Likes Likes:  0
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 92

Thread: A question for Karl Friday about swordsmanship.

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    113
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Earl,

    Good points!! I agree. It seems that it is not as much a question of whether a sword is sharp as, is it sharp enough. (To get the job done.)

    Lao Tzu said, (paraphrased from memory) A knife that is too sharp, dulls easily."

    Sincerely,
    Scott R. Brown

  2. #62
    Dan Harden Guest

    Default

    DanB writes
    I have quite a lot of experience in this area myself, and the things I've seen and read from you remind me of the hollwood swordfighting method where sword fighting consists of banging the edge of your sword into the edge of the other guys sword, evidently until one of you gets tired.

    WHAT??? are we digging a little and getting off point :wink:

    As a smith, and practicioner of Japanese weaponry, I can assure you I have explained and then shown, many times what happens to an edge after and "edge to edge" controntation. It is a definite case of what not to do. Although I have seen four of the highest ranked Japanese Shihans in the country show it over and over spanning years of time. I just sat there and smiled.
    I will be willing to bet I have shown it more times, ruining more edges, (I can afford to fix em) then most men you will meet. I have also shown cutting of steel cable as well brass rods as well as live trees and the typically softer stuff. It is amusing to see the light go on in peoples eyes when you show a sharp edge, then see it scraped off against the edge of a comparable blade. These days I simply "say it" to students and explain the use of shinogi and mune.
    Most people (I imagine) do not fully realize the intent to kill, not play "sword to sword." Why would they" It is a learned behaviour. It is always fun to just "be there" with your blade, after or before they move eh? While they expected you to "sword fight." It is amazing how many people still fall for it though eh?
    How to do......... how to do.......


    your too funny Dan

    ******************************
    Dan B
    Double edged swords of the typical medieval type(Oh, I might add that the term "broadsword" is a relatively recent term and isn't used much by the people who study medieval swordplay. I challenge you to a find a reference to a broadsword as a specific sword type in a period text.) were double edged and symmetrical precisely because the edge was easily lost. Turn the sword over and it's like you've got a new one.

    Dan H
    yes, and to poke more at you they would have to. Not differentially hardening a blade, and HAVING to draw the whole mess back to the high 40s- to low50C they wouldn't hold that edge for long....you needed two!

    And,I might add (back ) I used the generic term broadsword for the simple reason that you did when you started the discusion in the first place. We also did not specify country or era's. While we may discuss individual designs. Whether discussing a venetian Schiavona or a scottish version of the basket hilt, we are still talking a non differentially hardened blister or shear steel product drawn back so as not to shatter. Would you like to play with a 30" long blade with the whole thing at the 58C range?

    I have stayed on point as to their inability to hold a fine edgen and the smiths obvious inability to solve the puzzle like other cultures did.
    A specific point you have not directly addressed.

    *******************************
    Dan B
    Reading period texts you will find these weapons could be used for draw cuts (the ol' coup de Jarnac springs to mind of course) as well as capable of slicing cuts, but they were best at hacking and chopping where, I agree, sharpness of edge is not as important as with a true cut. Now there's so many types of European sword out there that this is a gross oversimplification.

    me
    agreed, I am not now, nor ever was, arguing a case for a specific use. We agree that they hacked and maybe cut as well. Again, how this started, and my main point has been, that they will not support a very sharp edge. It defies the physical properties of the steel.

    **********************
    Dan B
    Recently the Talhoffer Fechtbuch was published with English translation and commentary. Most of the sword work covered the long sword, and a study will show that the sword was used for a variety of cuts. The beautiful illustrations also show some limbs being lopped off, not something that is really possible (well maybe possible but not bloody likely) with a sword that won't cut. I think it's published under the name Medieval Combat or something similar.

    Yes I have it. I also have a computer version. If you were going into a duel lets say and not combat wth armor. You may sharpen your soft steel sword to a "very" sharp edge, It will hold that edge against flesh. But even bone can deform an edge that soft. Inversely at a rockwell of 60-62C it oculd even chip it if the edge is too fine (I did that on a hog hip while proving out the theory that an edge must have sufficiant support with the body
    Who cares though, in our scenerio the guys dead

    *******************

    Dan B
    I think at this point that we should agree to disagree, or go find ourselves another expert to arbitrate. It is a pleasure discussing this with you, although I feel like I'm violating some e-budo rule by not dismissing your theories out of hand. Maybe we should call each other a few names just to keep our reputations intact.

