reverse grip sword

[superninjagod]

The thread is about reverse grip techniques, in japanese sword arts, not about paul vunak vs steven segals techniques of knife fighting, so in fact it was entirely pertinent, you claimed you should be question everything and not do techniques that were obviously flawed, the point, within context of the thread, was that unless you are the head cheese or of similar status of a koryu, you aren't in a postion to question, because you don't know enough to question, and the syllabus for what you do is set.

So yes, I did read what you'd posted, and within the context of the thread, replied.

No, clearly you haven't read the thread, cause questioning "the Head cheese" of Koryu or anyone else was already addressed. Just because someone is old, doesn't make them right. The next generation of every other athletic endeavour is always greater than the previous i.e. the olympics. The next generation has access to far more information and experience than the previous generation and should therefore be able to come to conclusions faster and exceed goals and expectations. Remember martial arts is an ART, not a religion. You are suppose to question, and do bigger, better and newer things.

You said that "who am I or anyone on this forum to question the Koryu". You have no idea of the strength and capabilities of the people on this Forum. I'm sure there are people on this Forum who can beat the head cheese of any of these schools if they were to fight weapon to weapon with these masters. You have no clue of my experience and abilities. In addition we are getting exposed to so many more martial arts than the previous generations have. So we are learning faster too (the one benefit of the internet). Most Japanese masters who are still alive today have not trained in CMA or FMA. Therefore they don't know what I know. But I'm more aware of what they know. Anyway, the point being is that the whole purpose of this forum is to call into question **** that is being taught in MA. There IS a whole lot of **** being taught, leaving a whole lot of disgruntled Martial artists. Enough so that they all flock to this sight to rant and rave. So you should probably listen to them, and question your masters.

[IYRDC]

The next generation of every other athletic endeavour is always greater than the previous i.e. the olympics. The next generation has access to far more information and experience than the previous generation and should therefore be able to come to conclusions faster and exceed goals and expectations. Remember martial arts is an ART, not a religion. You are suppose to question, and do bigger, better and newer things.

Technically you are correct. However, the problem when applying this metaphor to sword arts is that there are no longer any "competitions". When sword combat was prevalent, you did in fact see this type of innovation occuring on a fairly regular basis. Some would argue that the zenith of Japanese swordsmanship occured around the 16th-17th century, which interestingly was at the end of the warring period. Niten Ichi Ryu, Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, Mugai Ryu, Jigen Ryu, Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu, etc. all emerged during this time frame, and were for all intents and purposes "improvements" over their predecessors. Martial technique continued to thrive and evolve up until that time because warfare, dueling, etc. was still prevalent. Therefore, there was a forum from which this type of innovation could occur. Fast forward to todays world...unlike olympic sports, this forum for innovation no longer exists. Had warfare and dueling with swords continued to the present day, then I think you would have a case in arguing that modern=better. Since this is not the case, I don't see how any new technique or strategy could be put to the test in the same way it could 400 years ago.

If you apply your example to modern Kendo, then I think you will see that modern kendoka are "better" than their predecessors because it is a sport. They have a forum that allows them to develop new methods of improving technique with the shinai, and access to modern training methods. However, this is not the case for sword arts in general since there is no longer a competitive drive nor way to actually compare skill levels. Also since the sword arts now only make up a small niche in the martial arts world, the best swordsman today may not have been more than a mid-level swordsman compared to those in the 16th/17th century...ultimately there is no way to know.

Also, considering some of the headmasters of these styles are in their 80's and 90's then I'm sure there are people that could beat them in a duel. They are a vessell of knowledge, not really a killing machine at that stage in their lives. However, I'd be hard pressed to think anyone on this forum could take on Okate Risuke or Kuroda Tetsuzan.

...anyway, this seems to be getting a bit off topic now. maybe start a new thread if we want to continue discussing.

[superninjagod]

Technically you are correct. However, the problem when applying this metaphor to sword arts is that there are no longer any "competitions". When sword combat was prevalent, you did in fact see this type of innovation occuring on a fairly regular basis. Some would argue that the zenith of Japanese swordsmanship occured around the 16th-17th century, which interestingly was at the end of the warring period. Niten Ichi Ryu, Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, Mugai Ryu, Jigen Ryu, Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu, etc. all emerged during this time frame, and were for all intents and purposes "improvements" over their predecessors. Martial technique continued to thrive and evolve up until that time because warfare, dueling, etc. was still prevalent. Therefore, there was a forum from which this type of innovation could occur. Fast forward to todays world...unlike olympic sports, this forum for innovation no longer exists. Had warfare and dueling with swords continued to the present day, then I think you would have a case in arguing that modern=better. Since this is not the case, I don't see how any new technique or strategy could be put to the test in the same way it could 400 years ago.

