Some philosophy -- Am I reading too deep?

[Densoro]

Newbie here to throw out a theory that's been on my mind for a while. I'd love to hear some thoughts on it.

My theory started forming when I took French fencing classes in high school. I noticed that for such a simple style (you can only move two directions, and you can only attack with a tsuki!), there was a surprising amount of variation. Some fencers fought by attacking quickly, before the opponent could prepare, flying across the mat to score. Some fencers practically danced in stance, footwork belying a series of feints. Others still stood rock steady, blocking attacks casually and countering.

Each method was equally effective, so I began to wonder, why the differences? To the untrained eye, all these different fighting methods looked like different styles!

As my skill grew, I decided that it was, in largest part, directed by personality. So in this way, a swordsman looking in the right place could divine the opponent's gambits simply by talking to them, or vice versa.

For example, you may notice I'm taking forever to get to my point; I'm providing arguably too much background info, as if I'm setting up for the delivery.
This is reflected in my duels, especially in kendo, where I favor attacking the opponent's weapon instead of their body. With their sword out of my way, I take the opening I made for myself, rather than going for any openings they offered.

And as passionate as I've gotten about this theory, believing that swordsmanship can be one key to better understanding one another, it seems I'm quite the spirited sort. This too is prevalent; my erratic footwork reflects it, and the ceaseless motions work to my favor to set the opponent off-guard.

tl;dr
Is there really something to the idea of Warrior Therapists? XD

[stealth_monkey]

From a Psychological and Scientific standpoint, your theory may well be sound, I have no evidence either way. However, the issue is that a theory is no good to you from a practical standpoint unless you are able to make accurate predictions. It's all well and good to say "I tend to waffle, I also tend to attack my opponents weapon, this fits me pretty well" however it is another thing all together to say "this is your personality profile (Psychologists still argue how to even do this, let alone do it accurately), therefore this is the way you would be able to fight". Fun point. Background info for you- I'm a 6th kyu in kendo, my posts on the forum match my real life personality reasonably well, go into my post history and see if you can identify what my own "style" is. Now, while I haven't practised for long enough to really officially have a style yet, you need to remove training and learning as a possible confounding variable. So, see if you can name the techniques I enjoy the most.

[hyuna]

I think you are describing something well known to us.

[enkorat]

This is a good thing to pick up on, but I didn't really start working on it until I was shodan or nidan. Until then I didn't have the technical ability to take advantage of anything gleaned from it, and lacked sufficient experience in the number of opponents I had fought to really understand what I was reading from them.

I don't know if I'd recommend favoring kaeshi-waza and oji-waza in a beginner though, its fairly easy to overcome an opponent who obviously favors those techniques, particularly if they are more at the beginner level.

[Densoro]

Really, hyuna? Well crap, here I was all proud of myself ;__;

Stealth, I'm still reading over. I'm getting a bit of info, but I'm not entirely sure yet. This'd be a bit easier if you and I were talking in real-time though, so is it cool if I add you on MSN, AIM, or Yahoo? My track record for these 'readings' is really good over my messengers (and of course, in real life); I've never been told that I'm wrong, and there was only one case where I missed a small detail.

On the other hand, there was a case where not only was I spot-on, but the guy told me that when he fights his friends, they never understood why he did what he did (which was strike from all angles of attack in turn at half-effort, to measure the opponent's reaction to each. Then he'd constantly exploit their weakest angle). I figured that out after...an hour, I believe, on Yahoo messenger.

EDIT: Enkorat, I have to admit I don't know what those terms mean ^^; My learning is all secondhand, from an old school buddy who took lessons for four years. And it seems the lessons Americanized the names, because he refers to kasumi no kamae as Bear Stance when kasumi means mist, iirc

[enkorat]

Well, I'm not going to jump all over you about the source of your training like some people do on this board, but yes, what you are describing is part of the standardized kendo AUSKF curriculum (albeit advanced curriculum). For me its one of the more interesting bits of kendo training, and something I'm just starting to become aware.

