Koshiki No Kata Netherlands

Busen Style? 



And Kodokan Style! 

"To be, or not to be: that is the question":  

Lol, a 2 day old video already up for review here? You are fast xD

Do I not like that so-called "Busen" version.

Good job there is no such thing outside the world of Dutch judo.

Jonesy wrote:Do I not like that so-called "Busen" version.

Good job there is no such thing outside the world of Dutch judo.

They say it's Japanese/Dutch old school.

It's not Japanese/Dutch old school - it is fabrication.

Jonesy wrote:It's not Japanese/Dutch old school - it is fabrication.

And kodokan koshiki no kata 2013 is not fabrication?

Stevens wrote:
And kodokan koshiki no kata 2013 is not fabrication?

Ha, ha, that's actually a good point !  Certainly, the way it is done these days, yes, too is a fabrication, a spiritless exercise that has nothing in common anymore with its objective. It has become detached from jûdô and nobody practicing it that way can still honestly say that it tangibly improves their jûdô skills. It's a merely aesthetic visual exercise where one attempts to mimic the commands given by the tatami theater director.

I guess that semantically we have two different types of fabrication. The busen option is a fabrication as a name and historically as it never existed, whereas today's Kôdôkan version is a fabrication in intent and mode.

Well rehearsed - they put a lot of time into that.

There judo gi where beautifully clean and well fitting also.

Cichorei Kano wrote:

Stevens wrote:
And kodokan koshiki no kata 2013 is not fabrication?

Ha, ha, that's actually a good point !  Certainly, the way it is done these days, yes, too is a fabrication, a spiritless exercise that has nothing in common anymore with its objective. It has become detached from jûdô and nobody practicing it that way can still honestly say that it tangibly improves their jûdô skills. It's a merely aesthetic visual exercise where one attempts to mimic the commands given by the tatami theater director.

I guess that semantically we have two different types of fabrication. The busen option is a fabrication as a name and historically as it never existed, whereas today's Kôdôkan version is a fabrication in intent and mode.

There are loads of videos of koshiki no kata on www, but where are the videos of Michigami sensei or his pupils on www?
We have on www/youtube: Kito ryu koshiki no kata, there is kodokan koshiki no kata and all the others.  Could all the leading posters on this forum put a personal (allmost) perfect (or the way they think it should look like) koshiki no kata video on this forum?

This would be a nice discussion and learning for me!

Just my opinion; I think for judo, we should copy the katavideo of Kano shihan that we all know.

Stevens wrote:

There are loads of videos of koshiki no kata on www, but where are the videos of Michigami sensei or his pupils on www?
We have on www/youtube: Kito ryu koshiki no kata, there is kodokan koshiki no kata and all the others.  Could all the leading posters on this forum put a personal (allmost) perfect (or the way they think it should look like) koshiki no kata video on this forum?

This would be a nice discussion and learning for me!

Just my opinion; I think for judo, we should copy the katavideo of Kano shihan that we all know.

I can answer your questions only for myself, obviously.

I do not know where the videos are of Michigami. I do not have them. I do have the pictures, but not the videos. I do not know if those videos even exist. I do have many other historic recordings, obviously.

I assume that if there are videos of Michigami in these kata that they are kept in private hands, and this probably for various reasons. Those who have them may be pupils of the sense and cherish them as private belongings. Also do not forget that there never was a culture before the 1980s of videotaping anything during kata. For example, I do not have have single recording of myself competing in contexts of shiai, none whatsoever. Video only entered the scene of judo in the late 1970s. Before that you had 8 mm film, but that was a drag and expensive to develop and with short running time.

There may also be flaws in some of the recordings and they may show the sensei not at their best. Students in honor of their sensei for that reason might choose to withhold such recordings from the general public in order to not give a wrong image of their sensei.

There is also a certain code of honor among people with a certain seniority. Imagine, just imagine that I would have recordings of Daigo-sensei performing koshiki-no-kata and imagine, just imagine that it shows things different from what he explains today to the extent that some of the things he shows today are rather the consequence of age than the consequence of study. All imaginary, of course. Now, wouldn't it be incredibly bad taste then to post that just to prove I was right ? He and others are still senior to me and I owe them respect and learnt from them. This is not the time nor the place for me to abandon those principles solely to prove a point. I hope you can understand that and if not, I hope you will one day.

I am in possession of authentic historic recordings of Kitô-ryû and many of jûdô including by Daigo, Kotani, Kurhiara, Yamatshita, Isogai, Kudô, Takada,Yamaguchi, Samura, Nagaoka, Kanô, and so on.

