A response to "Way of the Samurai" Koryu vs. HEMA articles

For an insider's view from a former HEMA person, there is this great write up (whether you agree or not...) Please read the source articles first, or at the very least, the 5th article, here: https://www.way-of-the-samurai.com/Koryu-Sparring.html

Going back and reading all the previous parts is also quite interesting. I would say I MOSTLY agree with his assessment. Though, there are some points of sheer arrogance. My main issues with his points is that:

1: While the techniques have been battle tested, the USER has not been. There is NO ONE left living and teaching that has used the techniques in a real fight. For all his talk of "HEMA is a sport, not a real fight. Koryu is for a real fight..." (and he loves to go on about being ready to murder someone..), neither he, nor his sensei, have every used their Koryu in a real fight either. Pot, meet Kettle.

If the evaluation point is (as he loves to point out): "TESTED in battle", Both sides have been equally well tested in battle. Sure there may be SOME historical texts after a certain point in history that turned towards sportsmanship and honor than actual killing.. but certainly even those remained grounded by what came before.  ALL of his example situations that make HEMA "not real" and Koryu "real" are situations in which relate to the PERSON or the SITUATION and NOT the weapon system.

It matters NOT which system has or has not been tested in battle (especially since both have). What matters is that HE has not been tested in a real sword fight, any more than any other HEMA person has. On that ground, we are ALL EQUAL. What his School's 4th master past who died in 1792 did has NOTHING to do with him, today.

2: Most Iiado and Koyru are all about "decisive action". Draw. Kill. Done. And he goes into great detail about how his Koryu is all about killing some unsuspecting victim or a surprise attack on some other samurai.. and asks "have you ever hit your opponent with your car, on the way to the duel?" As if to say thats the kind of thing his Koryo would do (and I am %100 certain his sensei would tell him "NO! WTF is wrong with you?  But also.. yes."  context. If you want to MURDER someone without any risk to yourself, arrange to have a piano fall on them from the 4th floor, rather than engaging them in a duel. But none of this is a reason to frown upon pressure testing.

3: Also, he goes to great lengths (FIVE very LONG posts) to explain to you why Koryu is super superior true murder killer hunter shit, and HEMA sparring is an ABSOLUTE, total, WASTE of time in Koryu. THEN.. in post five, writes that there IS sparring in Koryu.. but because its unarmored, and with a real sword, its just SO MUCH MORE better, yet.. no injuries?  Also, unless you have some serious cash, you don't often practice or spar (even here in the original Koryu and Iadio schools), with a sharpened, steel sword. Until you are quite high up in the school's ranking, and have been doing it for a LONG time, you use alloy swords, or modern manufactured blunted steel.  IE.. HEMA SWORDS.  (insert the biggest WTF? SHRUG here)

4: Koryu and Iado and all the others stopped being a martial art for a "REAL" fight the day their masters had to stop (for one reason or another) killing each other. Thats.. IT. From that point on, their focus shifted to cultural preservation and inner journeys. Because your master killed someone does not make you ready to kill. None of us are. Simulated violence is just that: Simulated. It is a point he makes strongly throughout the articles. Yet he fails to accept that his violence is also simulated. He fails to connect the dots that every point he has against HEMA, is 100% true against his own course of study.

5: The "historical lineage" is a "HEMA-speak" get out jail free card for many practicioners of Japanese sword arts. The problem is that they fail to accept the reality that, despite their instructor's best efforts to pass the baton, they are really just playing a game of telephone. It is almost entirely an oral history. There are SOME writings. SOME illustrations. But most are purposefully cryptic to maintain secrecy. Ideally, any historical Ryu should serve as a "snapshot" of history, taken at a time in which the school was at it's peak skill, and that precision of technique has been passed down, generation to generation. There are two issues with this, both of which he sort of brushes aside, but which apply to both eastern and western systems equally:

1. There is no guarantee that the following sensei will teach it AS PRECISELY as the previous, or that they will be able to resist the urge to modify or "improve" the teaching of it in some way, or add techniques to the school as a whole.

2. Violating the rule above is naturally acceptable when the changes come about by being tested in combat, but is actually LESS likely to happen in such cases (hard to improve upon near perfection, and failure could mean your life every time you simply want to "try something out..." Such slippages are MORE likely to happen over time, sensei to sensei, especially when they are not challenged regularly to "use it for real" or at least as close to real as possible.

If your sensei has even just once uttered the phrase "I think that.." or "in my opinion.." in the dojo then the whole argument that "this Ryu is a perfect living lineage snapshot dating back to year xxx" sort of just falls on it's face. You simply MUST accept that some new interpretation has been indoctrinated over the years which has NOT been tested "in a matter of life and death". Thus, using such an argument as evidence that "A is real and B is not" fails. Pick any of the historical texts before it all went to duels of pride and sport to pit against any Ryu and you can confidently say that each is equally battle tested "in life and death" and yet not. BOTH are "living lineages" in the sense that they experience evolution, even today (albeit ryu evolve much slower, and the aim is to PREVENT evolution as much as possible).