If you apply your example to modern Kendo, then I think you will see that modern kendoka are "better" than their predecessors because it is a sport. They have a forum that allows them to develop new methods of improving technique with the shinai, and access to modern training methods. However, this is not the case for sword arts in general since there is no longer a competitive drive nor way to actually compare skill levels. Also since the sword arts now only make up a small niche in the martial arts world, the best swordsman today may not have been more than a mid-level swordsman compared to those in the 16th/17th century...ultimately there is no way to know.

Also, considering some of the headmasters of these styles are in their 80's and 90's then I'm sure there are people that could beat them in a duel. They are a vessell of knowledge, not really a killing machine at that stage in their lives. However, I'd be hard pressed to think anyone on this forum could take on Okate Risuke or Kuroda Tetsuzan.

...anyway, this seems to be getting a bit off topic now. maybe start a new thread if we want to continue discussing.

Point taken. I infact don't really even care about reverse grip sword fighting in that it was taught to me in a very "Novel" way. Meaning here is something cool, check it out today, maybe we'll revisit it again in a year or two. From what I'm getting a sense with everyone giving their two sense, they are being taught reverse sword grips in the same way. It ok in this sense cause you are preserving the art.

However the initiator of this Thread had no sword experience, and I felt if he was asking if anyone used reverse grip sword fighting in an entire unorthodox method. Which from the people in this thread, it doesn't seem to be the case. But when people say in reverse grip knife fighting, release an entire video on the subject filled with tech that will get you killed, then I get upset.

I get a feeling that everyone is one the page here, so I don't feel I need to comment on this thread anymore either.

[money]

The reverse grip is considered the standard grip for many forms of European Dagger Combat. In Japanese Knife work both the forward and reverse grip are employed depending on the situation. In fact I teach both. The forward grip is more of a "dueling" grip where the reverse grip is more of an in tight grappling grip use for a more hidden deploying of the blade. Remember this for knife work, reverse grip sword work is and should be limited to a surprise/unorthodox draw or two.

I can see this as useful with a knife since you can use it for close-in work or concealing it with your forearm for surprise. However, I don't think either of those are going to be as viable with a 26+ inch blade.

I did 5 years of Shinkendo, Toyama Ryu and some Kendo and like someone else said earlier, I've never seen a reverse grip used. It seems like it would rob you of power and range, neither of which I would want to sacrifice when my life is on the line.

[BloodMagus]

I figured if I'm going to come back from lurking, it may as well be for this.

Is it me, or do the majority people fail to appreciate the significance of koryu bujutsu? Or the difference between it and the gendai budo (modern stuff).

As much disdain as I have for majority of koryu bujutsu practioners, specifically their arrogance and holy then thou attitude (often referred to as koryu snobbery) - as IYRDC & Yoj have crudely alluded these arts are the gospel of Japanese Swordwork. And if a technique crops up in not one, not two, but three koryu bujutsu - one of which was the style personally taught to the Tokugawa Shogunate - it must have had some practical usage. As IYRDC has explained, these schools developed during a period when the curriculum was the difference between surviving a battlefield/duel or not.

If it isn't actually practical then the only explaination for its inclusion is for the aforementioned 'flare'. The likelyhood of these three schools adding a 'reverse grip' into their curriculum for 'flare', is possible but still highly unlikely. Particularly when there went plenty of contemporary experts to point and laugh

So the technique doesn't show up in Shinkendo, or Toyama Ryu, or Kendo. No fucking surprise seeing as there's alot of things NOT in kendo (i.e cutting to the leg), and Toyama Ryu was developed so that soldiers in WW2 could use a japanese sword against ARMED opponents (with guns). Shinkendo, despite being the product of a Obata years or training, is still reflective of what Obata feels should be taught. Thus not absolute.

Obviously the OP should be more concerned with recieving proper instruction then fussing about unconventional grips and attacks. Thats been established.

As for reverse grip with a knife? its too damn slow to attack compared to a normal grip. And its not to say you can't conceal the blade in other ways.

EDIT: i wrote obama instead of obata....

[money]

I refuse to be dissed about sword larping by someone with the internet handle "BloodMagus". I challenge you to a duel sir, we shall meet at dawn in the Dalaran arena!

I understand the difference between koryu and gendai swordwork, and regard both as mostly useless beyond historical appreciation. Kendo is a bit better due to the competitive aspect, but the ruleset has become so limiting that I don't think it is much use as a realistic simulation of a swordfight.

Saying that something must be useful because it shows up in several koryu is pure speculation and the same sort of **** we make fun of in every other martial art. "Too deadly to test" is also not an excuse. ARMA pads up and beats the crap out of each other to test what they've learned, I see no reason why you can't do the same with the Asian sword arts.

All that being said, the original question was does a reverse grip show up in any traditional arts, not about their actual effectiveness, and I believe that question has been answered.

I think Obama teaching Japanese sword would be pretty badass.

[Sempai]

All I can say in the subject is, give tameshigiri a try with a reverse grip. You'll quickly find out that it just doesn't work. Just because you've seen a high dan do it to show off doesn't make it a practical technique.