No, I will not post them. You may dislike that, but it is simple. For me, I do not just practice jûdô like most people just a couple of hours to their dôjô per week and having a normal life. For me, jûdô is my life. I have given up everything I have to jûdôo, my income to acquiring sources, lived in precarious circumstances, actually studied and graduated in jûdô at university, and so on, just like any professional. If you need the help of attorney, he won't do your work for free. If you need to go to hospital and need surgery, they doctors won't operate on you for free. If you need to get eat from the butcher he won't serve you every day for free, if you want bread from the bakery they won't give it to you every day for free, and if you need other food, you will pay for it. If you need a house or rent an apartment you will pay for it. All professionals charge for the years they had to invest to become professionals. That is not different for me. I think I have already done my share in providing freebies to everone. I have written more than 18,000 posts on the old forum, and over a 1,000 here. That's more than anyone else, and more than several combined posters. You will find information in those posts you will find in no Western books, so I think I have paid my dues to society in doing people a pleasure.

If you want the things from me you are asking, you will have to buy them, meaning you will have to actually work for it for several hours and give what you earn to me. It's as simple as that. The information you seek will be included in my book and accompanying a DVD, but you will be patient. This is not information one gather by training twice a weekfor a couple of weeks. I've studied koshiki-no-kata for more than 25 years saving no effort and no money to acquire the knowledge and materials. That's just how it is for me. I can't speak for others. But you asked, so I answered.

Stevens wrote:
Just my opinion; I think for judo, we should copy the katavideo of Kano shihan that we all know.

That's a good point although you might want to replace the word 'copy' by 'follow'. Indeed, for years, even in the 1986 Illustrated Kôdôkan pictures Kanô's own demonstration was used for the Omote-kata. Yet they now have a different DVD and all kinds of weird explanations. This makes no sense, and very much like you suggest, indeed they should keep Kanô's own performance as the standard, certainly not what is done today. But ... there is a problem. Usually they show only a couple of techniques. You know why ? It is because just like us, Kanô was a human and the recording also has flaws. Kanô by then was about 70 years old and not exactly training regularly. So there are moments that, yes, even he the great shihan and creator of Kôdôkan jûdô loses control or the movements are off. The Kôdôkan knows that too and that is why they generally do not include the full Omote-kata but only excerpts where no such loss of control is shown.

I can answer your questions only for myself, obviously.

Thank you for your answer. I understand it completly, but i can always asked and sometimes i get something i can think about.
I'm just trying to figger out what's the thing about our Dutch Busen kata! I can not imagine that de Korte sensei made a new koshiki no kata. He's a student of Ebbi sensei, who was a specialist with newaza and koshiki no kata. It's not the story of Parulski sensei who brought kata which had no official roots. De Korte sensei was in Japan send by Michigami to learn, so what went wrong, were did the koshiki no kata change? Did de Korte change this kata? I want to compare his koshiki no kata with other busen/butokukai judoteachers so i can see myself what is different.  


You will find information in those posts you will find in no Western books, so I think I have paid my dues to society in doing people a pleasure.


I'm with a lot of others very happy with your freebees. It's completly true that your input is very special and hard to find! As you know, a lot people are waiting for your book and want to pay the (high) price!

Maybe others want to put videos/links of old Koshiki no kata on this forum .

Stevens wrote:I can answer your questions only for myself, obviously.

Thank you for your answer. I understand it completly, but i can always asked and sometimes i get something i can think about.
I'm just trying to figger out what's the thing about our Dutch Busen kata! I can not imagine that de Korte sensei made a new koshiki no kata. He's a student of Ebbi sensei, who was a specialist with newaza and koshiki no kata. It's not the story of Parulski sensei who brought kata which had no official roots. De Korte sensei was in Japan send by Michigami to learn, so what went wrong, were did the koshiki no kata change? Did de Korte change this kata? I want to compare his koshiki no kata with other busen/butokukai judoteachers so i can see myself what is different.  

I understand your questions, and while I know the answer, please, consider that this is a public message board, and while someone like Mariusz Vizer could be considered a "public person", most people are not, and are entitled to privacy. Judo Forum policies for good reason also prohibit to start talking about people possibly with the intent to provoke them into participating in threads. Whilst I am not a moderator of this forum, it seems to me that it is best and most constructive to limit yourself about concepts such as "Busen kata" rather than about living people, unless they are public people, like for example Putin or Obama.

As a general comment (and without suggesting that this explains the whole story) do consider that (1) memories of people fade (I had a friendly conversation with Daigo-sensei precisely on Koshiki-no-kata where I had recordings of what he was referring to and based his explanations, on things he had experienced in person. The recordings much to his surprise showed his memory was incorrect. That is only human and something we all must calculate in. Besides, we did not have the insight and expertise to judge things in the same way 30-40 years ago). Secondly, when we ourselves are still young and relatively unexperienced and get taught by a very senior sensei, it is logical that we do not have the skill to do the same. There are things that 'learnt' from Hirano-sensei in the 1970s. At the time I could have said "Hirano did this and that", but the truth is that then I did not remotely have the insight, techniques, skills and experience to 'do' what he did. Now, I understand, which still does not mean that I can accurately replicate it as only an idiot would claim he had the same skills as Hirano did. You could repeat the same story for Michigami or Abe Kenshirô.