 I'm not entirely certain when people stopped using an arming sword, a longsword or a messer to ACTUALLY kill people with, but that would be the date in which it stopped being "tested in life and death" and started becoming a living lineage, and the exact same reality holds true for any Japanese Ryu, The only differences are that for Ryu, we can say that date with some clarity in the late 1800s, and that UNLIKE Ryu, many HEMA systems have their original instructional materials in tact, and do not rely on Liechtenaur or Meyer's blood relatives to whisper techniques in your ear.

As for the key points that I strong agree with him on:

1: First and foremost, Iaido, Koryu, and most other Japanese martial arts (excepting kendo, and anything clearly created post late 1800s) are considered a cultural heritage. In the eyes of the government (and thus, most ACTUAL Japanese people, INCLUDING  the masters themselves), the ONLY legitimate purpose of devoted study of the school is to PRESERVE CULTURE. They very much WANT enthusiastic study of these schools. They are parts of the national identity. If we were having this conversation in the 1970s, many Japanese would have had grandparents or great grandparents that used these skills in real combat. It is still relatively "fresh" as compared to most European combat styles. But NOBODY (at least, not Japanese anyway), are practicing Iado, Koryu, or any other Japanese sword /naginata/kyudo etc. art so they can "be ready for a REAL fight".  

But to all of that I say : I see NO difference as compared to HEMA practices. BOTH are ONLY practiced today to preserve historical culture. On both sides, the really crazy people who give the indication that they actually want to hurt someone are pushed swiftly out of the dojo/club. He goes through great lengths to point out the mindset is somehow different. But I think HIS mindset is different.

2: Referring back to point 2 above (That Koryu are about singular (or nearly), decisive actions to kill with very little "waste"). But, as practiced, Iaido and some Koryu really bank on that idea of the glorious one motion kill (or be killed), suprise attack. The arrogance here is in his thinking that if you study the techniques, you are somehow guranteed a 100% success rate. He does casually mention that "there are follow up techniques if you fuck up.." But not many. With that in mind, then, yes.. I agree. Sparing is pointless. Because like the Aikedo master, your opponent will ALWAYS fall down. What matters here, and in support of his assertion that sparring is pointless, is that, as practiced NOW, these things are about cultural preservation. Get the technique precisely as taught by THIS school. Take this rigorous physical study, and use it to aid your mental and emotional disciplin. There is something very important to be said about foreigners who try to study Japanese sword arts with the mindset that "I want to learn to use the sword (kill) like a samurai." The Japanese people carrying on these cultural artifacts do NOT think this way AT ALL. It is an internal, mental-emotional quest, enacted by a physical act.

All of the above is fantastic. I can totally agree. What matters is the motivation of the individual doing the study. But to use any of it as an explanation as to why "Koryu is for REAL fighting, and HEMA is NOT" is just...  wrong.

AS PRACTICED (and precisely because they rarely if ever spar), it's a system that ASSUMES you will win. It ASSUMES you have caught them by suprise, or that you were faster, or that your technique was superior. The only assumption you can make about a REAL WORLD fight is that you cannot assume anything. "Shit happens". And if you train with the mindset that your techniques will always work, then "Shit will happen" to you.

This is a person that is absolutely pointless to ever ask to spar or even bother comparing both techniques in any ACTIVE way (by this I mean, not "if A, then I will B" type demonstration, but free form, open ended, hit with intent sparring. If he is winning, he will say "SEE!!" and if he is loosing he will point to any and all compromises for safety, or the fact that "you are ready for the fight" as the reason his technique isn't working as it is supposed to. Or that "the sloppy thrust you did to my chest (which totally bowed the blade), would not work in a real fight because REASONS." This is a person who refuses to believe that slop kills just as effectively as a perfectly studied (but never tested) technique (more accurately, he refuses to accept that slop is a VALID technique). Surprise reversals never happen. That his great, great grand-sensei used this very technique to slay a dozen enemies, therefore it should work 100% for him too. That wearing a padded jacket, a bit of strategically placed plastic and a helmet (constitutes armored combat and is "too compromised" for safety and thus invalidates all your skills. He has never even considered the fact that, if he had a chance to ask all of his grand-sensei who have ACTUALLY killed people with swords, they would all say "I managed to survive long enough to be an old teacher, due to a LOT of skill, and also a lot of LUCK." I think every great swordsman in history could pick at least one fight and say "I only survived that one because something WEIRD and UNEXPECTED happened."


TL:DR
The reasons that most Japanese sword arts don't bother with sparring:

• In modern practice, Japanese ryu are meant to be studied for the purpose of cultural preservation and your own personal, inner journey.

• With respect to techniques, the goal is to preserve a snapshot in time. To preserve the school, as it existed in the time of the LAST sensei known to have used it in ACTUAL, life or death combat (presumably at it's peak quality).

• Sparing introduces anomalies and potential bad habits; modifications to suite the immediate situation, which deviates from the prescribed FORM.

•  The purpose of the MODERN Ryu is to preserve and demonstrate the FORM, as it existed (past tense), precisely. NOT to continuously test, prove or IMprove it against other forms. 

• Ryu do not spar each other because, while they have MANY shared techniques, the precise movements (the FORM, or essence of each kata) deviates Ryu to Ryu. Cross pollination of these deviations via sparing would "poison" both Ryu. In modern times, most sensei do not consider any one koryu any better than another. They are simply "different". And for the purposes of preservation, difference, or deviation, is bad for the school.

None of the above makes his Koryu any more "real" than HEMA.