Sekiguchi ryu Battojutsu · Jujutsu

Sekiguchi-ryu (関口流) is a martial system in which close-quarters fighting is practiced—jujutsu or kumiuchi—alongside the long sword, tachijutsu, the short sword, kodachi, and the dagger, kaiken.

It can be translated as the school or tradition of the “gateway/pass entrance.” This “place of passage” approach is not understood as a collection of isolated disciplines, but as a coherent framework in which the body, distance, and intent are organized consistently: when distance allows for the long sword, it is expressed through tachijutsu; when space narrows, the school preserves solutions with the kodachi; and when combat compresses even further, the kaiken embodies the logic of a short tool/weapon suited to immediate contact-range encounters. In parallel, jujutsu or kumiuchi acts as the “bridge” that connects weapon use to grappling distance, including control, off-balancing, and resolution at close range.

As with other classical traditions of Japanese martial arts, nihon kobudo, there is no single identical practice, and there are branches, lines, and organizations that describe the curriculum with different emphases.

This point is crucial for reading and correctly understanding any reference to Sekiguchi-ryu: the name of the school defines a tradition, but the exact way its technical content is organized and presented depends on the transmission line, the dojo’s methodology, and the training context. For that reason, when discussing its sword work or its kumiuchi, it is important to avoid generalizations and to place the practice within a specific branch and a clearly defined teaching framework.

The origin of our practice lies in its founding around 1640 by Sekiguchi Ujimune, who learned iaijutsu and kumiuchi (armored close-quarters combat), and whose teachings have been preserved to this day in the Kumamoto region.

Sekiguchi Ujimune founder of Sekiguchi ryu (s.XVII)

From that historical root, the school can be understood as a continuity of criteria: solutions for realistic combat across different distances, with particular attention to how one transitions from one phase to the next. Technically, that transition is not resolved by “switching disciplines,” but by sustaining shared principles—how to enter, how to control the opponent’s structure, how to occupy space, and how to finish efficiently. That the transmission remains linked to Kumamoto is not a minor detail: it anchors the practice to a geography and cultural environment where kobudo traditions have maintained continuity and preservation.

Some Japanese organizations define it as iaijutsu (居合術), while others define it as battojutsu (抜刀術). The difference lies in the emphasis one wishes to convey: battojutsu is used to highlight an approach more directly oriented toward the combative act of drawing and the first cut, while iaijutsu places greater emphasis on all phases of sword practice.

This difference in emphasis affects how training is structured and what is prioritized: when battojutsu is foregrounded, the didactic goal tends to concentrate on the immediate effectiveness of the initial action, line occupation, and taking initiative from the sword in the scabbard; when iaijutsu is foregrounded, the goal is to integrate the full cycle of the action, including management of the before, during, and after of the cut, spatial control, tactical continuity, and recovery. In both cases, the label does not necessarily change what the school “is,” but it can guide the kind of technical attention that is trained and the way it is explained.

In the practice of the Seibukan [SBIF] school, this refers to a form of jujutsu and the use of different weapons in relatively tight spaces or in enclosed, close-range fighting, where the technical gesture of body and blade requires more direct, tighter trajectories and a significant economy of movement.

This places the practice in a very specific terrain: scenarios where distance does not always allow wide solutions, and where every action must be functional, compact, and decisive. In this kind of work, the sword is not understood as an instrument for “large” movement, but as a tool that must remain effective when the environment constrains you—and the body does not merely accompany the blade, it governs it. The result is a methodology that tends to value precision over ornamentation, efficiency over amplitude, and continuity over fragmentation: from spatial control to control of the opponent, from long weapon to short weapon, and from technical gesture to resolution.