Talk:Kōga-ryū

This article should be re-translated from ja:甲賀流 by someone bilingual in English & Japanese. It should also be moved to Kōga-ryū as per the article ninja.—Wing 23:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

The statement “[Kōga-ryū] is one of the most well-known schools of ninjutsu, along with Iga-ryū.” is tagged “citation needed”. This makes me sick. This is common sense (if you ask any random Chinese or Japanese person they’ll tell you so). How do you cite common sense? How much perfectly valid non-Western (thus difficult-to-cite) content is in danger of deletion due to ignorant people tagging them “citation needed”? Is non-Western culture significant only after Westerners write a few books or papers about it? This is clear and simple racial discrimination. Total idiocy.—Gniw (Wing) (talk) 05:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.

Koga-ryu has been cited and referenced directly alongside Iga-ryu since the beginning. It is mentioned in Andrew Adams' Ninja: The Invisible Assassins, Stephen Hayes' Ninja & Their Secret Fighting Art and in just about every Stephen Turnbull book on the subject. (There's a perfect example of individual research for you. Turnbull started out as a religion/ philosophy scholar, but has written so many books on the martial arts that MA masters and grandmasters now refer to HIM for info on their own arts. No joke, people. That's actually stated in the foreward of his Ninja: The True Story of Japan's Secret Warrior Cult.) Nonetheless, here we are having to defend that huge section of the system tree as if nothing were ever written on it.

To me, the egg-heads who make it a full-time job to "edit" and "manage" (meaning "censor") Wikipedia should be the ones who provide the links and references for articles requested by users. After all, how many hundreds or thoudands of others have asked about this info or tried to make edits without being allowed? That alone shows that people want the info, but the Nazi rule-geeks don't care.

I have a full-time job, and have been working at LEAST one full-time job as long as I can remember since I was 18 (and more than one part-time job while going to HS before then). I served 3 full tours in the military, and have been in law enforcement for quite some time since. In all of those jobs, I never had the time to sit down and deal with the hard-liner rules of places like Wiki here. In the mil, I just did not have the time or patience. As a cop working rotating 12-hour shifts, I have maybe one day a week to sit down at the comp. Even today, I still get called in for on-call on my so-called "off-days". So, in my experience, I don't know of many people that have the time to dedicate to adhering to all the rules and strictures put on us here at Wiki.

I say, leave that stuff to the professionals. If you and I find a link to a site that verifies what we read in some library book months or years ago, that should be good enough. The more links we provide, the more we ascertained the validity of our claims, proving that it is not "original research." If the egg-heads want more proof, they should provide it. If not, at least allow our words to stand until we have the time to give more solid proof; as long as we are editing it from time to time, show us the courtesy of letting our work be seen to the world. They can put all the disclaimers on it they want, but show us the respect of allowing our efforts to be seen.

For one thing, the information on this kind of thing is actually getting harder and harder to find. After 30 years of having the mold of certain arts narrowed down more and more, many of the books that once had the info we need have been taken out-of-print. Or, they've gone up in price drastically, preventing most of us from being able to get them. (Case in point, a Yoshin-ryu VHS I purchased 2-3 years ago for $12 now costs $118 in DVD form on Amazon. There's no way I'm getting that DVD. Books on similar topics have also gone up insanely.) Yet, the scholarly expectations for citing evidence of things we've been taught and read about these arts for decades has also gone up.

There ARE books and vids on Koga-ryu, people. But, I rarely ever had the money to buy them, and they never appeared in my local library (which seems to have books disappear forever on a regular basis). By the time I had the money, I didn't need anyone else to verify or validate what I'd already spent so much time training in. I've used this stuff in real-world applications now, in foriegn soils and in combat zones...I don't need some silly book to tell me that it works anymore.

There are things we simply KNOW because we have been exposed to them for so long. My instructor taught me things about this art starting back in 1985, back when people competed with each other by putting out as much free info as they could, much of it coinciding with the official word. Since then, the competition pool has been cut down drastically by mere smear tactics, and so the presentation of info is now largely controlled by a very select few. If you go against the grain and continue to assert the things that were put out so commonly 20 years ago, you are declared "radical" or "unconventional." (Getting down to it, in a low-intensity conflict art like ninjutsu, "unconventional" is a compliment, really.)

Look at James Loriega and Richard Wigginton, both high-level experts in their respective fields, and both formerly known as ninjutsu instructors. They have been so horribly ostracized and ridiculed for not being members of the mainstream sets that they no longer even claim those arts. You won't find many tactical blade-masters better than Loriega, but petty politics keeps him from presenting his Fuma-ryu or Tsugawa-ryu as ninjutsu anymore. Likewise with Wigginton, one of the foremost authorities on countering firearms use; the guy's skills are recognized by the US government and police forces all over the world, but he doesn't claim to teach Koga-ryu anymore. How does that kind of social limitization in any way HELP the perpetuation and growth of ninjutsu?--- Both these guys used to be in Ninja magazine quite a bit, for those of you newer to the scene.

