Bokken over Shinken?

[Jason Ginsberg]

Hi everyone,

I've been reading this forum for a little while, incredible amount of knowledge here, now posting for the first time. Here's something I've wondered about for a while. In various books, you see references to the bokken as a formidable weapon in its own right, and some swordsmen (besides Musashi) actually preferring the wooden weapon, e.g. Lowry, "Bokken" pg. 19 "Historical tales...are full of examples of master kenshi who met opponents armed with live, steel weapons with nothing but a bokken in their hands....In fact, some fencers insisted the wooden weapon was superior..."

Are there really historical records of swordsmen actually preferring bokken? If so, did they walk around with daisho in their obi and bokken as well? Did their methods change? If not, then my question is, especially given the quality of the Japanese sword and the reverence for it in Japan, why do these stories come about? I've always found his idea interesting, hopefully someone can help me discover more about it historically.

thanks,
Jason

[DDATFUS]

Hi Jason,

I don't have the historical knowledge of some of the people on this forum, but I do have a theory that might answer part of your question.

During the Edo period, the Tokugawa shogunate began to strictly regulate dueling. At certain times in this period, a unsanctioned duel was a crime-- and the Tokugawa legal system was not kind to criminals. I suspect that, for this reason, there were times when two men met to settle differences and brought bokken with them instead of shinken. If used correctly, a blow from a bokken can do lethal damage, and with wooden swords the survivor could always claim that a tragic accident occured during a training match. Also, the bokken has a bit more built-in discretion: it's hard to incapacitate someone without doing permanent damage if you are using a sword, but with a bokken you can break an opponent's arm rather than cutting it off. If you really want to fight someone, but aren't sure that you want to kill him or have him kill you, arranging for a bokken duel might have some appeal.

Just my .02-- I'll be interested to see the other responses that you get.

[Ken-Hawaii]

I hadn't thought about it quite that way, David, but you make some very good points.

Jason, welcome to the forum. It's certainly one of the best sources I know of for those of us who have a serious interest in sword arts (& a lot of other budo, as well). If you're an experienced martial artist already, you likely already know that it isn't the weapon that's dangerous: it's the person who's using it. {Yeah, and I know that guns don't kill people, either....} :rolleyes:

My wife & I have studied a sword art called Muso Jikiden Eishin-Ryu iaido for quite a few years (forgive me in advance if you're an expert iaidoka, Jason, but it's best not to make assumptions with newcomers), & I am fairly well aware of just how much damage a katana could do in a confrontation/fight/battle. But we also study another martial art called Shinto Muso-Ryu jodo which uses a simple wooden staff just over four feet long (the jo), which is intended be as close as possible to a long straight branch you might pick up while you're hiking. Can you guess which weapon I would choose in a serious one-on-one fight? (Big hint: it won't be the katana.)

Now you would think that a nice sharp sword would be just the perfect weapon, right? But if you could watch Chambers-Sensei wield the jo against our practice bokken, I guarantee that you would change your mind in a hurry! To say the jo is deadly (in the right hands) is a huge understatement. Similarly, as David pointed out, the bokken is a perfectly capable weapon in its own right - again, in the right hands. Compared to the human body, a solid chunk of wood is a lot harder!

[Nii]

Wow, so you would choose a jo over a katana! I didn't expect that =/. While I got nothing against the jo, a katana just seems more capable of dishing out damage. But of course, my experience with the jo is limited so I can't really say with certainty...

[ichibyoshi]

...given the quality of the Japanese sword and the reverence for it in Japan, why do these stories come about?...

I suppose it's just something that you come to accept when training in sword arts that the bokken is also a lethal weapon. It is probably less likely to bend or break than a real sword. And the fact that you show up to a duel with only a wooden sword appears to have been something of a tactical advantage in that it was probably unsettling to an opponent. Still, to do that, your sword may have been only wood, but your balls would have had to have been steel...

You're right to say that the sword was/is greatly revered in Japan, but the sword is also a powerful symbol, and a wooden sword is just as powerful a symbol as a metal one. If you go to Kashima or Katori shrines in Japan, you can buy bokken that are o-mamori (souvenirs/protective talismans). The resident deities are obviously not offended by the fact that they are represented by bokken and not forged katana!

A bokken is not an imitation of a katana. It is equally a sword.

To take this idea of the sword metaphor even further, you might like to read the "Taiaki" of Takuan Soho, where he describes a sword with wonderous powers that is a metaphor for enlightenment, IOW a sword that the warrior has completely internalised.


All men are equipped with this sharp Sword Taia, and in each one it is perfectly complete. This means that the famous Sword Taia, which no blade under heaven can parry, is not imparted just to other men. Everyone, without exception, is equipped with it, it is inadequate for no one, and it is perfect entire.

b

[cxt]

Jason

Wouldn't be the first time somebody highly motivated and armed only with what is essentially a wooden club beat trained fighters armed with metal swords.
One of of the worst defeats the Roman army ever suffered was an entire army getting more or less wiped out by a bunch of germans armed in large part with wooden clubs.

So on its face, depending on the skill of the user--and the situation of course ;)...there is little reason to consider the bokken that much inferior to a metal blade---again depending on person and situation.

That being said, its also possible that since the group were are looking at are really a group of highly skilled experts-----it might have been, in part, an expression of just how skilled they were--deafeating a challanger with bokken.......they and the challanger might know that bokken are nearly as deadly as a shinken....but would everybody????