I understand your questions, and while I know the answer, please, consider that this is a public message board, and while someone like Mariusz Vizer could be considered a "public person", most people are not, and are entitled to privacy. Judo Forum policies for good reason also prohibit to start talking about people possibly with the intent to provoke them into participating in threads.


The things you say are also said in the latest book of Blonk and van Dijk about koshiki no kata. It's a shame nobody talks about it. No interest i think. I understand what happened with the kodokan kata and how they changed, but about the so called (Dutch) Busen Kata i can't. Before i say that it's all crap i want to know more, because i'm sure that people in Holland lost/forgotten/changed things, but there must be good bits too. That's what i find interesting, that's something to keep in historical mind, we have allready lost so much judo!

Thanks for the honest replay. Hope to meet you one day in this life. I'll pay you for it.....

Things around Koshiki-no-Kata are all explainable. The most important thing is, that you must understand, that there was never the one and only standard for Koshiki-no-Kata.This has to do with Kito-ryu, where Koshiki-no-Kata was derived from.

Kito-ryu had different branches and their kata were a little bit different, but following the same basic ideas. Jigoro Kano learned Takenaka-ha-Kito-ryu-kata end of the 19th century in Tokyo, while for example Nagaoka learned Noda-ha-Kito-ryu.

At the DNBK in Kyoto masters of different Ryuha came together and we can be sure, that their was an influence of different branches on the kata so that an amalgam of different styles evolved.

The main point in kata is not the reproduction of a given standardized movement. The main point is to understand the pronciples and bring them into practice. All variations of Koshiki-no-Kata / Kito-ryu Kata I have seen, try to follow the same principles, but not always people seem to really know what they are doing.

Everybody can see that there are obvious differences between Kano´s demonstration on the famous clip and the way the kata is tought today. In the past I saw three clips of the so called "busen-version" of Koshiki-no-Kata. They all have in common, that there are some things done mechanically a bit more like Kano did it (f.ex. Uke moves backwards in the first and second technique in tsugi-ashi and not in normal steps). But this is much more complicated then just the way, Uke makes his steps. In none of those clips I saw any unerstanding of it.

Knowledge about Koshiki-no-Kata is usually very fragmentary, so people do some things without questioning them and doing them how they think it should be. It´s more filling the blank then knowledge.

During the past years a kind of standard evolved, because there are many seminars about Koshiki-no-kata and there are many people interested in it. But many of those, who study Koshiki-no-Kata or claim expertise still struggle with basics.

"De Korte sensei was in Japan send by Michigami to learn, so what went wrong, were did the koshiki no kata change? Did de Korte change this kata? I want to compare his koshiki no kata with other busen/butokukai"

Who told you Michigami sensei sent de Korte to Japan to learn the koshiki no kata?  

If you think about this for even a second it makes zero logic? Michigami sensei was Busen and very well trained in the Koryo and budo. Sensei was expert in kodokan kata so why would a sensei the calibre of Michigami sensei send a person to Japan to learn what Michigami sensei could teach himself?

I have written this so many times I hate sounding like a parrot BUT............Only one kodokan judo and that kodokan judo was taught at the Dai Nippon butoku den by Kodokan sensei.
Prior WW11 kodokan kata did not look like it does today. This myth of their being a DNBK form of kata that differes from original Kodokan is pure fiction and has no possible historical grounds. The sensei who taught judo at the Butokuden where ALL sent from the kodokan. How could kodokan sensei teach a different kata just because they became sensei at another dojo?  

What some old sensei who where pupils of pre WW11 DNBK sensei do is keep to the kata they where taught. I am in that category myself. By that I mean my kata is pre WW11 kodokan kata passed onto me by pre WW11 Busen sensei. My kata IS different to what the kodokan teach today BUT take the difference under the correct context. it is not different in the way that my kata is a new kata devised at the pre WW11 DNBK but its old kodokan.

To use the term Busen kata is a large error. No such kata in their own right exist. The only kata, to my limited knowledge, that came from the DNBK was a ONE form of a kaeshi kata. BUT that kata was also formulated by a Kodokan 10th dan who taught judo at the Butokuden. Same happened at waeseda dojo with also a version of the kaeshi kata.

Again I would be fascinated to know why Michigami sensei would send a person to Japan to learn what Michigami knew himself and was a master at said kata? Would the idea be to have de korte return after some instruction to teach Michigami sensei how to perform the koshi no kata? When something doesn't smell right I simply don't eat it, do you?

Mike

wdax wrote:Things around Koshiki-no-Kata are all explainable. The most important thing is, that you must understand, that there was never the one and only standard for Koshiki-no-Kata.This has to do with Kito-ryu, where Koshiki-no-Kata was derived from.

Kito-ryu had different branches and their kata were a little bit different, but following the same basic ideas. Jigoro Kano learned Takenaka-ha-Kito-ryu-kata end of the 19th century in Tokyo, while for example Nagaoka learned Noda-ha-Kito-ryu.

At the DNBK in Kyoto masters of different Ryuha came together and we can be sure, that their was an influence of different branches on the kata so that an amalgam of different styles evolved.

