In a blog post entitled Why Aliveness (http://aliveness101.blogspot.ca/2005...aliveness.html), the celebrated martial arts skeptic Matt Thornton says that he not only sees no use in kata, but that it is "most likley to be counter-productive." Reading his post, he outlines the reasoning behind his approach and addresses some particular examples of why he considers things like hubud in FMA extraneous.
Ellis Amdur is lesser known on the site, though perhaps some in the JMA forum know him from some of his publications (an excellent video on Aikido ukemi, three books on JMA, or even his myriad of conflict resolution books). Although having trained in combat sports, Amdur's main pursuit has been in two classical schools of Japanese martial arts. In an e-budo thread entitled Kenjutsu training (http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthre...t=41927&page=6, post #87), he responds to some criticism of Donn F. Draeger, an early and distinguished American practicioner of JMA old and new:
...On another matter - I happen to train in one koryu in which we do include a "sparring" component. Another does not. I've found it a very useful training device, but have never confused it with real fighting.
AND: Given that most Japanese ryu, including some of the most historically powerful did NOT include a "sparring" component, it is hubris to assert that it is NECESSARY to do such sparring to develop combative efficacy. Such an assertion reflects an ignorance of how sophisticated real kata training in a traditional ryu can be. If you've never had such training, how would you know?
Consider this: basic training in the military does not include sparring (I'm not including BJJ or LINES - I mean that prospective soldiers do not train with paint-ball to prepare themselves for the battlefield in Iraq, and honestly, that is the equivalent of "sparring" in kenjutsu). What happens is that they learn "kata" - and then are deployed and learn to enact the forms they learned, in real life - if they survive. BAck in the day, when one wanted to test one's swordsmanship - really - one had a duel. And even this is not the same as a battlefield. The former is one-on-one, and there are rules that are formalized. That's not a battlefield, anymore than a boxing ring or "octogon" is the equivalent of walking down a street in Falluja looking for IEDs. (emboldened emphasis is mine)
Juxtaposing these two, there does appear to be a contradiction here. However, given the disparate nature of the comparison, some caveats: it's not clear how much, if at all, Mr. Thornton has been exposed to Koryu methods. "Kata" as it is used in mainstream English martial arts describes some variety of practise, and within that scope there are the particulars of individual Japanese koryu arts. So, it is concievable that Thornton might have a different response when it concerns koryu kata, but I think it unlikely. Additionally, these posts are dated to 2005 and 2008 respectively; if there have been changes of heart since then, I am unaware of them.
Moving along, I wonder if there's no reconciling these two divergent views. It's undisputed that when it comes to many unarmed grappling techniques, the alive approach produces skill just as if not more reliably than dead approaches and in any event produces results more quickly. However, competition has been known to eliminate otherwise effective techniques. Anyone passingly familiar with Judo history can detail the development of rules for shiai including the exclusion of certain waza for safety (e.g. those targeting the spinal cord, striking, etc.) As they are out of sight, they are out of mind; fewer clubs bother with these techniques at all. Similarly, the domain of weapons presents problems of degree. While reasonable approximations of light edged and blunt weapons can be employed in an alive manner, analogs of heavier instruments (e.g. naginata, rokushakubo) are in and of themselves too dangerous for freestyle sparring.
Furthermore, Judo's history also relates to Amdur's citation of "historically powerful" ryuha. Eighth dan Judoka Syd Hoare writes:
(http://www.sydhoare.com/development.pdf, pages 3-4)
During the early period judo slowly gained its ascendancy over the surviving ju-jitsu schools but did not have its own way by any means. Jujitsu schools such as the [Fusen-ryu], Takeuchi-ryu and the Yoshin-ryu and others gave the Kodokan masters some very hard times especially with their groundwork and leg locks. There was a much touted match between the Yoshin-ryu and the Kodokan about 1885 which the Kodokan apparently won mainly with ‘small techniques’ but there is no record of the rules of engagement. Author EJ Harrison who went to Japan in 1897 and began studying the jujitsu of the Tenjinshinyo school and later Kodokan judo wrote in his Fighting Spirit of Japan that while his teacher would not be a match for the Kodokan masters and their throwing techniques on the ground he was phenomenal. ...Groundwork continued to be a problem for the Kodokan up to the mid 1920s when its new rules greatly restricted entry to groundwork.