After all you noticed enough to ask the question...many 100's of years after the fact.....I'd say that were I a really good swordsmen, and I had an interest establishing a reputation...this would be a really good way to do.

It would seriously cut down on the number of challangers as well-----lot of people migh think twice about dueling a guy that was so good they didn't even need a "real" sword to defeat you.

Plus, always possible that people with such advanced skills might be good enough that they could defeat their lesser skilled oppts without killing them by using the bokken.
The "they killed a guy with a stick" stories get told forever-----just breaking a guys hand might not make the headlines.

[Josh Reyer]

I, for one, highly doubt there were all that many duels in the Edo period. Even Musashi's tally has to be taken with a grain of salt. He spent many years seeking employment with various lords, and a law-breaker would not have the best prospects. Even taking the Ganryu Island story as true, it's evidence that, for one fight at least, Musashi carved an extra-long bokken to use against a no-dachi, not that he habitually engaged in duels with bokken vs. shinken.

Which brings me to my second doubt. I doubt that of the duels fought, that many were fought with shinken, let alone bokken vs. shinken. I think bokken, and various forms of fukuro-shinai were more likely to be used. For example, the meeting of Yagyu Munetoshi and Kamiizumi Hidetsuna is often related as Munetoshi holding a bokken and facing off against Hidetsuna's nephew Hikita Bungoro, who had a Shinkage Ryu style fukuro-shinai. Indeed, this is repeated in William Scott Wilson's translation of Heiho Kadensho. But according to the histories of the Yagyu family, Munetoshi actually faced Hidetsuna himself, and both were armed with fukuro-shinai.

Ultimately, I think most of these stories about swordsmen defeating opponents with only a bokken are just that: stories. A bokken can certainly be a dangerous weapon, but a sword can do just about everything a bokken can do, and it also cuts. What better way to illustrate a swordsman's great skill than by showing him winning an unfair fight? You have stories of guys beating guys with bokken, with short swords, even empty-handed.

Finally, while I have no doubt that Quentin Chambers-sensei could kick my butt regardless, if I had a choice in a serious one-on-one fight, I'd choose the katana over the jo every day of the week and twice on Tuesdays. :)

[socho]

... if I had a choice in a serious one-on-one fight, I'd choose the katana over the jo every day of the week and twice on Tuesdays. :) And you have trained with a jo how much? And with a katana how much? :) I personally prefer the katana, too, for many reasons, but the jo is a very strong, versatile and practical weapon. One of Musashi's only defeats was with a jo, I would not underestimate it.

Dave

[gendzwil]

I'm not so sure I'd pick bokken over shinken. Jo is a different kettle of fish. It's longer and stronger than a bokken, and allows you to grip all over the place for a lot more variety than just swinging it like a sword. I've only trained a little aiki-jo so I'm mostly talking out my butt here, but it seems like a pretty good weapon.

[Josh Reyer]

And you have trained with a jo how much? And with a katana how much? :) I personally prefer the katana, too, for many reasons, but the jo is a very strong, versatile and practical weapon. One of Musashi's only defeats was with a jo, I would not underestimate it.

Dave

Consider my preference for the katana not as thinking less of the jo, but as thinking that much of the katana.

[Fred27]

, a katana just seems more capable of dishing out damage.

A katana do more damage, no doubt about that. Damage-wise, 72 cm of razorsharp steel beats the Jo any day and the sword requires but the lightest of touches to cause major damage all over the human body.
Thats not to say the jo is harmless when it comes to dishing out damage though. :)

[BJohnson]

I, for one, highly doubt there were all that many duels in the Edo period. Even Musashi's tally has to be taken with a grain of salt. He spent many years seeking employment with various lords, and a law-breaker would not have the best prospects.

Musashi's dueling history predates the beginning of the Tokugawa shogunate. Certainly in the later years of the shogunate things were pretty locked down, and someone who went around dueling without shogunate approval would probably have had a hard row to hoe in terms of finding a position, to say the least; but Musashi's reputation was built in very different times.

[Josh Reyer]

Musashi's dueling history predates the beginning of the Tokugawa shogunate. Certainly in the later years of the shogunate things were pretty locked down, and someone who went around dueling without shogunate approval would probably have had a hard row to hoe in terms of finding a position, to say the least; but Musashi's reputation was built in very different times.

Not really. It predates the Tokugawa bakufu (barely; he was in his teens when the Battle of Sekigahara occurred), but post-dates Hideyoshi's unification of Japan, and subsequent moves to impose strict control over the country. Musashi was younger than 10 years old when Hideyoshi disarmed the country and forebade social movement between the (then) classes.

Which is not to say that he didn't fight duels. Only that "60 duels and never lost" needs a bit of salt to go down, and that while he certainly had some duels, it seems unlikely that they were all (or even mostly) to the death.

[lucky1899]

According to the version of the Book of Five Rings by B. Fullerton, the battles of Musashi were not all to the death...

QUOTE:
I have been many years training in the Way of strategy, called Ni Ten Ichi Ryu, and now I think I will explain it in writing for the first time. It is now during the first ten days of the tenth month in the twentieth year of Kanei (1645). I have climbed mountain Iwato of Higo in Kyushu to pay homage to heaven, pray to Kwannon, and kneel before Buddha. I am a warrior of Harima province, Shinmen Musashi No Kami Fujiwara No Geshin, age sixty years.