The main point in kata is not the reproduction of a given standardized movement. The main point is to understand the pronciples and bring them into practice. All variations of Koshiki-no-Kata / Kito-ryu Kata I have seen, try to follow the same principles, but not always people seem to really know what they are doing.

Everybody can see that there are obvious differences between Kano´s demonstration on the famous clip and the way the kata is tought today. In the past I saw three clips of the so called "busen-version" of Koshiki-no-Kata. They all have in common, that there are some things done mechanically a bit more like Kano did it (f.ex. Uke moves backwards in the first and second technique in tsugi-ashi and not in normal steps). But this is much more complicated then just the way, Uke makes his steps. In none of those clips I saw any unerstanding of it.

Knowledge about Koshiki-no-Kata is usually very fragmentary, so people do some things without questioning them and doing them how they think it should be. It´s more filling the blank then knowledge.

During the past years a kind of standard evolved, because there are many seminars about Koshiki-no-kata and there are many people interested in it. But many of those, who study Koshiki-no-Kata or claim expertise still struggle with basics.

Hi Dax Sensei. Thank you for a very interesting post.

I have no factual proof of what I now write it is purely based on experience over a shortish but significant amount of time spent in judo.

Going back to the 60's trying to find a judo teacher of ANY kata and I mean ANY kata was near impossible and there where tens of thousands more practicing judo then in Europe than there are now.
The randori no kata where seen as the 'bread and butter' kata, the basic kata yet to most people they where an obstacle to overcome to pass some dan rank. There was nearly zero understanding of the randori no kata and it was taught as a set of mechanical throws performed in sets of three like a robot. No one could give answers yet those who did teach it all had different opinions on why and how it should be performed.

When a youngster of say 12 or 13, I detested learning kata..........NOT because I didn't like kata but I got sick and tired of attending seminars on kata where five different teachers taught 5 different ways of performing them and as we practiced one after the other would walk around in turn and tell us to change what we had just been taught by the last teacher.    

As I aged and grew with knowledge and intellect I turned this confusion into a positive. I am now able to perform more or less 10 kata 2,231 different ways!

Now that was JUST the basic randori no kata. I had books on some other kata and knew they existed and sought out sensei to teach them to me. The general attitude to the ju no kata was it was a kata only for women....I know, Absurd BUT that is how it was. (some circles still is)
Kime no kata was seen as an advanced kata and one needed weapons to do that. Kodokan goshinjutsu didn't exist at all neither did itsutsu nor koshiki no kata. Kaeshi no kata or the gonoseno kata was rare.

Ju no kata could be seen now and then but nearly always by women and the kime no kata was generally the practice of the Gods being those rare san dans.
Pass your own mind back when did you first even see itsutsu no kata or koshiki no kata? These where kata that made zero sense to the fighting sporting judoka of that era. Trying to get judoka to learn the randori no kata was like trying to get blood from a stone now we look at the higher kata and expect those same people to learn or even try koshiki no kata.  

In all honesty I can say I have a decent kata education. In comparison to my peers of the day I had a very high education and appreciation of kata yet even today koshiki no kata leaves me with more questions than answers. I don't mean to be disrespectful to our founder kano shiahn but how is he supposed to have mastered the itsutsu no kata by aged 21,22,23 whtever? Sure the Koshiki became his tokui kata BUT just how much did he really understand of that kata? When he formulated kodokan judo we both know kano was seen by the majority of the MA world as an impudent kid. In reality he was! I am going to write this and run for cover. If I truly desired to become expert in koshiki no kata the last place I would start is with kodokan sensei. I simply question to a degree their understanding of that kata. On what grounds or knowledge authority did Kotani sensei make so many changes to the koshiki no kata? Kotani sensei had no education the the koryo?

You now raise another very important factor and that is even in the kito ryu there where different off shoots or themes.......... So is the koshiki no kata a hopeless case? No it is as you write one has to learn the principles that make the koshiki no kata what it is and prey tell me just how many people alive today truly understand this kata?

Now comes the late 80's and early 90's and those kata videos from the kodokan that changed every two years. Oh yes I recall very well going to 'meetings' where we sat in front of a TV watching the new standard from the kodokan and we where all told to make the appropriate changes.  

Do you recall when tsuri komi goshi was a two action attack , tori attacked high, uke blocked then tori dropped to the height of ukes thighs then threw uke? I recall that being changed to the one attack. That is how far back I go in kata!
I also recall the recent kodokan videos where kata guruma is no longer kata guruma but some sort of kata otoshi. I recall when uke was told to hit tori on the head in the seoinage, not today. I remember when all FOUR attacks by uke differed, not today.

To this end the basic kata are now being practiced even though I still dislike the reasons why we have this new interest in kata. Not the point.