Wayne Muromoto of the Takeuchi Ryu also relates a curious anecdote of this period:
(http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthre...t=33050&page=2, post #17)
I earlier mentioned that several Takeuchi-ryu sensei were very influential in the creation of judo's early kansetsu waza and shime waza methods. That didn't hold the Takeuchi-ryu back from engaging in matches with the Kodokan, apparently. In one match, my sempai said that a Takeuchi-ryu sensei (I forgot the name) fought Kodokan's Yamashita to a hikiwake; a draw. Yamashita threw the TR person cleanly and the judge initially indicated it was an ippon (full point) for Yamashita. Then Yamashita fell back, grabbing his arm in pain. While being thrown, the Takeuchi-ryu sensei had grabbed Yamashita's throwing arm and used the momentum of the throw to dislocate it. The judge amended his call to hikiwake, a draw, because both techniques happened at the same time and were both equally worthy of an ippon.
If anything, the above is an example of how tough the shiai used to be in those days, and as Joseph Svinth noted, Kodokan judo didn't necessarily always win. Its ascendancy owes much not only to its eclectic adaptation of methods from any and all sources, but also to its ability to be seen as a "new," scientifically-based style with roots on Japanese jujutsu.
In summary, I have little doubt that for what he's trying to do, Thornton has little cause to explore archaic and obscure training methods that teach in a way very alien to most combat sports. However, based on the apparent struggle the Kodokan had with jujutsuka, I suspect that their kata training led them to skillfulness in conflict. Of course, since the early 20th century a lot has changed; Yoshin Ryu is extinct, and I am unaware of whether or not Kiraku Ryu and Takenouchi Ryu have been able to produce effective fighters in the interim. Nevertheless, I believe Thornton's criticism to have been generated by the typical western kata experience, which is to say not the experience of koryu jujutsuka that trained in the fullest. I'm also convinced that there may be instances where high risk techniques or implements are more or less guaranteed to cause serious injury or death in a truly alive scenario as defined by Thornton (e.g. Amdur's comment about the military's training with firearms). Therefore, I conclude that Thornton's dichotomy of alive and dead training is not completely accurate. Rather, things like classical kata considered dead training are potentially valid methodologies misunderstood by outsiders who mostly just don't need them anyway.
Thoughts?
Ellis Amdur is lesser known on the site, though perhaps some in the JMA forum know him from some of his publications (an excellent video on Aikido ukemi, three books on JMA, or even his myriad of conflict resolution books). Although having trained in combat sports, Amdur's main pursuit has been in two classical schools of Japanese martial arts. In an e-budo thread entitled Kenjutsu training (http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthre...t=41927&page=6, post #87), he responds to some criticism of Donn F. Draeger, an early and distinguished American practicioner of JMA old and new:
...On another matter - I happen to train in one koryu in which we do include a "sparring" component. Another does not. I've found it a very useful training device, but have never confused it with real fighting.
AND: Given that most Japanese ryu, including some of the most historically powerful did NOT include a "sparring" component, it is hubris to assert that it is NECESSARY to do such sparring to develop combative efficacy. Such an assertion reflects an ignorance of how sophisticated real kata training in a traditional ryu can be. If you've never had such training, how would you know?
Consider this: basic training in the military does not include sparring (I'm not including BJJ or LINES - I mean that prospective soldiers do not train with paint-ball to prepare themselves for the battlefield in Iraq, and honestly, that is the equivalent of "sparring" in kenjutsu). What happens is that they learn "kata" - and then are deployed and learn to enact the forms they learned, in real life - if they survive. BAck in the day, when one wanted to test one's swordsmanship - really - one had a duel. And even this is not the same as a battlefield. The former is one-on-one, and there are rules that are formalized. That's not a battlefield, anymore than a boxing ring or "octogon" is the equivalent of walking down a street in Falluja looking for IEDs. (emboldened emphasis is mine)
Juxtaposing these two, there does appear to be a contradiction here. However, given the disparate nature of the comparison, some caveats: it's not clear how much, if at all, Mr. Thornton has been exposed to Koryu methods. "Kata" as it is used in mainstream English martial arts describes some variety of practise, and within that scope there are the particulars of individual Japanese koryu arts. So, it is concievable that Thornton might have a different response when it concerns koryu kata, but I think it unlikely. Additionally, these posts are dated to 2005 and 2008 respectively; if there have been changes of heart since then, I am unaware of them.