From youth my heart has been inclined toward the Way of strategy. My first duel was when I was thirteen, I struck down a strategist of the Shinto school, one Arima Kihei. When I was sixteen I struck down an able strategist, Tadashima Akiyama. When I was twenty-one I went up to the capital and met all manner of strategists, never once failing to win in many contests.

After that I went from province to province duelling with strategists of various schools, and not once failed to win even though I had as many as sixty encounters. This was between the ages of thirteen and twenty-eight or twenty-nine.
END QUOTE

From Wiki:
The Tokugawa shogunate ruled from Edo Castle from 1600 until 1868, when it was abolished during the Meiji Restoration.


I don't think sixty duels in a "non-death" match is too much to believe. Most Judo people I know have had over 100 matches.

Regards,

A. De Luna

[Josh Reyer]

I don't think sixty duels in a "non-death" match is too much to believe. Most Judo people I know have had over 100 matches.


Sixty or more "matches" I have absolutely no problem believing. It's the idea of 60 undefeated "duels" that I'm doubting. I suspect that if the original was actually written by Musashi, and not edited after his death by his students, then Musashi probably mixed his actual duels with his friendly matches, and passed over his losses. In the original, the word he uses here is not 決闘 kettou, nor 果し合い hatashi-ai, nor 斬り合い kiri-ai, the usual words for "duel", but rather 勝負 shoubu, which can very easily apply to non-lethal matches. It's made up of the character for "victory" 勝, and "defeat" 負, and the general connotation is that of "contest".

I wonder if the popular image of Musashi hasn't in fact influenced how he's interpreted. Musashi himself could just be saying, "I've had 60-some matches (of varying seriousness)", but because the image of Musashi is of this scruffy vagabond beating on folks with a bokken, they just assume that 勝負 indicates something as serious as a "duel".

[Max Chouinard]

I'm not sure on my part that anti duels regulations were carried very effectively. The shogunate proved many times that he was unable to enforce some rules (at least not without the cooperation of the respective clans).

Remember that many countries banned duels but very few were able to control it, and so it had to be tolerated to a certain degree (for example, dueling was illegal in New-France, but the number of duels fought - for those we know of because someone was convicted at the time- for such a small population is astounding). And if an illegal duel was carried out without anyone knowing and that someone died, finding the body and the assassin might be troublesome without some modern techniques. So I think that many would have thought they could go away with it, and possibly that many did.

[Josh Reyer]

I'm not sure on my part that anti duels regulations were carried very effectively. The shogunate proved many times that he was unable to enforce some rules (at least not without the cooperation of the respective clans).

Remember that many countries banned duels but very few were able to control it, and so it had to be tolerated to a certain degree (for example, dueling was illegal in New-France, but the number of duels fought - for those we know of because someone was convicted at the time- for such a small population is astounding). And if an illegal duel was carried out without anyone knowing and that someone died, finding the body and the assassin might be troublesome without some modern techniques. So I think that many would have thought they could go away with it, and possibly that many did.

A very good point. I think what I'm trying to get across is that, it's kind of like the Old West. In the movies there are always lots of duels, gunfights, and the like. And to be sure, there were certainly instances of those in that time. But while Wyatt Earp has a reputation as a gunfighting lawman, and there are many stories, he was actually in very few gunfights. The real Old West was quite different, and much less exciting, than the popular image.

The time of Musashi's life was very much like that. Sure, some folks dueled, and there have always been ruffians around ready to cause trouble. But by and large it was a pretty peaceful time. Duelling to the point of injury or death caused a ruckus. "Kenka Ryouseibai", the rule that both parties in a fight were punished, regardless of who initiated it, were already in effect at the time. When there's no central authority, things can get pretty hairy, but the Sengoku daimyo ruled their domains with iron fists. Sure, they wanted to mix it up with each other, but within their domains they were dictators. Hideyoshi continued this, and the Tokugawa perfected it on the nation wide scale. It wasn't like the jidai-geki, where people could draw steel at the drop of a hat. "Friendly" matches of bokken vs. bokken, or shinai vs. shinai, of course, being a whole different story.

[Lance Gatling]

......Here's something I've wondered about for a while. In various books, you see references to the bokken as a formidable weapon in its own right, and some swordsmen (besides Musashi) actually preferring the wooden weapon, e.g. Lowry, "Bokken" pg. 19 "Historical tales...are full of examples of master kenshi who met opponents armed with live, steel weapons with nothing but a bokken in their hands....In fact, some fencers insisted the wooden weapon was superior..."

Are there really historical records of swordsmen actually preferring bokken? If so, did they walk around with daisho in their obi and bokken as well? Did their methods change? ......Jason

I was told by a very senior koryu sensei that one reason Musashi used a bokken was that one opponent's reach was quite different. Musashi watched him fight before, and went to their duel with a bokken.

The bokken threw the opponent off with its simple appearance, but Musashi was able to grasp the bokken in its middle and then extend it fully to reach beyond that of his opponent, and split his skull; you simply can't handle a live sword with a tsuba that way. Essentially it was more like a jo overhead strike, but unexpected from a swordsman, providing both surprise and longer reach with power.

Regarding duels, despite the later rules of the Tokugawa bakufu against the practice, there were plenty of local officials who turned a blind eye, and even watched - usually safely outside town. I believe some are well documented.

One issue with swords is that it takes most folks a long time to get good, and plenty never really do get that go. The figure I've heard is close to 10 years. Particularly with the Japanese katana, i.e., two hands and no shields, a poorly wielded sword leaves many openings, particularly for long weapons.