The point is in Europe we have had to pass through a steep learning curve with judo where a sho dan was a super man and a san dan was a Demi God.
Kata was seen as something to be tolerated at best for a grading and only then the basic kata.
Koshiki no kata............itsutsu no kata........WHO was around in my day to teach these kata. Non judo names, odd actions that appeared totally alien to judo. To this day I still have one hell of a task to remember the names of the waza in the koshiki no kata.
It is no surprise that myth fiction and just fabrication have been part and parcel for the learning of those higher kata. It was near impossible to learn the basic kata!
I have myself not touched the koshiki no kata for maybe ten years! I still find it hard work to motivate judoka to learn any kata at all even the ones most basic and helpful to the improvement of their shiai.

I am so not surprised to find confusion when it comes to kata education. The only time I learned kata of value was at 16 when I started to learn from Michigami sensei.

Most of the kata I see today is not related to the poor kata I learned as a kid. This could be a book.

Hope you are well?

Mike

wdax wrote:Things around Koshiki-no-Kata are all explainable. The most important thing is, that you must understand, that there was never the one and only standard for Koshiki-no-Kata.This has to do with Kito-ryu, where Koshiki-no-Kata was derived from.

As said by CK it's not copy the kata, but following it. What you say about understanding is also a key-word. You don't say the Dutch busen version is totaly crap?

Who told you Michigami sensei sent de Korte to Japan to learn the koshiki no kata?

De Korte sensei says so. Michigami sensei said something like "If you really want to learn judo you go to Ebbi".

If you think about this for even a second it makes zero logic? Michigami sensei was Busen and very well trained in the Koryo and budo. Sensei was expert in kodokan kata so why would a sensei the calibre of Michigami sensei send a person to Japan to learn what Michigami sensei could teach himself?

Aske de Korte sensei

I have written this so many times I hate sounding like a parrot BUT............Only one kodokan judo and that kodokan judo was taught at the Dai Nippon butoku den by Kodokan sensei.
Prior WW11 kodokan kata did not look like it does today.

So, do the kata of de Korte sensei look like them?

This myth of their being a DNBK form of kata that differes from original Kodokan is pure fiction and has no possible historical grounds. The sensei who taught judo at the Butokuden where ALL sent from the kodokan.

This is known.

What some old sensei who where pupils of pre WW11 DNBK sensei do is keep to the kata they where taught. I am in that category myself. By that I mean my kata is pre WW11 kodokan kata passed onto me by pre WW11 Busen sensei. My kata IS different to what the kodokan teach today BUT take the difference under the correct context. it is not different in the way that my kata is a new kata devised at the pre WW11 DNBK but its old kodokan.

So, do the kata of de Korte sensei look like yours?

To use the term Busen kata is a large error. No such kata in their own right exist.

True

The only kata, to my limited knowledge, that came from the DNBK was a ONE form of a kaeshi kata. BUT that kata was also formulated by a Kodokan 10th dan who taught judo at the Butokuden.

We heard this before, but when was it completed and who was that Kodokan 10th dan? I found different versions of this Kata, also different roots (Tani, Abbe etc.)

Same happened at waeseda dojo with also a version of the kaeshi kata.

We know about the gonosen no kata, but when was it completed and by who?

I have no factual proof of what I now write it is purely based on experience over a shortish but significant amount of time spent in judo.

Going back to the 60's trying to find a judo teacher of ANY kata and I mean ANY kata was near impossible and there where tens of thousands more practicing judo then in Europe than there are now.
The randori no kata where seen as the 'bread and butter' kata, the basic kata yet to most people they where an obstacle to overcome to pass some dan rank. There was nearly zero understanding of the randori no kata and it was taught as a set of mechanical throws performed in sets of three like a robot. No one could give answers yet those who did teach it all had different opinions on why and how it should be performed.

When a youngster of say 12 or 13, I detested learning kata..........NOT because I didn't like kata but I got sick and tired of attending seminars on kata where five different teachers taught 5 different ways of performing them and as we practiced one after the other would walk around in turn and tell us to change what we had just been taught by the last teacher.

As I aged and grew with knowledge and intellect I turned this confusion into a positive. I am now able to perform more or less 10 kata 2,231 different ways!

Now that was JUST the basic randori no kata. I had books on some other kata and knew they existed and sought out sensei to teach them to me. The general attitude to the ju no kata was it was a kata only for women....I know, Absurd BUT that is how it was. (some circles still is)
Kime no kata was seen as an advanced kata and one needed weapons to do that. Kodokan goshinjutsu didn't exist at all neither did itsutsu nor koshiki no kata. Kaeshi no kata or the gonoseno kata was rare.

Ju no kata could be seen now and then but nearly always by women and the kime no kata was generally the practice of the Gods being those rare san dans.
Pass your own mind back when did you first even see itsutsu no kata or koshiki no kata? These where kata that made zero sense to the fighting sporting judoka of that era. Trying to get judoka to learn the randori no kata was like trying to get blood from a stone now we look at the higher kata and expect those same people to learn or even try koshiki no kata.

This a historical line of the kata history in the West i think. Very nice to hear. I was always wondering, but never asked anyone of the wise man in Holland!