Moving along, I wonder if there's no reconciling these two divergent views. It's undisputed that when it comes to many unarmed grappling techniques, the alive approach produces skill just as if not more reliably than dead approaches and in any event produces results more quickly. However, competition has been known to eliminate otherwise effective techniques. Anyone passingly familiar with Judo history can detail the development of rules for shiai including the exclusion of certain waza for safety (e.g. those targeting the spinal cord, striking, etc.) As they are out of sight, they are out of mind; fewer clubs bother with these techniques at all. Similarly, the domain of weapons presents problems of degree. While reasonable approximations of light edged and blunt weapons can be employed in an alive manner, analogs of heavier instruments (e.g. naginata, rokushakubo) are in and of themselves too dangerous for freestyle sparring.
Furthermore, Judo's history also relates to Amdur's citation of "historically powerful" ryuha. Eighth dan Judoka Syd Hoare writes:
(http://www.sydhoare.com/development.pdf, pages 3-4)
During the early period judo slowly gained its ascendancy over the surviving ju-jitsu schools but did not have its own way by any means. Jujitsu schools such as the [Fusen-ryu], Takeuchi-ryu and the Yoshin-ryu and others gave the Kodokan masters some very hard times especially with their groundwork and leg locks. There was a much touted match between the Yoshin-ryu and the Kodokan about 1885 which the Kodokan apparently won mainly with ‘small techniques’ but there is no record of the rules of engagement. Author EJ Harrison who went to Japan in 1897 and began studying the jujitsu of the Tenjinshinyo school and later Kodokan judo wrote in his Fighting Spirit of Japan that while his teacher would not be a match for the Kodokan masters and their throwing techniques on the ground he was phenomenal. ...Groundwork continued to be a problem for the Kodokan up to the mid 1920s when its new rules greatly restricted entry to groundwork.
Wayne Muromoto of the Takeuchi Ryu also relates a curious anecdote of this period:
(http://www.e-budo.com/forum/showthre...t=33050&page=2, post #17)
I earlier mentioned that several Takeuchi-ryu sensei were very influential in the creation of judo's early kansetsu waza and shime waza methods. That didn't hold the Takeuchi-ryu back from engaging in matches with the Kodokan, apparently. In one match, my sempai said that a Takeuchi-ryu sensei (I forgot the name) fought Kodokan's Yamashita to a hikiwake; a draw. Yamashita threw the TR person cleanly and the judge initially indicated it was an ippon (full point) for Yamashita. Then Yamashita fell back, grabbing his arm in pain. While being thrown, the Takeuchi-ryu sensei had grabbed Yamashita's throwing arm and used the momentum of the throw to dislocate it. The judge amended his call to hikiwake, a draw, because both techniques happened at the same time and were both equally worthy of an ippon.
If anything, the above is an example of how tough the shiai used to be in those days, and as Joseph Svinth noted, Kodokan judo didn't necessarily always win. Its ascendancy owes much not only to its eclectic adaptation of methods from any and all sources, but also to its ability to be seen as a "new," scientifically-based style with roots on Japanese jujutsu.
In summary, I have little doubt that for what he's trying to do, Thornton has little cause to explore archaic and obscure training methods that teach in a way very alien to most combat sports. However, based on the apparent struggle the Kodokan had with jujutsuka, I suspect that their kata training led them to skillfulness in conflict. Of course, since the early 20th century a lot has changed; Yoshin Ryu is extinct, and I am unaware of whether or not Kiraku Ryu and Takenouchi Ryu have been able to produce effective fighters in the interim. Nevertheless, I believe Thornton's criticism to have been generated by the typical western kata experience, which is to say not the experience of koryu jujutsuka that trained in the fullest. I'm also convinced that there may be instances where high risk techniques or implements are more or less guaranteed to cause serious injury or death in a truly alive scenario as defined by Thornton (e.g. Amdur's comment about the military's training with firearms). Therefore, I conclude that Thornton's dichotomy of alive and dead training is not completely accurate. Rather, things like classical kata considered dead training are potentially valid methodologies misunderstood by outsiders who mostly just don't need them anyway.
Thoughts?