Honestly, guys I been leaving this troll alone. He just a standard Bujinkan who fallen for the Hatsumi propagranda machine. We are going to cite books and links. There he is going to spout something retarded like Togakure-ryu is a real Ko-ryu and Gyokko-ryu is the basis of all JMA. Then when we ask for proof, he just going to mention Hatsumi and some grandmasterships, that again may or may not be legitamite.

Its a circlear debate. At least when people search for bujinkan thread they will see what a morons the bujinkan nutridders can be.

i am saying that for the most part yes, original Koryu budo was developed from Gyokko Ryu or was influenced by Gyokko Ryu in some way. (mainland Japan arts) which was the first structured Ryu.



I really don't know that this is true.

I thought that the oldest verifiable jujutsu ryuha was Takenouchi Ryu from about 1532 and that the oldest verifiable weapons school was Katori Shinto Ryu (1447). There is also Maniwa Nen Ryu kenjutsu started in 1368.

None of these Japanese ryuha say anything about being developed from or influenced by Gyokko Ryu.

Is there any evidence of Gyokko Ryu existing so long ago? When, in fact, is the earliest that Gyokko Ryu can be traced back?

I really don't know that this is true.

I thought that the oldest verifiable jujutsu ryuha was Takenouchi Ryu from about 1532 and that the oldest verifiable weapons school was Katori Shinto Ryu (1447). There is also Maniwa Nen Ryu kenjutsu started in 1368.

None of these Japanese ryuha say anything about being developed from or influenced by Gyokko Ryu.

Is there any evidence of Gyokko Ryu existing so long ago? When, in fact, is the earliest that Gyokko Ryu can be traced back?


Gyokko-ryu wasn't formalized till the 1600s (probably even later). Its origin story places it older. Its a Ko-ryu, but certainly not the oldest ko-ryu, not even close.

Cho Gyokko brought Gyokko Ryu from China during the Tang Dynasty. and was organized around 1532- 1600's.

of course none of you will take hatsumi's word or what is written in the scroll...

according to Hatsumi, Gyokko ryu was formalized based on the current martial arts in japan which were not really martial arts..it was the way of life, even thought there was no structured fighting system at the time people still had to fight, wars will still waged, people had to defend themselves...

based on this structurless way of life, gyokko ryu was the first structured school. and this is where all other arts came from in some way or another.
it doesnt matter if it was Iga or Koga...they were all influenced by Gyokko Ryu.

again hatsumi said this in early Feb. this year...

this supposedly took place around the same time japan recieved a writting system, this was one push which aloud them to structure/ write out a fighting system...
dont remember his exact words here.....

so just cause an art does not say..."this art was influenced by gyokko ryu"

doesnt mean it wasnt...

gyokko ryu influenced alot of arts... that 2nd art whent on to influence another..and another, and then whatever "name art" is created...the base principles or part of it..came from gyokko ryu. (or stemed from that first art) (maybe the creator did not think "gyokko ryu")

think about it, just like the Kihon Happo is suppose to be the original 8 basic techniques of fighting...they lead to an infinite amount of possiblities..it is from this base were all other techniques were born. (infinite amount of variations)

now...maybe in theory, which would justify what i am saying, is this-
what if in the denshou, early history was recorded by say Gyokko ryu, which talked about this, so Gyokko Ryu talks about history it's own roots trace back farther than when it was structured..hence some people consider it to be older than other people who only go off the "official structurized martial art" dates.

hopefully i worded that in a way that makes sense...

Gyokko-ryu wasn't formalized till the 1600s (probably even later). Its origin story places it older. Its a Ko-ryu, but certainly not the oldest ko-ryu, not even close.

Interesting, thanks for that. I wasn't aware that it was koryu.
I was always under the impression that Gyokko Ryu was like Togakure Ryu in that it could not be verified previous to Takamatsu.
Are there scrolls/documents for this school that pre-date Takamatsu?

Interesting, thanks for that. I wasn't aware that it was koryu.
I was always under the impression that Gyokko Ryu was like Togakure Ryu in that it could not be verified previous to Takamatsu.
Are there scrolls/documents for this school that pre-date Takamatsu?


Gyokko-ryu and Koto-ryu can be traced to the Momchi Family in the Iga Region in the 1600s

Togakure-ryu is supposely based off these ryu-ha making it origin story of 1000 years old, fairly retarded.

where is it exactly, that you get this information from? it seems like you guys sit here and find some internet site to discredit Takamatsu and just cause you found it on the internet you claim it as truth.....it just sounds that way to me.

where is the proof of this and why it cant be traced back any further to its actual origin?

where is it exactly, that you get this information from? it seems like you guys sit here and find some internet site to discredit Takamatsu and just cause you found it on the internet you claim it as truth.....it just sounds that way to me.

where is the proof of this and why it cant be traced back any further to its actual origin?

Oh lord, are you starting a Koryu history debate in the wrong place and with the wrong guy ... :new_snipe

On a serious note, people have asked you to provide historical proof from outside the Bujinkan itself, something which should not be difficult to find if it's all real. Why don't you put the BoojBrand (TM) Kool-Aid down for a minute and try to look into that for a while.

Gyokko-ryu and Koto-ryu can be traced to the Momchi Family in the Iga Region in the 1600s

.