On what grounds or knowledge authority did Kotani sensei make so many changes to the koshiki no kata? Kotani sensei had no education the the koryo?

So he's the one who changed and the Dutch didn't change and went on doing the old thing?


Do you recall when tsuri komi goshi was a two action attack , tori attacked high, uke blocked then tori dropped to the height of ukes thighs then threw uke? I recall that being changed to the one attack. That is how far back I go in kata!

The two action attack with tsuri komi goshi is what the busen style in Holland is still practising!

This could be a book.

This is a book!!! thank you for this knowledge and sharing it!!

Stevens wrote:You don't say the Dutch busen version is totaly crap?

From a historic point of view the so called "busen-version" never existed outside the Netherlands

In Japan there existed more variations taught by different teachers then we usually are aware of. It is no surprise, that someone, who was taught kata in the 1960s and 1970s by a certain ensei learned different things as taught today at the Kodokan.

But these variations do not make a different style or a different version originated as a kind of standard in/for a big organisation like the DNBK. So the proclamation of a busen-style is totally crap!

All the demonstrations of the so called busen-style Koshiki-no-Kata I saw show some elements that can be easly observed in Kanos clips (f.ex. the way Uke steps backwards in the first technique), but it is also visible, that those, who performed it, did not (yet) understand, what and why. My conclusion is, that they were never taught the background - that´s why I wrote, that knowledge is "fragmented".

Some really good posts in this thread by wdax ! I concur with all the points he has raised so far.

The argument that has emerged from the Netherlands http://www.busenjudo.nl/ is that there exists two alternative kata standards - a “lackluster” Kodokan standard and an apparently “more spirited” Busen (Budo Senmon Gakko or Martial Arts Special School) standard.  To the best of my knowledge it is only in the Netherlands that this viewpoint is promoted and indeed the senior Dutch judoka Chris de Korte 9 dan together with Edgar Kruyning now 7 dan as co-author, have produced a book - “Busen Kata” http://www.busenjudo.nl/index.php/standaard-jbn-kata-boek which has been adopted by the Dutch Judo Federation (Judo Bond Nederland, JBN) as their official kata text.  Indeed candidates for dan grade promotion in the Netherlands have the option of performing kata to either “Kodokan” or “Busen standard.”

First, to the book. It needs to be pointed out that de Korte & Kruyning do not reference a single statement in their writing, nor do they list any primary sources that contain factual information about kata practice at the Busen in their list of works consulted.  (Such a text that could have been considered is “Judo no Kata” by Chikashi Hashimoto which I have in my library)   Instead, de Korte & Kruyning’s bibliography contains, with the exception of references to the 1955 edition of Kodokan Judo and to unspecified articles in the Kodokan’s journal from 1950 onwards, only modern judo books.  Additionally, in the book, Gonosen-no-kata, a modern kata popular at Waseda University, and nothing to do with the Busen, is included – why?

Next it must be pointed out that the technical content (i.e. format and techniques) of the kata as taught at both the Tokyo-based Kodokan and the Kyoto-based Busen were identical.  Indeed, the purpose of the 24 July 1906 conclave of leading jujutsu and judo masters held in Kyoto at the Butokuden was to standardise, codify and nationally unify the official judo kata to be used within the Kodokan and elsewhere.

What is correct, like others have already pointed out, is that the kata of the earlier days of judo were more informal and considerably more spirited than the rather flat and over-stylized (to the detriment of effectiveness) kata of today’s Kodokan standard.  However, this increased spirit was not specific to the Busen, but rather to the kata standards of the 1940s and earlier being different to what they are now.  Indeed, the kata of someone like Kyuzo Mifune-sensei or Sumiyuki Kotani-sensei (who were both 10 dan and Kodokan teachers) had far more spirit than the Kodokan performances seen today.  They also did not differ in spirit from the kata of someone like Kenshiro Abe-sensei or Haku Michigami-sensei (both of whom were Busen trained.)  Finally, of course all kata teaching at the Busen ceased in 1946, with the voluntary self-dissolution of the Butokukai under the Allied occupation of Japan.  Accordingly, nothing claimed by de Korte & Kruyning to be “Busen kata” is Busen at all, but rather “Kodokan kata c.1946.”

Returning to the book, what de Korte & Kruyning have produced is a well-illustrated modern kata book riddled with historical errors and unsubstantiated contentions.  The whole concept of the Busen kata standard is nonsensical and reflects a significant lack of knowledge on the part of the authors.  Sadly, the Netherlands have been here before with Jan Muilwijk’s (hoax) Go-no-Kata.  Both are an enduring source of embarrassment, and why a senior kodansha like De Korte wants to perpetuate the fallacy I can only speculate.

Stevens wrote:

On what grounds or knowledge authority did Kotani sensei make so many changes to the koshiki no kata? Kotani sensei had no education the the koryo?

So he's the one who changed and the Dutch didn't change and went on doing the old thing?