And long weapons such as bo, jo, naginata, yari, etc., seemingly can be mastered, at least for the basics, in a much shorter time. A year or so?

A sword dealer friend tells me the quickest way to break a katana is to hit the mune, the back of the blade, exactly as the basic jo overhand strikes work. Better blades snap off, inferior blades bend, making the sword unusable. Although many jo practitioners don't really practice it, AFAIK a knowledgeable swordsman would try to cushion the blow on the back of his sword by pulling the sword down and away, rather than risk breakage.

[renfield_kuroda]

And long weapons such as bo, jo, naginata, yari, etc., seemingly can be mastered, at least for the basics, in a much shorter time. A year or so?

That is completely ludicrous.

Regards,

r e n

[Ken-Hawaii]

Damn! My wife & I must be really slow learners in SMR jodo! We've studied under Quintin Chambers-Sensei for all of 15 months, but neither of us feel that we've mastered the jo, by any means. Must be something seriously wrong somewhere!

Lance, don't believe for a minute that you or anyone else can "master" any weapon. I've been teaching European fencing for over 40 years, & have studied all three weapons since 1951, & although I was certified as a Fencing Master in 1968, I agree with Ren that it's ludicrous for anyone to think that they've mastered anything. The most I can hope to do is help my students bypass many of the mistakes that I've already made.

One last note to Fred on my choosing the jo in a one-on-one confrontation. First, if I'm in my car, at home, or anywhere else where I'm likely to be confronted, I'm much more likely to have a jo (or equivalent nearby tree branch, etc.) than I am to have a katana. Second, the jo has approximately a 20-inch greater reach than the standard 29-30-inch katana. And third, the jodoka expects a katana, whereas the attacking iaidoka/samurai/idiot/or-whatever-you-want-to call-him is likely not expecting a jo, & is also likely to disregard its capabilities.

Unless you've worked with an SMR jo sensei like Quintin Chambers, believe me that you have absolutely no idea just how deadly & effective a 50-inch-long wooden cylinder can be! Go study for even a few weeks under him, Phil Relnick-Sensei, or Meik Sloss-Sensei, & then come back & tell me that you'd still choose a katana, & I'll gladly apologize! But I don't expect to have to.... :p

[Fred27]

Unless you've worked with an SMR jo sensei like Quintin Chambers, believe me that you have absolutely no idea just how deadly & effective a 50-inch-long wooden cylinder can be! Go study for even a few weeks under him, Phil Relnick-Sensei, or Meik Sloss-Sensei, & then come back & tell me that you'd still choose a katana, & I'll gladly apologize! But I don't expect to have to.... :p

Hold it hold it! I am a Shinto Muso Ryu jodo practitioner, (in Europe in Pascal Kriegers Senseis organisation), and I know full well what a jo can do. I wasn't dissing the jo, nor underestimating it. If you read my post earlier you would see it was about the damage-potential of the sword versus jo in which case the sword is the winner. It wasnt about which weapon would prevail in combat.

So yes I am still 100% convinced that a razorsharp sword will do more damage all over the body with minimum use of force and with minimum skill.

*edit*

Allright? I wasnt making a pro-sword argument against jo-work.

[Ken-Hawaii]

Apologies, Fred. But I guess we have a difference in terminology.

If I'm able to kill my sword opponent with a jo, does it still make sense to say that the katana is capable of more "damage potential" because it can slice-&-dice better? Or am I reading something wrong into your comments?

To me, if I can end any fight/confrontation with a honte or gyakute blow with my jo to the temple after easily parrying a katana strike, I feel that's pretty much the end of that enemy. Do you instead just slice him/her up, rather than killing? Is that what you mean by more "damage?"

[Fred27]

Apologies, Fred. But I guess we have a difference in terminology.

If I'm able to kill my sword opponent with a jo, does it still make sense to say that the katana is capable of more "damage potential" because it can slice-&-dice better? Or am I reading something wrong into your comments?

To me, if I can end any fight/confrontation with a honte or gyakute blow with my jo to the temple after easily parrying a katana strike, I feel that's pretty much the end of that enemy. Do you instead just slice him/her up, rather than killing? Is that what you mean by more "damage?"

Fair enough.

The jo is a very strong & flexible weapon in the hands of a skilled user. It is able to kill, yes, by using it on the temples, head, the neck (front or back), or applying a very strong tsuki to the solar plexus. All of the above requires great skill to pinpoint the particular areas with a strong strike. By the way, the Honte and gyakute may be the two first kihon techniques that you learn, but they are not the easiest. Mastering them to be able to do proper, well-aimed, strong strikes takes a long time. (I'm definetely not there yet). The third technique, hikiotoshi, is inheriently powerful and requires less practice to use it with power but still requires lots of training to get the angle/aiming correctly, not to mention the coordination of the body and arms when executing the technique.
All in all, should the jo miss its target it has the potential to break bones with strong strikes but still leave the opponent alive. Other applications are deliberetly less lethal such as the wrists, fingers, shoulders..

As for the sword: being a 74 cm piece of razorsharp steel (minus 25-30 cm for the handle) it has the potential to do maxiumum damage, regardless where on the body it is used, with little force and with little skill. The lightest of touches will cause the sword to draw blood. And there are plenty of areas on the body where drawing blood is disastrous to (any) fighting man.

Also, when I say "little skill" I do not mean to imply that sword-users are not skillful, or that it is easy to learn, but the truth is that anyone can learn to do maximum damage with much less training than with a jo.

