Thread: "Muto"
View Single Post
Old 03-04-2005, 08:42 PM   #16
Kent Enfield
 
Kent Enfield's Avatar
Location: Oregon, USA
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 224
United_States
Offline
Re: "Muto"

Quote:
Dave Humm wrote:
After over ten years Iai study I can assure you I haven't assumed anything, which is why I decided to write the document and present a series of lessons to my Aikido students on the subject of tachi-dori/Muto-dori.
Which style of iai do you study? On the website you give as your homepage, there's batto-ho listed, but without any references to style or lineage. Is that what you're referring to by iai, or do you study something else as well? From what I remember of a thread over at e-budo, you don't actually do iaido, but use "iai" to refer to what you do as part of your aiki-ken.
Quote:
Dave Humm wrote:
Do you study Iai or Kendo?
Both actually, as well as a koryu bujutsu.
Quote:
Dave Humm wrote:
If this is the case how can you say that I have made an assumption about the mechanics of a sword cut and then quote aspects which may or may not be used ? That's a bit of a contradiction.
Because in your article you wrote:
Quote:
his posture will almost always be anything other than forward and the intention is to bring the sword very quickly back to one's centre.
There are styles wherein the intention is not "to bring the sword very quickly back to one's centre." I was pointing out that though, yes, that is one possibility, there are others. At least the way I read what you wrote, you limit yourself to the one. That is the implicit assumption I disagree with.
Quote:
Dave Humm wrote:
Now you assume that all kirioshi begins in ken no kamae or chudan.
No, I was responding to this:
Quote:
the speed at which a sword can be raised and then brought to bear is incredible
in which I thought you were assuming that a sword needs to be raised in order to be brought to bear. It doesn't need to be raised if it's already raised, a la jodan. If you meant something else, please explain it to me.
Quote:
Dave Humm wrote:
Kessa giri can be anything other than "raised to cut"
I am confused by this statement. Could you please rephrase it for me? In usual usage, kesa giri refers to a downwards diagonal cut, almost always to one going from cutter's right to left, and usually to one starting at the target's shoulder. You cannot make such a cut without the sword being raised, whether prior to the cut are as part of the same action.
Quote:
Dave Humm wrote:
also; you make the assumption that the swordsman has his sword drawn
I did. I can only think of two reasons for drawing your sword as part of, rather than prior to, an engagement. One is that you are not the one initiating the engagement. I.e. it is a self defense situation. The other is that you are trying to generate surprise attack in order to catch the other person with his sword undrawn. If the other person doesn't have a sword, the benefits of having a drawn sword far outweigh those of launching a surprise attack from close distance. That and the fact that I've not seen tachi-dori in aikido demonstrated against an attack from the draw were the reasons for my assumption.
Quote:
Dave Humm wrote:
until the kissaki leaves the saya, no one other than the swordsman knows which direction the sword will take
Ideally. But then, from jodan the same is true.
Quote:
Dave Humm wrote:
following nukitsuki, kirioshi can be made through various targets ranging from the legs to the head.
I don't see how you can kirioroshi (which is what I assume you mean: "kirioshi" would be "cut-push") to the legs, unless the receiver is in a really strange posture. Are you confusing "kirioroshi" ("cutting downwards" -- usually a vertical cut in iaido parlance) with "kiritsuke" ("cutting to advantage" -- in iaido jargon all the big, finishing cuts that come after nukitsuke)?
Quote:
Dave Humm wrote:
You will note if you read my article again that it isn't intended to be a definitive manual of muto no jutsu. Indeed it simply makes the point that muto is a last resort application that has high risks and requires commitment to achieve 'victory'.
Like I wrote above, I think the article is pretty good overall. I was just pointing out what I saw to be two implicit assumptions that aren't necessarily true, the removal of one of which would actually help your point.

Kentokuseisei
  Reply With Quote