To some extent, perhaps, but not entirely. Two different things. Indeed, Kotani made lots of changes, I believe around 1968. And separate from that what is referred to as Busen reflects in fact Kôdôkan in a certain year ... THUS of someone who decided "look I have a decent knowledge (despite my own limitations at that point) of how Kôdôkan kata needs to be done, and for whatever reason I am now not going to change it anymore with each change the Kôdôkan, makes, and I am going to continue doing it as I learnt it (thus Kôdôkan style anno whatever).

The waters get murky when Ebii-sensei gets dragged in. I never met Ebii in person, but ... at least two people on the old forum, two senior people, one from Japan, the other from elsewhere did. One of those people actually trained under Ebii and if he decides to do so, could talk to you about the many things he and others learnt or did not learn from Ebii, and similar things. However, it is not permissible per Judo Forum policies to drag in private people into a public debate who are not here and do not voluntarily wish to participate in such debate. That's all I can say.

I do have some nice pieces of documentary evidence that show Ebii-sensei. Whilst unfortunately even I do not have film showing Ebii-sensei, the documentary evidence I have certainly shows a deep level of experience. But, because they are stills it is not possible to accurately assess the technical aspects in detail. Ebii-sensei was a leading and still famous former sensei of my dôjô in Japan, although I must hasten to say that I am not implying at all that this would mean I or my knowledge would have personally benefitted from that since I never met the man and the both the sensei you mentioned and the ones I mention are older than me.

IF one really wants to assess to what extent someone saying or claiming they are performing it exactly as some legendary master, then probably the best way to get an idea of this would be to ask someone who did extensively train under said sensei. People like Ellis-sensei and Hanon-sensei can almost immediately see if they see someone do jûdô to what extent such person truly reflects skills he would have learnt from Abe Kenshirô-sensei. I am choosing my words carefully without implying anything. I cannot assess this with regards to Ebii-sensei since I was never a pupil of Ebii-sensei, but as said, someone on the old Judo Forum was. So, this presents one avenue of research. To what extent is what is shown actually an accurate reflection of what Ebii-sensei did. Given Ebii-sensei's very advanced skills ... I would venture that oneself would need to have extraordinary kata and jûdô skills in order to reflect the skills of such a man.

One of my sensei is Okano-sensei, but you are never going to hear me suggest that what I do accurately reflects what Okano does with comparable skill. There are of course certain things that will reflect this that will show it is a mindset I am strongly following and trying to achieve, but the truth simply is that Okano will probably have forgotten more about judo than I will ever be able to learn. I think it is fair to say to some extent the same may apply to Ebii-sensei's kata skills and knowledge.

Why did Kotani implement changes. I have a document somewhere, but I can't immediately recall which and where, that explain that one of the reasons is the changed size of the tatami. In the old days, nage-no-kata was done differently. The next movement was started where the previous one ended, and not with the return to the starting spot in the line of the kata. Well with koshiki-no-kata, the original form was geared towards practice in much more confined spaces than a full classical IJF tatami of 16X16 m. So, for technique 5-8 a change was implemented that the movement would be done using the diagonal of the kata. In classical Kitô-ryû, the switching of jûdôka was not consistent. In the changed Koshiki-no-kata it is is. The current Koshiki-no-kata is therefore easier to remember than the classical koshiki-no-kata.

There are things that entered kata in the 1980s that point towards increasing formalization. A good example of this is the stepping. People would step what felt naturally. It was then formalized toward if stepping back, one would start with the right foot, and if one would step forwards one would step forwards with the left foot. However, historically, there is little or no basis to this. If you watch Mifune demonstrate kata, you will see that this convention is not applied by him and the man did know jûdô and was a student of Kanô.

One can't argue, for example that if I would now refuse to apply the consistent backstepping right/foreward stepping left, that this would imply that I am not performing Kôdôkan but Busen. No, it means that I am practicing Kôdôkan year 19-whatever.

Another example. I owed much to Fukuda Keiko for my jû-no-kata. I think that she was a superb reference as Fukuda's practical jûdô teachers were Noritomi Masako (and mostly Honda Ariya, but also Mifune- and Samura-sensei). So when I demonstrated jû-no-kata at the Kôdôkan and no one there knew me yet, I remember Umezu Katsuko (now the higher ranked female in the world with a big smile pointing at me and saying "Fukuda-sensei"). Why ?  Because she recognized that I was doing (as did Fukuda) really jû-no-kata anno 1955 !  But you know that's OK !  The principles are still the same, and no self-respected sensei at the Kôdôkan would mark you down for it. Only idiots who do not know jûdô would. I could have claimed that I was doing "Busen jû-no-kata", but I was not.