[eyebeams]

However 90% of knife fights start and END in the long range.

What what now?

[BloodMagus]

I refuse to be dissed about sword larping by someone with the internet handle "BloodMagus". I challenge you to a duel sir, we shall meet at dawn in the Dalaran arena!

So be it, Pistols at Dawn!!!!
I will not stand idlely by whilst you issue your capitalist challenges.
A m79 counts as a pistol right? And a Glock M18?

EDIT: I should point my handle is actually older then WoW, and comes from Tome & Blood. I don't play WoW, so I didn't pick up the dalaran reference until I googled it.

I understand the difference between koryu and gendai swordwork, and regard both as mostly useless beyond historical appreciation. Kendo is a bit better due to the competitive aspect, but the ruleset has become so limiting that I don't think it is much use as a realistic simulation of a swordfight.

I completely agree with the latter statement. But Kendo, over here - is a joke. Its actually made things worse by encouraging unrealistic behaviour. They're focused so much on traditions and courtesy - they lost sight of whats truly traditional, training hard. hell, Dave Lowry was writing that kendo was too focussed on hitting than cutting, back in the 80's.

But to say these styles are useless? This was how they taught swordwork during the period it was used. Because, as the saying goes, it was too deadly to 'test' but you needed to know it. How do you think they taught people to sword fight in the 1700s? Kendo armour and shinai were a modern thing that came towards the end. It was simple patterns and paired drills - and then off you went to either live or die. If it was good enough then, why isn't it now? Are we presuming we know better then the guys who actually trained people to go out and kill other with swords on a battlefield and in duels.

Saying that something must be useful because it shows up in several koryu is pure speculation and the same sort of **** we make fun of in every other martial art. "Too deadly to test" is also not an excuse. ARMA pads up and beats the crap out of each other to test what they've learned, I see no reason why you can't do the same with the Asian sword arts.

Some of us actually do that - put it to test. Although kendo armor offers **** all leg protection - and when someone scores a solid blow on both sides of a leg its fucking impossible to put weight on it for a good while.
Sadly there's stuff that works fine with a sword or a bokken even - that frankly fails with shinai. And they don't make bokken in rattan around here. That I am aware of.....

Are you suggesting one pads up and fights with a an iaito (well actually it'll need to be a blunt steel katana - i dont' trust iaito alloys). I've got three stitches directly over my left eye courtesy of one of these, and I was wearing eye protection when it happened.

I'm not crying the proverbial 't3h d34dly' as actual larpers do. But even ARMA use contemporary literature and manuals to develop techniques (combined with physical testing). In japan, this is what the koryu are - living books offering a window into how things were done in the past. And if they're not, they're not considered koryu.

All that being said, the original question was does a reverse grip show up in any traditional arts, not about their actual effectiveness, and I believe that question has been answered.

True. I just felt like playing devils advocate for reverse grip's practicality. I think it has a limited use as a last resort tactic during noto, and this was recognised over 300 years ago. Hence it was probably taught to improve one's survivability (like teaching gun and knife disarms - fucked if you've got to used it but its better then standing there and doing nothing).

I think Obama teaching Japanese sword would be pretty badass.

Or Obata Teaching Obama swordwork. Tongue twisting.

All I can say in the subject is, give tameshigiri a try with a reverse grip. You'll quickly find out that it just doesn't work. Just because you've seen a high dan do it to show off doesn't make it a practical technique.

Tameshigiri doesn't exactly move. People do. Alot of things that are practical for a stationary target fail when the its a moving target - and vice versa. Throw in the momentum of a opponent, you'll can improve or degrade the quality of the cut. You can cut by moving the blade, or by moving the target - do both and its twice as effective
Now, you say cutting it with a reverse grip doesn't work. Is this because it doesn't work at all, or because you don't have the practice of cutting with a reverse grip. I've noticed my omopalata doesn't work. Thats probably because i've never practiced it.

Yeah, its a weaker strike. Probably losing 50% of your strength. No way in hell would you use it as your main technique. But if i needed to draw my sword whilst doing a reverse grip noto - reverse grip kiriage it would be. Until it was safe to switch grip.

I'll fess up - i've never once cut a tameshigiri mat. Not one. Ever.
I have been slicing through solid bamboo thicker then my wrist for several years now. And one of the seniors is a butcher, and this one time his supplier was selling some carcasses discounted...
You know if meat goes above a certain temperature it can't be sold for consumption....
Its summer time again over here....
I love the smell of cloves in pork....

[Sempai]

I'll let Money deal with the rest.

It's a rare opponent that's going to move into your cut. Students have a hard enough time throwing the point properly with a normal grip. Going to the reverse doesn't just ruin your power, it kills the usual physics that help a proper cut and severely limits your range of motion. Your only options for a cut are a goofy looking gyaku-kesa probably that won't make it all the way through.

A reverse grip noto is kata fluff and shouldn't be pre-existing criteria for using a technique.