To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever said that Loreiga, Wigginton, Duncan, and others were not good fighters. On the contrary, I've seen them almost universally praised as being about as tough as they come. However, that doesn't make them Koga-ryu practitioners. To suggest that just because they can fight, they are therefore somehow legitimate is so ridiculous as to be beyond comment. I know a guy that I work with that I would say the same thing about, and he's not a Koga ninja, either. Loreiga and Wigginton were students of Ron Duncan, whose claims of Koga lineage are provably false. Duncan claimed to have learned Koga-ryu from Donn Draeger, who himself stated that it was a dead art and that Fujita was the last, and Duncan didn't begin making his claims until both Draeger and Fujita were conveniently dead. Moreover, Duncan's claims that he learned it from Draeger while stationed in the Marines is unlikely in the extreme. The great thing about the US military is that they keep meticulous records of who was where, and when, and these records are publicly available. Draeger and Duncan were never stationed in the same place at the same time. They might conceivably have met at a weekend tournament or something, but they were never in the same place long enough for any teaching to have happened, assuming there even was anything to teach. And Ninja magazine was a publication of Condor Publishing in the 80s and had all the editorial standards of the National Enquirer. Being included there is about as authoritative as being in the Enquirer.

My main problem with Wiki is that I see some articles being allowed with virtually no real references, while others have strict rules keeping them from being posted. Look at the Bruce Tegner article, for example, which ends in some guy making unverified statements about someone he knows personally. Why isn't that considered to be an advertizement? None of the statements made in it are verified in any way. And the only reference literature he uses is a book BY the late Tegner himself (a martial arts book, which would not in any way validate half of the statements made in the article). --- Compare that to this article. An Iga-ryu link was provided, but the censor tries to say that the author is using references devoted solely to the subject matter in question. To me, if the Ninjutsu , Ninja and Iga-ryu articles all refer to the Koga, then we should simply be allowed to use those as citations. Hell, if the Iga-ryu Ninja Museum (which has a curator --- someone able to manipulate documentation --- claiming to be the current Iga-ryu grandmaster) can have an article here , then anything by anyone should; you couldn't find a more blantant advertizement and one-sided (read "non-neutral" and "biased") article if you tried.

So, again, I think Wiki should just be happy that people are contributing (and not regularly pointing out their inconsistencies). They should not restrict us as much as they do. For, in doing so, they hurt themselves tremendously....by alienating and devaluing those people most willing to share here.

"Live well. Die well. Pass on virtue to all you meet." 22:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Tengu16

Good points! Really.

It should be noted that they already changed the Bruce Tegner article to reflect the comments you made. Like literally that day, dude. (We can see the old version in the "View History" tab. You'll see it having been made on the 7th of October, meaning that the bad version was on the Wiki unmonitored for at least 6 months before it was burned so well here.) So, at least this guy can see that his comments are having an effect. (Of course, there are still comments in the article that are NOT in the book used as reference. It's a karate/ judo book, not a social advertising.)

Hey! I'm happy with this article for right now! I can actually see where someone got an edit in. Thank the blessed spirits. I was about to give up hope on Wiki. --- I HATE the censors... with a passion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poekoelan (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

.................................................................................................................................

Don't know why they deleted this guy's stuff, but I liked it, and can build on it rather easily. Here's what he said, whoever it was:

..

 ::::: Here's another point ....
Many systems of the same general type have differences between them. This can be SEEN in systems like Isshin-ryu and Wado-ryu, whixh are both quite xifferent than other Karate styles or like Uechi-ryu that is more like southeen Chinese kung fu. No book will DIRECTLY say these things, but they can be observed in separate books on these individual styles. In the case of ninjutsu, even despite having been led by singular entities like Takamatsu, there are still great differences between systems like Koto-ryu and Gyokko-ryu, those 2 do still have different stances and techniques. Avain, however, this can only be seen by viewing separate books on the styles. Such books have not been available until like this year, so most of the people that would write articles on this topic ---even very knowledgeable people on the topic -,, may not have access to that info yet... And therrfore would not be able to "cite" an official literary source. For instance, many official sources indicate that the Kukishinden -ryu was influnced by time in service by generations of Naval men (found in The Introduction to the Schools of the Bujinkan, pg 17). Therefore, that systems uses wider, lower stances than those found in Gyokko. And Koto stances are higher than those of Gyokko.

