the men actually did this in the field. Have yet to find a source for it. I have done something similar to this, so it wouldn’t surprise me if there were blokes in the field who did it too.

That’s correct 👍 good eyes

One is a mystery to be honest, Facebook marketplace believe it or not (would normally not recommend doing this). 1070 tempered carbon steel if I remember correctly. The other is an Akado Armory blade, which so far has handled very nicely 👍 love the balance between safe flex but also closer to authentic feel and balance.

I have read those texts, definitely good reads 👍 I tend to not use them much in terms of formal documentation to document kitchen as much of it is heavily edited and censored.

Ssssh 🤫🤫 they will hear you….

Hey, I didn’t say I use it very often 😛😅

@@NathanaelTheAussie 😂

Yep, that is a denix 👍 good eye. Still Annoyed I completely forgot to talk about it in the vid tbh 😅

Very much feel and agree with this comment 👍 There needs to be a better way of doing this.

Thanks heaps for the comment and words of support, mate 🙏

Many thanks mate, appreciate the support 🙏

Thanks fella 🙏 I too am a big fan of “No Sword” as well and the dynamic and practical approach it evokes.