The obvious targets for a quick-kill is the neck, (decapitation, arteries, throat etc). Other pinpoint targets are the wrists (arteries), inner thigh (more arteries), a stab to the solar plexus and of course the very common kesa cut. The Katori Shinto Ryu tradition teaches stabs in the armpit, (to avoid armour), but I dont know if it is a lethal or is a disabling stab.
Those are just the ways to kill a man quickly and not including disabling cuts. Actually I think I read somewhere that the most common cause of death of samurai on the battlefield was not the quick kill, but death from loss of blood caused by many small cuts on less vital parts of the body.

So unless you use the backside of the sword there simply is no way you can avoid doing damage when using it on a human body: The damage potential is greater than with a jo, even if you can train to learn how to kill with it.

[Nii]

There's always the problem of cutting yourself by accident too... =P

[Lance Gatling]

That is completely ludicrous.

Regards,

r e n

I guess 'that' refers to my comment that the notion was one can 'master the basics' of a bo or jo in a year or so, as opposed to the sword, which might take years.

I can't put my hands on it but read this someplace years ago, and it made sense enough to me, given the context of medieval Japan and the training of fulltime warriors versus farmers and other parttime conscripts.

I dunno, I live in 21st century Tokyo, have a job, and best I can do is practice 5-6 times a week, but that is in different dojos and styles. I guess I could spend my other free time swinging a stick in the subway (obviously not but I do review the sequences for kata there. I did make a 2-piece travel oaken jo I take on trips. I'm working on a similar tachi. Any ideas?)

What I was referring to was someone whose *job* it was to learn the basics of the use of a weapon or three, someone who's life and livelihood depended on it, not a mid-aged or retired hobbyist trying to 'master' the art of the weapon.

I've trained thousands of soldiers to use weapons ranging from knives to pistols to heavy artillery, and trust me, its different from teaching housewives and businessmen. Live ammo gets your attention. And some are much harder than others to grasp and 'master the basics', but in a surprisingly short period of time I can take most any reasonable person and train them to be reasonably deadly, given the right bullet launcher. Technology rules!

Sure, there is a near infinite variety of variations with most any traditional Japanese melee or edged weapon, but I believe if you can't figure out the basics of the jo or bo in a year of intense study (meaning: not ~1.5 hrs <=~2x/wk at most, like most modern practitioners, but some real practice time, hours and hours a week) then there's something wrong with you, or your instructors, and Darwin or the first serious warrior coming your way with a katana would review you from the gene pool. (That's 'master' as in 'understand and be able to use', not 'Master' as in 'a title I bought from some guy in Des Moine'.)

But, if you were a reasonably fit, physically and mentally motivated young man with competent instruction, and the tasks were master the basics of the jo and the sword in one year, my money's on that person making more progress mastering the basics of the jo. And that's something to consider in a mano-a-mano fight or in building up the manpower of your medieval army.

And both still pointless in the modern world.



Damn! My wife & I must be really slow learners in SMR jodo! We've studied under Quintin Chambers-Sensei for all of 15 months, but neither of us feel that we've mastered the jo, by any means. Must be something seriously wrong somewhere!
,,,,,,,

Well, far be it from me to say what's wrong with you and yours, but I wouldn't be too hard on myself if I was you. ;)

I can throw a list of dan at you, but I think I didn't make my point clear.

You're the Sword Master - you tell me. I find the Japanese katana difficult. But my point is how long it would get from zero battlefield utility, just handed a sword or jo, to the point where you could defend yourself and be of some use to the common effort.

If you're like most folks in the US you practice jo, what, 2-3 hrs a week (average? max?) for a year and a quarter, assuming you don't miss practice, take out the weeks of holidays, sickness, etc., it's not really a long time to learn a complex motor skill. Add up the hours, look at the curriculum, and perhaps most importantly, subtract the significant time spent correcting your pinkie angle from 44.5d to 45d, and tell me how efficient the instruction was. But how much real progress in the utility of the weapon did you make versus what you could make? Look at the modern curriculum again, not the art's total syllabus, and tell me it's designed for efficient instruction.

Jo, and tons of others arts, are great, but I simply don't believe they were originally taught the way they are now. The kata and pseudo bushido have taken over from common sense and military utility. It simply ain't that hard to brain somebody with a cudgel, or break their wrist, and only a small number of variations comprise what I'd term 'basic mastery'. The rest is a lifetime study, OK, fair enough. Over 3 years into jo under the top instructors of the Kendo Renmei, the full basic kata plus MSR kata, I sort of get that, too.

If you're lucky enough to catch some of the old films of the early 1900's masters in action, they move pretty normally, their actions are smooth and effective, but their deshi 2 generations on move like robots.

Cheers,

[Josh Reyer]

Lance, what are you defining as the "basics of jo" versus the "basics of a katana"?

[Lance Gatling]

Lance, what are you defining as the "basics of jo" versus the "basics of a katana"?

Good question, nothing definitive, but just what's required for reasonable utility in a fight. Maybe...

jo - all the major strikes, blocks and thrusts, back and forth, ability to thrust into an eye or solar plexus accurately / strike strongly w/ control and recovery

katana - overhead and side strikes from jodan, hasso, a couple of thrusts, basic blocking and movement

I think most swordsmen have a greatly overrated notion of just how deadly they are - and a poor swordsman leaves tons of openings that can be exploited by a reasonably adept jo wielder who's not paralyzed.