Jû-no-kata is not 'ESSENTIALLY' changed, but it has been somewhat streamlined, certain things being more consistent, adaptions consistent with a larger tatami, and some things that our friend wdax who practises this kata a lot will also know about very well. What I am saying here is very important though. Someone who really knows his kata ... It does not matter if he demonstrates how he learnt it in 1955 or in 2013, the principles are still the same; kuzushi is still kuzushi, throwing still throwing, debana still debana, and the kata is not worse if it turns out that at one point one of these changes is present or not, though obviously for top-teachers and performers such things at that level may merit discussion. One such point is in ryô-kata-oshi in jû-no-kata when tori starts progressing forward what position he/she ends in. Many people today end standing on the tip of their toes, whereas historically many did not, Fukuda did not. You can debate this. On the other hand, there are also modern phenomena which are plain stupid. Such an example is naname-uchi in jû-no-kata where uke is lifted up in an ura-nage-like movement. In modern days, many performers at that moment suddenly look up into the sky as if at the point the sky would be opening up and angels would be descending in a circle of bright white light. I have no idea where this is coming from, but historically there is no basis for it. Fukuda did not do this, and my research shows it is much more credible not to do it than to do it. What rationale could someone possibly have for taking this devout expression on the face ?  But would that justify me who does not do that arguing that I am performing Busen-style jû-no-kata ?  No, not at all. It simply means that my (completely permissible personal choice) is in these aspects to stick with the 1950s convention, whereas I do consistently step back right foot first, and forward left foot first just like it is taught today. Doing so does not affect the principle of the kata and makes it more consistent. Looking at Angels does nothing about movements of the kata, but as innocent as it is, in terms of spirit and inner experience I cannot find any ground to justify that and it is an anomaly.

Such historic preservations have use, particularly when kata teaching completely deteriorates due to conventions dominating, while principles and essence is no longer understood. The less well-read Kôdôkan teaching staff have found a remarkable arguments to deal with that though. If you refuse  --like I do--  to implement nonsensical formal things that have removed the spirit of kata and are plain wrong they will say "Ah, no, no, that's jûjutsu, not jûdô !", which is complete bullocks ...

If the explanation were true that taking the kata seriously would be jûjutsu, then this would imply that Kôdôkan only does and maintains kata as an "Entartete Übung", a degenerated exercise that pertains to be merely aesthetic depleted of any realistic application to fighting, where the action/reaction principle has disappeared and where the only reason one jûdôka does A, is because it is prescribed and not because it is a prescribed effective reaction to B.

Music still is one of the best guiding principles for jûdô. Let's speak violin music. David Oistrakh, Jascha Heifetz, Yehudi Menuhin, were three absolutely extraordinary violinists. The music they played was prescribed, no ?  They all play the same notes, yet if you listen to their Brahms or Tchaikovsky or Beethoven violin concerto there are huge differentces. None of them playes it "Busen". It's all the same Brahms, Tchakiovsky, Beethoven. It's clear all three have far exceeded the limits of conventions. Only an idiot would try appreciate what they do by taking the music score and a metronome and compare to what extent they notes are equally long. Moreover, you will see that the same concerto played by one player is much longer or much shorter than that of the other one. It is a living thing, and jûdô kata above all MUST be living art. Of all these kata clips which currently terrorize YouTube many excel by showing dead jûdô. If your kata shows dead jûdô, then what does it matter that you 100% were in agreement with all conventions ?  How does a dead kata improve your jûdô. It is these where are the questions to ask.

Hanon wrote:,,,,,,
Prior WW11 kodokan kata did not look like it does today. This myth of their being a DNBK form of kata that differes from original Kodokan is pure fiction and has no possible historical grounds. The sensei who taught judo at the Butokuden where ALL sent from the kodokan. How could kodokan sensei teach a different kata just because they became sensei at another dojo?  

........
Mike

Kano shihan himself wrote that the judo of the Butukokai was Kodokan judo - apparently in response to some question or criticism regarding some differences in technique, organizational control, or promotions (but it is not clear which).

To clarify a point, the Butokuden was (and, since rebuild, is) the Martial Arts Hall in Kyoto, on grounds carved out from the Heian Jingu (shrine), but the instructor school was the Dai Nippon Butokukai Budo Semon Gakko (Japan Martial Virtue Association Martial Ways Specialist School, typically called 'Busen').  

While certainly Isogai Hajiime went from the Kodokan to the Butokukai in 1899, and there were first generation instructors that moved back and forth, many of the Dai Nippon Butokukai Senmon Gakko's later instructors were home-grown; that is, they were graduates of the Busen that went out to schools someplace in Japan and then were brought back as instructors.

Some of those instructors taught both kendo and judo; it would be interesting to see what impact the one would have on the other.  Up to the postwar rehabilitation (read: de-militarization) of kendo, it was legitimate to sweep the foot of your opponent, and supposedly snatching off your opponent's mask was ippon.  

So there was a strong exchange with the Kodokan.  Certainly Isogai 10dan's 'Judo Tebiki' (Judo Handbook) was in print for decades, and he and others were strong contributors to the limited detailed kata instructional material.  

But, you have to wonder if there were stylistic differences over 45 year life of the Busen.  Almost certainly not as reflected in the subject kata, but perhaps more subtle.  

And, I would bet that the weapons handling was much improved over the current standard.

NBK