If that interests you, I recommend trying to get some "standardized" AUSKF curriculum training. An important part of training ends up being the vocabulary and terms, as these things keep us in touch with a lot of very old literature and essays about the philosophical backbone of kendo. People have been writing about this stuff for a very very long time, and without understanding those bits those resources aren't available to you.

[pgsmith]

There are several thing that stand out to me ...

I'm providing arguably too much background info, as if I'm setting up for the delivery.

I take the opening I made for myself, rather than going for any openings they offered.

This too is prevalent; my erratic footwork reflects it, and the ceaseless motions work to my favor to set the opponent off-guard.

Newbie here ...

[Densoro]

Hahah, pgsmith, you're probably right. I haven't been doing kendo for even a year yet under my friend's lessons, and I feel a huge difference between his attacks and mine. It wouldn't surprise me if I suck, but I'll definitely keep working at it.

enkorat, thanks for actually giving me a name ^^ I'll have to look up the AUSKF stuff, see what the masters of this whole 'martial personality' thing have to say. I've been wanting to read up on this stuff for a while, just didn't have any leads D=

[verissimus]

[QUOTE=Densoro;413980 My learning is all secondhand, from an old school buddy who took lessons for four years. [/QUOTE]

To put things in perspective I've been learning for a fair bit more than that and I wouldn't dare to teach anyone.

Hope this doesn't amount to jumping all over you.

[Densoro]

No offense taken. I know that my buddy's lessons won't measure up to you guys in proper dojos, but I'll take what I can get. I'm not looking at tournaments yet, I just fight for fun, for that sense of connection. So even my friend's slightly amateur lessons are better than nothing.

But yeah, not feeling jumped all over at all ^^

[hyuna]

Hmm. I've never thought of it as "advanced."

For example, after every practice at our dojo, we recite "ken to wa kokori nari" ( http://kenshi247.net/blog/2008/08/24...a-kokoro-nari/ ). Although that poem is about understanding yourself as opposed to understanding your opponent, it's the same message: a person's "being" and their technique are intertwined.

Going a little further is just to point out that we try to always maintain "connection" between ourselves and our partner. If everything were mechanical technique, then there is no purpose to this connection. It would be like math: he does X, I do Y. But it isn't, because our opponent is not a technique, it is a person. To defeat a person requires you to fight with -- to be engaged with -- that person. At least in our dojo we stress to everyone, from the very beginning, the necessity of never breaking the connection in kata. With that in mind, consider the "4 sicknesses:" fear, doubt, surprise, and confusion. Not everyone is afraid, surprised, or confused by the same thing. Not everyone has the same doubts. How can you create these in your opponent without knowing something of them?

Certainly it is not easy to actually do any of this, but I think the basis is very, very basic.

[enkorat]

I agree with everything you touch upon hyuna, although I tend to prefer to use the word "fundamental" rather than "basic". I think perhaps there is a difference in instructional style between our dojos though. Although philosophical discussions aren't discouraged in beginners, they aren't brought to the fore until a little after the beginners have some technical ease. I think my sensei in particular prefers a different teaching style that results in people realizing some things on their own, so that they end up with this particular realization maybe a little later.

[Shinsengumi77]

I have 4 years experience and I'm still trying to get the whole "swing shinai up and then down onto opponent's head thing" right. Running a small club is all I will attemp at my level; teaching is out of the question. I respect the notion of trying your best with what you have to work with, but why not just find yourself a dojo? You can even go with your friend, and that way you'll learn better and faster. I betcha he is itching for keiko.

I come from a fencing background (sabre) so I understand the 'aiming for the weapon' thing, but then again, I was the type to rush out and strike the opponent immediately, not the type to parry. I guess attacking the sword just seems like an indirect method to me, because the person in front of you is the thing to be wary of, not what they're holding.

[rfoxmich]

http://www.kendo-fik.org/english-pag...t-of-Kendo.htm
This should be taught to all kenshi... preferably in their first practice