I had a notion of how to practice this in randori - anyone ever try it? I described my idea of using kendo gear and sparring to some senior students and they blanched - convinced that I'd break their wrists if not skulls.

But the way that most people teach the jo is so jerky that it leaves plenty of openings there, too :(

I have both notions at once - does that make me schizophrenic? :D

[Josh Reyer]

Good question, nothing definitive, but just what's required for reasonable utility in a fight. Maybe...

jo - all the major strikes, blocks and thrusts, back and forth, ability to thrust into an eye or solar plexus accurately / strike strongly w/ control and recovery

katana - overhead and side strikes from jodan, hasso, a couple of thrusts, basic blocking and movement

Okay, so what makes you think the former could be grasped to a functional level of proficiency after one year but that it would take 10 years for the latter? Or even five?


I think most swordsmen have a greatly overrated notion of just how deadly they are - and a poor swordsman leaves tons of openings that can be exploited by a reasonably adept jo wielder who's not paralyzed.

I think this is indisputable. The converse, however, is also true. A poor jo wielder will have tons of openings that can be exploited by a reasonably adept swordsman.

[George Kohler]

Damn! My wife & I must be really slow learners in SMR jodo! We've studied under Quintin Chambers-Sensei for all of 15 months, but neither of us feel that we've mastered the jo, by any means. Must be something seriously wrong somewhere!

The problem is that we tend to think of in terms of modern times. These days most of us have to travel to work further than back in ancient times and work an 8 to 10 hour job. People back then had more time to train than most of us today.

Also, the culture is a big factor. Back then warriors walked around having weapons around and training at a very young age. Think about how Americans know how to play football (or even baseball) at a very young age. We grow up watching it on TV and played these games in the neighborhood and in school. Its our culture.

[Ken-Hawaii]

I guess my attempt at sarcasm fell woefully short.... Linda & I are actually quite happy with our progress in SMR jodo; Chambers-Sensei is a great teacher! My actual point was that I don't see any way to "master" any weapon in today's society. As George & Lance mentioned, there are a lot of other things on our plates that preclude most of us from full-time practice. We get 2-1/2 hours of jo training each Sunday morning, & then try to practice in our home dojo another 4-6 hours during the week, but that's quite a bit short of "full-time."

We've spent a lot more years studying MJER than jo, but Linda agrees with me that it would be difficult for another MJER swordsman (swordsperson?) to win in a fight against either of us using the jo. I spent two hours this morning practicing both jo & sword-side (i.e., getting run through the wringer) with our senior student, & watched particularly carefully to see if I could visualize a situation where the sword-side would have an advantage. The answer was invariably "NO." This thread started out as a question about using a bokken, but as we use the bokken essentially the same way we use our shinken, I would choose the jo over either weapon, followed by the shinken, with the bokken last.

Lance, you pose a good question about how long it would take a newbie to "get from zero battlefield utility, just handed a sword or jo, to the point where you could defend yourself and be of some use to the common effort." Well, in my own case, I went from zero knowledge of iaido & the katana to shodan (judged by a group of hachidan from Japan) in 15 months. Does that make me an effective warrior with the katana even today? Of course not, but I could likely defend myself, & probably help with some of the other fighting. I'll admit that I don't find MJER particularly difficult - although my form is still evolving - any more than I found foil, saber, & epee as difficult. Just requires a whole lot of practice whenever I can squeeze it in.

[No1'sShowMonkey]

Wouldn't be the first time somebody highly motivated and armed only with what is essentially a wooden club beat trained fighters armed with metal swords.
One of of the worst defeats the Roman army ever suffered was an entire army getting more or less wiped out by a bunch of germans armed in large part with wooden clubs.

I realize that I will be contributing to thread drift with this... But as a consummate Romanophile I have to weigh in on the side of the Big Red Killing Machine.

The battle of the Teutoberg Wald occured on highly unfavorable terrain for the Romans whilst they were not in combat order. They were surrounded, in the midst of a choke point, not necessarily even wearing combat kit, mixed in with non combatants, seperated from their commanders, not expecting attack and otherwise COMPLETELY outwitted by the Germans and suffering at the hands of a complacent general.

There is strong archeological evidence to suggest that survivors of the initial rush gathered in local strong points, even fortifying them in the classical engineer-soldier fashion of the legionnaire, and holding out for a time before being finally wiped out.

Essentially what I am getting at here is that it was not really a german with a club that bested the professional Roman soldier, but a turncoat, Roman educated and trained German who out-generaled and out-politiked his opposition. Not really a case of tactical superiority.

Also, on the note of Musashi losing to a Jo - just to play devils advocate: everyone loses, even the best of the best. The guy that wins in any competition is just the best today, right now. In martial practice to the death, however, that is more than enough. Either case, roll the dice enough times and you will get snake eyes.

Thread drift over! :D

- Chris McGaw

Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter.
~ Ernest Hemmingway

[DDATFUS]

But my point is how long it would get from zero battlefield utility, just handed a sword or jo, to the point where you could defend yourself and be of some use to the common effort.


I have a paper written by my sword instructor in which he notes that it has been traditionally taught in Jikishinkage Ryu that it takes a minimum of three years of training before a student can be expected to survive on the battlefield. I've been meaning to ask him if that means three years of training on a daily basis, or if the three years is a modern rule of thumb developed since the time when most people stopped training as if their lives depend on it.