That is something I didn't know. If that's the case, then that would mean that Toda was a real person. Which is a point in favour of the Bujinkan. I was previously under the impression that Toda's existence itself was in doubt and therefore all the six schools that are traced through him are not verified.

where is it exactly, that you get this information from? it seems like you guys sit here and find some internet site to discredit Takamatsu and just cause you found it on the internet you claim it as truth.....it just sounds that way to me.



I'm surprised you haven't heard all this before, because the whole thing has been kicking around for at least 10 years. It's been done to death on all the major forums, including eBudo which is frequented by some very knowledgable experts. As far as I'm aware, no-one has hard proof that Takamatsu made up the ninjutsu schools. But the problem is that his claims have not been verified either. So it's really a bit of a stalemate IMO. No hard proof on either side.

That is something I didn't know. If that's the case, then that would mean that Toda was a real person. Which is a point in favour of the Bujinkan. I was previously under the impression that Toda's existence itself was in doubt and therefore all the six schools that are traced through him are not verified.


No Toda was very much a real guy, in addition it is pretty widely known he was Shinobi no mono. However, Takamastu/Hatsumi claims his Ninjutsu Ryu-ha was Togakure-ryu to which there is zero evidence.

Remember Takamatsu came from a Budo family and was high regarded Kukishin-ryu Shihan. Once he started playing with the Ninpo did the Ko-ryu community start raising an eyebrow. However, that doesn't discredit is other stuff.

where is it exactly, that you get this information from? it seems like you guys sit here and find some internet site to discredit Takamatsu and just cause you found it on the internet you claim it as truth.....it just sounds that way to me.

where is the proof of this and why it cant be traced back any further to its actual origin?


My sources are Ko-ryu literature by people like Dreager, Ueno, Takamatsu, Tanemura, Hatsumi early works, Mol, etc. This isn't stuff you look up on Wiki.

Because stuff is easy to find, doesn't mean it the best resource.

No Toda was very much a real guy, in addition it is pretty widely known he was Shinobi no mono.

If that is the case then why is it such a problem believing that Takamatsu did learn ninjutsu from Toda? If the man was known to be shinobi no mono and if he was definitely a real person, then surely it's conceivable that he did actually teach ninjutsu to Takamatsu. Why not give him the benefit of the doubt?

After all, as you say, he was genuinely the shihan of Kukishinden Ryu. And if he did learn Shinden Fudo, Gyokko and Koto Ryu from Toda, surely it's not a huge stretch to accept that he also learned Togakure Ryu from him?

I was operating under the belief that ALL of the Toda schools were equally unverified simply because Toda was thought not to have really existed. But now , as you say, Toda was a real person and if Gyokko Ryu is genuine after all, why not simply give Togakure Ryu the benefit of the doubt?

If that is the case then why is it such a problem believing that Takamatsu did learn ninjutsu from Toda? If the man was known to be shinobi no mono and if he was definitely a real person, then surely it's conceivable that he did actually teach ninjutsu to Takamatsu. Why not give him the benefit of the doubt?

After all, as you say, he was genuinely the shihan of Kukishinden Ryu. And if he did learn Shinden Fudo, Gyokko and Koto Ryu from Toda, surely it's not a huge stretch to accept that he also learned Togakure Ryu from him?

I was operating under the belief that ALL of the Toda schools were equally unverified simply because Toda was thought not to have really existed. But now , as you say, Toda was a real person and if Gyokko Ryu is genuine after all, why not simply give Togakure Ryu the benefit of the doubt?

Because Gyokko-ryu, Koto-ryu, Shinden Fudo-ryu are simply styles of ko-ryu bujutsu and their are documentation for them past Toda. As for Togakure-ryu it claims to be a solely ninja ryu-ha from the 1100s and their aren't any evidence past 1950s. Even the Hatusmi scrolls were written by Takatmatsu in the 50s. For example, Koto-ryu the scrolls that Kaminaga have, have been dated much older.

Because Gyokko-ryu, Koto-ryu, Shinden Fudo-ryu are simply styles of ko-ryu bujutsu and their are documentation for them past Toda. As for Togakure-ryu it claims to be a solely ninja ryu-ha from the 1100s and their aren't any evidence past 1950s. Even the Hatusmi scrolls were written by Takatmatsu in the 50s. For example, Koto-ryu the scrolls that Kaminaga have, have been dated much older.

Thanks.
BTW what about the other two ninja schools: Gyokushin Ryu and Kumogakure Ryu? Same thing?

Another question. If we accept that the Togakure Ryu itself as a ryuha didn't exist, there is still the question about where the techniques within it came from. For example all the bikenjutsu, the santo tonso no gata, the ukemigata, all the stuff with shuko, kyoketsu shoge, shinobi gaeshi etc. etc. Were all of these techniques also invented by Takamatsu? Or did he merely invent the ryuha as an entity?

If we accept that the Togakure Ryu itself as a ryuha didn't exist, there is still the question about where the techniques within it came from. For example all the bikenjutsu, the santo tonso no gata, the ukemigata, all the stuff with shuko, kyoketsu shoge, shinobi gaeshi etc. etc. Were all of these techniques also invented by Takamatsu? Or did he merely invent the ryuha as an entity?

It was suggested a few years ago during a nother round of "Did Takamatsu fake this stuff???" that it might be better to look at the Togakure Ryu material as Kuden that Takamatsu turned into a more formallized Ryu. In doing so he likely fleshed out areas of the Ryu based upon his other experiences.

It is certainly possible that the Kuden could have a very long lineage to it but it would be impossible to trace in any definitive fashion. Oral traditions are notoriously problematic that way.