.

Further, the majority of unarmed techniques known as "ninjutsu" or ninja taijutsu today are actually Gyokko koshijutsu. Therefore, they have single-response whole body power that drives through the oppo.ent in one move, much like commonly known of Karate. However, Koto relies on multi-strike combos and changes of direction that would be more like Kenpo. So, no single site or reference manual can properly address those differences.

.

As someone here said, some things you know only by really learning, not by some book. I vuess Wikipedia does not allow that kind of info to be shared.

............... ..

Just one thing wrong there. Koto-ryu, although it does move into cross-steps and pivots that are not found in Gyokko-ryu, actually enters into lower stances than does Gyokko. I've always wanted to practice Koto from Gyokko height.

..

As for the books he's talking about, it may be the "Bujinkan Budo Densho" series by Carsten Kuhn, which started in like 2010. I think there are like 6 of them, and Koto and Gyokko are among them, but Togakure-ryu is the only "ninja" taijutsu system covered to my knowledge. They can be purchased on Ebay, and maybe on Amazon.

..

In one of his books, Masaaki Hatsumi (current head of the officially recognized ninjutsu traditions of Togakure, Kumogakure and Gyokushin) speaks on how a single technique may be found in a number of different traditions, albeit by different names and with different "energy" or feeling. To paraphrase, if you do the technique one way, it may be Togakure; done with a slight variation, it is Gikan-ryu; done from a different energy, it is Kumogakure.--- I'll grab the book from the attic, and give an exact quote and reference source in the next couple of days.

!! !!

That was from "Understand? Good. Play!" It's a Hatsumi book from 2001. In it he says, "You can do this technique in many different ways. If you do it this way, it is Gikan Ryu. If you do it this way, it is Kumogakure Ryu. If you do it this way, it is Togakure Ryu." --> That's why he always has so many henka (variations) of technigues in his videos and seminars; he wants people to understandthat they can find THEIR OWN way within the various systems of the Bujinkan, instead of sticking strictly to just one style or another. Unfortunately, Americans get so caught up in "systems" and "techniques" that they lose sight of the bigger principles that people like Hatsumi are trying to convey. (They are like kids, and are easily confused, no matter what their ranks. It's due to the cultural upbringing of acquiring more, rather than really doing better.)

!

Pretty good paraphrase, though. Almost had it right on. Got the point across.

.................................................................................................................................. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.48.6.140 (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Or you could just not say it. Is it really necessary to state "how well known" a martial art is? Maybe it would be cool to state something on how long it's been practised, or reword the statement to say something like, "Has been practiced by a large number of schools" User5802 (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please, Gniw... don't confuse "popular lore" with facts. The knowledge modern society has about ninja has been formed in the last 40 years, by popular media like film, tv, manga, ... And Chinese people? Well, please. Don't get me started on that. We are talking "SCIENCE" here, not hearsay! Also, there are many considerations to make, which more and more Japanese historians tend to agree about. - Is the distinction "Iga-Ryū" and "Kōga-Ryū" really historical correct? The "Iga-Ryū" were situated in a region that hat a lot more in common with the area of Kōga than with main land Iga. Remember that not the people of Japan divided Japan into provinces, but the Bakufu, the gouvernement did. They cared little about family relations or ethnic differences and similarities between peoples from one or another region. - How far were these Ryū and Ryūha related and connected anyway. Most likely by far, there was not really a "connection" as such. Sometimes the clans worked together, sometimes they fought each other. - There never was any single school being "Iga-Ryū" or "Kōga-Ryū". "Iga-Ryū Ninjutsu" means "the schoolS from Iga" and "Kōga-Ryū" means "the schoolS from Kōga".

Now... true. I cannot show sources either about this topic. That's why I do not write in the main topic, as that would start a heated discussion without the proper evidence to back me up. As soon as I have decent facts in sources, I gladly will shred apart many of the half truths, hearsays, iconisations and the likes in the main window and shed some light upon this lemma. Kennin (talk) 10:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

SimonEdwards2003 (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC) It is an unfortunate fact that the name Koga Ryu is used by many fraudulent organisations , as such it is important we stick to documented independent evidence rather than hearsay and speculation. James Loriega and Richard Wigginton are both students of Ron Duncan of Way of the Winds. Ron Duncan is a prime example of someone that has claimed Koga Ryu and links to Fujita Seiko but has never shown any link or proof of this.

Many of these schools , way of the winds included , use a combat form such as karate , karate didn't exist in Japan until the 1900's , hundreds of years after the birth of Ninjutsu.

To keep the wiki as factual as possible i would put forward the idea that only schools with a verifiable Japanese source be included