If it's just basic battlefield functionality that we're looking for, though, I think that it could be achieved a bit faster than that-- if we are training peasants to fight with a spear, we are mainly going to be teaching them to march in formation, to hold ranks, and to thrust correctly. We're not looking for them to win duels, we're looking for them to form a wall of sharpened steel. It would be great if you had three years to drill the peasants in that sort of thing, but a few months would probably be enough to teach them the basics. As far as sword work goes, I imagine that you would probably take a page from Jigen Ryu's training manual and hand each farmer a big stick, stand him in front of a tree, and have him whack the tree as hard as possible while screaming at the top of his lungs. After a few weeks of that sort of thing, if you teach him some basic drills-- all of which would involve him charging the enemy and cutting at an exposed bit of body-- he would probably be ready for the front lines. He wouldn't be able to beat a skilled swordsman, but he would be able to become part of a charging mass of screaming fighters.

Of course, the longer you have to train them, the better, but the point is that for basic functionality on the battlefield, I think you are looking less for skill and more for the ability to hold ranks and go towards the enemy, rather than running away. If your conscripts stand fast and attack, your skilled troops-- the ones who have spent years honing their skills-- will have an opportunity to bring their abilities into play.

[cxt]

Chris

Tried to PM you in the name of preventing thread drift--but you don't have that function in use.

Nobody said it was some kind of failure by the romans..all I was really saying was its not a good idea to dismiss wooden weapons out of hand since in the right hands at the right time and the right place---they can be pretty effective.

Anything much else is kinda beyond the scope of what I was trying to address.

Besides, roman wins far outstrip roman losses. :)

[Bidouleroux]

Sixty or more "matches" I have absolutely no problem believing. It's the idea of 60 undefeated "duels" that I'm doubting. I suspect that if the original was actually written by Musashi, and not edited after his death by his students, then Musashi probably mixed his actual duels with his friendly matches, and passed over his losses. In the original, the word he uses here is not 決闘 kettou, nor 果し合い hatashi-ai, nor 斬り合い kiri-ai, the usual words for "duel", but rather 勝負 shoubu, which can very easily apply to non-lethal matches. It's made up of the character for "victory" 勝, and "defeat" 負, and the general connotation is that of "contest".

I wonder if the popular image of Musashi hasn't in fact influenced how he's interpreted. Musashi himself could just be saying, "I've had 60-some matches (of varying seriousness)", but because the image of Musashi is of this scruffy vagabond beating on folks with a bokken, they just assume that 勝負 indicates something as serious as a "duel".

Indeed, Musashi most probably did mix his non-lethal and lethal duels together, but remember that the sixty shoubu here happened between his thirteenth and twentyninth years... which puts the end of his "dueling" period at about the time of the siege of Osaka in 1614-1615, in which he participated. The restriction on duels was not strictly enforced yet and lethal duels did happen quite often and challenges (lethal or not) were made right and left to prove who was to be the top-dog in the coming Tokugawa-ruled age (though it amounted to not much since traffic of influence won the day almost every time). Those challenges, while not always to the death, were "deadly" serious to say the least, and Musashi did fight a whole school at the same time after having defeated their best swordsmen. Had he lost that group fight, he would probably have been killed or crippled and left for dead to repay for the lost honor or whatnot: no wonder then that Musashi ran like a madman! You can't fight a group at the same time, so he separated them and fought one or two on one in the paddy fields. This was all part of his heihou, though we can wonder if at that point (he was only twenty then) it wasn't more instinctual than rational. What we know is that from that fight he gained a lot of insight, which he set down in the hyoudoukyou, his first writing.

This brings us to a second point I wanted to make that is in fact more relevant to this thread and which is this: Musashi trained not to be a swordmaster, a "head-slicer", but to be a "warrior", or as he puts it a "follower of heihou". This means, among other things, using the right tools (strategies, techniques, etc.) at the right time. It also means knowing your opponent psychologically and if possible technically. But here the former point is more relevant, as we know Musashi was trained in using the jitte, which is designed to render swords useless, especially their cutting power. So it is not unreasonable to think Musashi would prefer, as a whole, a blunt substitute to the actual jitte like a bokken, since the jitte he knew were quite unwieldy unlike the latter Edo police model. He could also make a bokken himself, and dispose of it after a duel, or break it in the course of the duel without much concern. Hard and thick wood is also excellent at stopping a sword cut right in its tracks if used correctly (and if someone could do it, it would have to be a jitte master! We also know Musashi liked his bokken massively thick and long). The reach and disposability of the bokken could also be a means for Musashi to throw hard shiny pointy metal things, as he seemed wont to do. All in all, if you want to continue to use your jitte style without a jitte proper, a bokken seems fitter than a sword. But you can't rely on always carrying an unwieldy wooden bat with you in the streets, so naturally the next step is using what you're required to wear as a samurai, the daishou. Of course, it's many times more difficult to pull off jitte-like techniques with a wakizashi, so you take 20 years give or take to perfect it and the rest of your non-technical heihou thing! Then you realize you don't even need "weapons" and boom, a legend is born.

