Oh I guess I should just say there is a vast difference between a kata and a technique. A kata is a learning method which contains techniques. When you know a kata well, you can move in and out of it to employ a technique you have learned at any time, or move to a technique from a different kata. It is pure and simple just a way of training that is not at all like many other ways, including free sparring. The initial strikes you see going towards helmet or what have you are probably not the purpose of the kata, it is the response that is being trained. What happens if you lose your helmet? To learn a kata well gives you the ability to adapt to any situation the kata touches on, even if you are never in a specific situation just like the kata itself.

Here's a more dynamic, but unarmored, video from another old style. Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto ryu. You might enjoy this timing and distance more. I'm guessing the purpose of this kata is probably more in line of footwork (ashi) and maai and so forth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9w1QpLdXns


Here's another style, Hyoho Niten Ichi ryu. I was able to visit this group and see a regular training session. This is the style that traces itself back to Miyamoto Musashi.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7LDXpAohjQ

Edited to add this essay by Ellis Amdur is way more precise and comprehensive about the embu (display) and uke/tori role than anything I can possibly hope to write. I would say it is essential reading for this sort of thing http://edgework.info/article-Public-Presentat...-Arts.html

A few points to make: (Though not in a particular order).

1) As for the battle of nations comment: If you are comparing this to battle of nations, then you are in fact saying that this isn't a martial art at all, and that no technique is being demonstrated here. I don't think that is the case.

2) If the person's sword blow to the head is just part of the kata, then I assume that this kata is not meant for armored combat in the first place, and that the participants are just wearing armor for some other show/safety related reason.

3) I understand that the Japanese are secretive about their sword art, but some of the answers I am receiving are, "The art isn't very well done because they don't want people to be able to copy it" or "The art isn't well done because...........living tradition".

My problem with this line of argument is that it assumes that a living tradition naturally makes something better. However, that isn't necessarily true. Perhaps it has become extremely stylized over time in order to attract members during the 1800's when a certain style was more popular. Perhaps a few of its masters weren't as good as the masters of other schools, so they stylized their moves so as to make comparisons seem out of place "Well we have secret reasons why we aren't winning sword competitions, we don't want to show other schools our arts, etc.".

There is nothing wrong with a living tradition per se, but it doesn't naturally make something good. Arts can be corrupted over time for various reasons, especially when they aren't being really used.

Every person in these schools was born sometime in the 1900's, and doesn't have any more contact with first hand samurai warfare than me or anyone else. They only know what their master is teaching them, and if something is wrong with what the master is teaching them, they don't have any way of knowing.

4) When ever someone wants to show me a good Nihon-to video, they also pull out katori shinto-ryu. That's fine, as I really like it (they sign their contracts in blood still, who doesn't like that?) but they don't show armored fighting in any of their videos that I have seen. What I would be completely happy with is some armored fighting down by the katori shinto-ryu, or someone else who does things in a similar style.

5) I am not saying that all Japanese sword arts are bad, but just being in an old school from japan doesn't make them good. They are good or bad on their own merits. And I do know that their are at least some good armored fighting styles out there.

I saw one armored video where a person with a tachi in scabbard blocked an attack by turning to the side and using the scabbard to block the blow, then at the same time drew his sword and thrust into the opponents face. It was awesome, so of course the youtube account got removed the next day, and I never found it again.

Thus the purpose of this thread. (forlorn emocon goes here.)

I'll try to answer to your points but like I said I am not martial artist.

1) Battle of the Nations has it's own specific ruleset. Fighters in BotN show great spirit and intensity when mauling their opponents down. Sure it might not be the most technical thing you see but it's very effective in the ruleset they are using. Of course I believe thrusts are forbidden for safety reasons. The combat in Battle of the Nations is very real, and I can only imagine it being quite scary experience to get mauled by real force until you yield or fall down.

For similarish style you might want to check out Jigen-ryu 示現流.

The reason I brought up the BotN was because that what you see in Enbu is very specific type of demonstration of the art. They are just demonstrating how old arts still are surviving as tradition to this day.

2) You would have to ask the question from the source, as we are not likely to be able to fulfill your curiosity. Maybe you can hit up some koryu-demonstrations in Northern California and show your interest towards them? I've heard few kata explained step by step and they actually make a lot of sense. Some of the details are very hard to understand by watching alone.

3) You have valid points there but similarily to historical European martial arts there is also written tradition in many Japanese martial arts. Like I said arts have most likely evolved over time, some more than others. It would be nice to get the founders and early practicioners of the arts to comment on current state of the art and give their insight on things. Unfortunately that is impossible.

4) I have seen few techiques of Katori demonstrated in armor one time. As far as I know wearing armor is reserved for special occasions. It's common request in demonstrations that I've seen that people wouldn't record the demonstration. I've always just enjoyed the demonstration before me, and I encourage people to do so too. It's fun to see martial arts in person, much more impressive than seeing videos online.

Not the harnischfechten you were looking for but here you can see some parts of kata explained against an armored opponent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3cpPRBlnwc

5) It would be interesting to see the video that you spoke of and see what style it was. It's very hard to block an attack with tachi scabbard if you wear it the way it was worn, as it hangs on your hip. If you just have the scabbard freely in your hand it's a whole different thing.

You can easily create all kinds of flashy moves to impress people but sometimes they are just that. Just because it looks awesome does not mean it would be good in real situation.

I have seen over the years that it's very hard to some modern sport practicioners to understand the mindset of traditional martial arts. I can't blame either view as I don't have the drive needed for martial arts but I respect the people who train in martial arts be it modern or traditional.

In this video the scabbard was being worn at the time. What the practitioner did was

1: move his right foot back so that the scabbard side of his body was facing the incoming blow (a normal descending cut to your right side).
2: push the handle down with his right hand so that the back end of the scabbard (the tip of the sword, but still in the scabbard) came up and received the blows. Note, he was still holding onto the scabbard with his left, when he...
3: Pulled his sword out of the scabbard with his right hand, and then thrust into the opponenet's face while still closing the line with the scabbard.

As far as utility, seems to me to be as good as any other Iado type stuff. If you have a tachi on you while an enemy is attacking, and you still haven't drawn it yet, seems reasonable.

That is percisely why I disagree, the blow isn't an over head blow to the head, but a blow to the neck and face.

There is a definiite disconnect between how the katana was originally taught for combat and how it is taught today. One example is the delusion among a lot of instructors that the katana could actually cut through helmets and that special techniques for doing this were used on the battlefield.

It's not really that hard to find an old video or two of TSKSR armoured combat:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOfXWqYY4O4

And I still don't understand the notion that every single move in a koryu demonstration must make sense to the untrained audience. There are far more logical reasons to not show the real technique than to show it to the uninitiated -- for instance, in this day and age, I'm pretty sure the koryu schools have begun to think about liability issues over clueless people injuring themselves or their partners/bystanders while trying to imitate the techniques demonstrated in these meets. In many ways I find their attitude more realistic -- sure, their arts might have been practical combat arts once, but they're largely irrelevant to military combat and personal self-defence today, so they're focused on the preservation of their art and tradition rather than any pretension to martial practicality. Not to mention that it's a necessary concession to Japan's pacifistic post-WW2 constitution -- they had no choice but to emphasise the "art and tradition" side when the teaching and practice of martial arts as such was largely prohibited under the American occupation between 1945 and 1951.