Hi James,
Quote:
I would like to point out one thing however...well maybe two things. We have two pictures of Ryoma on the Bugei website both show him with the longer tsuka.
Thats interesting. I would think that going back and forth between longer and shorter hafts would be somewhat difficult, since the techniques and way of cutting would have to adapt to the sword. Maybe he wore a shorter hilt sword for that particular photo!
On the other hand, Taisha ryu and Jigen ryu, two of the more famous ryu-ha in Kyushu, seem to be using the 1:4 ratio bokuto and katana.
Quote:
The other thing, and I think that you pointed this out, guys like you and I would have been pituitary giants in ancient Japan and the tsuka/sword length would probably have been proportionate.
Yep. I've always been of the opinion that a person should use any assets they may have to their advantage. If you have longer arms, use a longer sword. If you are strong, use a heavier sword. Gorin no Sho also talks about short/long, heavy/light swords advising for moderation (the middle way - avoid extremes).
That being said, maybe Tony Alvarez should be studying nagamaki!
Quote:
My personal feelings is that in the ancient days there was no real standard of length or proportion. Each fighting man used what he thought would give him an advantage. If you were good at using what you had, regardless of whether your sword was the reason for your performance, than there was probably going to be some imitation.
As I indicated above, I agree with this, at least in part. But on the other hand, the fact remains that there were methods being taught within certain domains to bushi. If the bushi had too much diversity in their individual weapon dimensions, it would have made teaching techniques and principles very difficult. I know that you are well aware of the advantages and disadvantages of longer and shorter hilts. The two cannot (or at least should not) be used in the same manner, from a practical standpoint. To do so would negate any advantage of using a given weapon design.
Clans/methods that use longer blades/hilts seem to have specialized in these methods. Some of these are shown in the previously referenced "Koryu Kenjutsu Gairon" book. Much of the methods shown take full tactical advantage of the longer proportions, as they should. Especially when sparring against a shorter sword. In other words, they do not perform the same techniques - at least in the same way - as methods seen in shorter hilt arts.
I would guess that, within a given region/clan, you would have a degree of personalization and preference in weapons. But past a certain point of customization, teaching semi-uniform methods would be prohibitive. On the other hand, those exponents that are already at an advanced level of skill would have the experience necessary to modify/create new methods for a longer blade if desired.
Quote:
Personally my tsuka length has changed one inch from when I first started using swords ( going from 15" to 14").
Now that you mention it, I think you told me this the last time I saw you.
Quote:
Kuroda Tetsuzan sensei has tried to get me to use shorter tsuka however I don't like them and feel that they impair my ability to use my sword effectively. He manages quite well with a short tsuka (11") as you have seen. He also does iaijutsu with a 31" blade and is faster than anyone that I have seen.
Kuroda sensei's grip in KKR, at least on bokken, is a bit wider than what is currently taught by the popular sword arts these days. Eleven inches sounds about right. It looks like he is actually pinching the blade section when he is in Jodan kamae (?).
Quote:
The more I study the old days the more it seems to me that a various times and with different warriors almost everything was used as regards length, curve, and tsuka and although these discussions are fun, and with you guys involved very enlightening, we can only accept that the differences were probably greater than the similarities at certain times in Japanese history.
There surely was then, as there is now in modern methods, ongoing experimentaion and R&D on weapons, tactics and methods. I suspect that this practice has not changed much over time, andas such, perhaps a look at the variances found in modern CQC around the world would be indicative of what degree this occured historically.
Generally in modern military, most guys carry a .45 or 9mm backup side arm (shoto), with a 5.56 or 7.62 primary rifle (daito) and usually some kind of K-bar type knife is included in their kit (aikuchi/yoroi doshi).
Maybe some guys carry an M60 or .50 cal, (naginata/nodachi/nagamaki) in place of an assault rifle (daito), and as such they perform a different tactical function. But the average foot soldier carries arms that are similar in size in regards to "destructive potential" and technique of implementation.
So maybe some things don't change really change much, eh?
For the record, I don't raise this analogy because of any implied expertise in modern warfare on my part, but rather for the benefit of James' experience in modern warfare. Any additions or clarifications in this regard are of course welcome!
Regards,