On another - purely lexical - level, I'm not sure the shoubu distinction here demonstrates anything. I know contemporary Japanese, and though I don't know much medieval Japanese, I would tend to think shoubu here is used in a way that should remind us of contemporary political correctness. Not only is Musashi summing up both his lethal and non-lethal duels in one category, but he does not mention killing anyone, only "winning" (uchikachi, which means either metaphorically "winning hands down" or more literally "winning with a strike", but since even in Go or Shougi you "strike" a stone or a piece on the board, it has no direct relation to the sword), even though we know he killed Arima Kihei, his first ever opponent, which he mentions in the opening to the scroll of Earth. This was probably because, at the time he wrote the gorin no sho, the ban on unapproved lethal duels was readily enforced and that saying you killed someone in a duel literally would be in bad form. But no one at the time would have been fooled by the rhetoric: the purpose of the rhetoric is not to hide facts, but to make them more palatable. Everyone knew Miyamoto Musashi had had duels to the death, there was no need to mention them explicitly or mention which were to the death and which not, etc. This last mindset of historical accuracy and utmost respect to the exact factual details and whatnot is very modern and Musashi would not bother wasting paper on something so trivial for him and his educated fellow readers (and there was no other sort of readers back then). The scant biographical details at the start of the scroll of Earth are only there to help him make the point that though he fought to the death since he was thirteen and never lost to his twenty ninth year (he doesn't mention anything specific after that, so he may have lost in his later life), it "wasn't his fault that he won" and that he figured he was still a long way off to being anything close to really invincible or to knowing the Art of heihou. So he stopped fighting and began searching for the unchangeable core that made him victorious in all his different fights, which he won by opportunistic grabs of chance circumstances. So by expanding only this core that made him able and ready to grab at the opportunities presented to him by chance (to the point of creating his own "chances" in his opponent's behavior), he realized his potential and was set on the Way of heihou.

[K. Cantwell]

We've spent a lot more years studying MJER than jo, but Linda agrees with me that it would be difficult for another MJER swordsman (swordsperson?) to win in a fight against either of us using the jo. I spent two hours this morning practicing both jo & sword-side (i.e., getting run through the wringer) with our senior student, & watched particularly carefully to see if I could visualize a situation where the sword-side would have an advantage. The answer was invariably "NO." This thread started out as a question about using a bokken, but as we use the bokken essentially the same way we use our shinken, I would choose the jo over either weapon, followed by the shinken, with the bokken last.


I've been taught that the sword is the objectively stronger weapon. I've heard that more times than I could count. The jo has a very slim margin for error against the sword and in most kata, the jo just "makes" it by subtle exploitation of ma-ai.

The kata is set up so shidachi "wins," but there are openings and agreements on both sides. It's training, after all. I've been corrected for giving away too much in those moments in which the kata says I should "lose." It is no way a foregone conclusion and I've been told, "There is stuff you have from here...die for the kata, yes, but not so willingly." The "advantage" is prearranged, but in many kata it goes back and forth and you can see just how easily the sword can push things if it wants to. Jo needs to be a bit more careful since a simple nick from the sword is pretty much the end.

There are times in our practice that we have worn kodachi with the jo just to see how it would change training. The idea of practicing this way with a long-sword was dismissed out of hand as "weird" because the idea of using a jo when one had access to a longsword was too artificial.


Go study for even a few weeks under him, Phil Relnick-Sensei, or Meik Sloss-Sensei, & then come back & tell me that you'd still choose a katana, & I'll gladly apologize! But I don't expect to have to....

I train with Meik and one of the really interesting things he has said is that he prefers the kodachi in many situations to the odachi. I really try and work a lot with it on my own to see if I can get a glimpse of what he is talking about. He can also push the natural advantage of the sword so that the jo has to be spot on. If he smokes the sword, I really have to be accurate with the ma-ai. Pushing with the jo is a bit harder. You can't really get it too far out there...its advantage is in its subtlety more than brute force against the sword. I’m obviously no match for him with either weapon (understatement of the year), but I feel a bit more secure on the sword side when he is pushing me. On the jo, I lose it sometimes, but that doesn’t happen on the sword. I always feel like I can do something besides die.

(Obviously, the skill of the exponent will be the determining factor, but what I've been expressly told and observed in my training, the sword is the senior weapon in more ways than one.)

Kevin Cantwell

[Ken-Hawaii]

Interesting how differently you & I view the advantages of the jo, Kevin. I really think the "subtle ma-ai exploitation" is a lot more than that when it comes to battle. There are many things I can do with a jo that I can't do with a sword/bokken.

With its greater reach, I can stop a swordsman from even drawing his sword. I can get inside a swordsman's effective cutting range, & then do a number of attacks. I can throw a swordsman's attack completely off-line, & him off-balance. And I can break his grip on the sword in many cases, without killing him if I choose. And these are to name just a few advantages.

I'll admit that most sword cuts can be deadly, but so are blunt-force trauma, & the jo has the advantage of being controllable instead of always deadly. Certainly when training with Meik Sloss-Sensei or, in my case, Quintin Chambers-Sensei, they are talented enough to overcome anything that I could do with the jo, but I would much rather have an uchidachi who is more experienced than I am so I can continue to learn. And I find that I'm not "dying" quite as often during training as I was just a few months ago :D. Like you, Kevin, I am much more proficient with a sword at this point, having studied MJER far longer, but even now I can see that I would rather go up against another sword than a jo. And translating to today's world, I'm a lot more likely to pick up a handy stick than a sword if someone attacks me.

[Brian Owens]

...Meik Sloss-Sensei...

...Meik Sloss-Sensei...
Oh, so it wasn't just a typo the first time.

It "Skoss" with a "k." ;)

[Ken-Hawaii]

Yes, it's a typo, Brian. I was just too dumb to notice it both times. :confused:

Sorry, Skoss-Sensei!!