    Well. Steel is steel, metalurgy is a science, and rockwell ratings do not lie. What a eutectiod steel will do with a "very" sharp edge between 48-52 or 53 is not really debatable. The finer the edge, the weaker it will be.

    ******
    ******
    ANNDD ........While I continue to at least try to address your points you still haven't addressed the issues of
    edge "geometry" along with thier blade geometry and why specific swords look the way they do in conjunction with their rockwell ratings, steel type and designed use

    As far as E-budo goes Dan
    I'm afraid I am not too imaginative with insults, you would best me in no time.
    its still a pleasure talking with you. And Earl has a wonderful mind and a mutual interest in this topic

    Dan


    [Edited by Dan Harden on 01-15-2001 at 10:12 PM]

  3. #63
    Warwick Guest

    Default

    I'm sure all of you are familiar with some version of the story of the 47 samurai, in which those samurai avenged what they saw as the unjust death of their master etc etc. I'm not going to re-tell the story here. The weapons carried by 33 of those samurai are recorded. All carried two swords, one long and one short, although some of their wakizashi were long enough to be considered long swords. Of the 33 whose weapons were recorded, 13 carried no other weapons. 16 carried spears of various lengths, some quite short, some long, (as well as their swords); 3 carried bow and arrow (as well as their swords), and one carried a naginata (as well as his sword).

    What is interesting about this is that it happened in 1702, long after the "Pax Tokugawa" began, and it was not a fight intended to take place on open ground, but in a built up area. And still, a large fraction carried spears.

    Warwick Hooke

    Failure Is Not An Option. It's bundled with your software.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Palo Alto, Ca, USA
    Posts
    1,324
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Dan H:

    How worried do you think someone would be about chipping their edge if they were fighting for their lives? I agree that if they had been trained to use the shinogi or the mune to block, parry, or ward, then they probably would do so in the heat of battle just by instinct. However, if I understand you correctly, Japanese swords take set bends quite easily, so I don't see how it would be possible to use the shinogi or the mune for blocks. Sliding parries, maybe, but not blocks. Structurally, I don't see how the sword could take it. Also, since I doubt very seriously that most of the people who used swords were expert in their use, I'm sure there were a lot of bent saw blades left after the dust settled.

    Anyway, one of my iai teachers, addressing this very question said anyone who worries about ruining his edge in a fight is a fool who deserves to get killed. If you're alive, you can always repolish it. If you're dead, well, who cares if your edge is pristine?

    "He's dead, Jim."

    "Yeah, but just look at that edge. Not a mark on it!"
    Earl Hartman

  5. #65
    Dan Harden Guest

    Default

    I happen to agree with most of that Earl. However, the all important issue is whether or not it is necessary to use your edge to block an edge?

    Agreed that it may or may not be avoidable all of the time, but more to the point "how do you train for the event?" To use an edge or not.
    And blocking? I would not advocate being in a postion to neccesitate "a block" in the first place. There are so many other options available.

    **************************

    Earl
    Anyway, one of my iai teachers, addressing this very question said anyone who worries about ruining his edge in a fight is a fool who deserves to get killed. If you're alive, you can always repolish it. If you're dead, well, who cares if your edge is pristine?

    me
    If you are concerened with killing your opponent, you are concerned with having the means to do so at your disposal. I cannot agree with the premis of planning, meaning Kata or techniques, that advocate the use of the ha to defend edge to edge.

    As far as the use of the shinogi and Mune, the strength of their use is relative to the methodology of their use. The art I am familiar with would work with a live blade. That's all I can say. Have you tried and tested what you know?

    Sorry, Your Iai teacher not withdstanding,training to not use an edge but to use other means to parry, slide parry, or block with the mune as opposed Someone who trains to do "otherwise" or someone who trains to "use" an edge, are different things all together.

    Theoretically "Worrying" about the edge is a non issue..... I cannot imagine being "attached" to that. If it were to happen, it happens.
    Even in the dojo. There is simply no time to think of that.

    In the end, it's about training, whether you plan to use it or not.
    Either way I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

    Happy new year Earl

    Dan



    [Edited by Dan Harden on 01-16-2001 at 06:19 AM]

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario
    Posts
    292
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Dan Harden

    To try to mix disparate arts in this way is a recipe for mediocrity in my opinion.

    And Aikido , kendo and setei-iai do not function the same way that effective weapons do. Or atl least in the way that I and apparently dozens of others here have come to know them. I would find the concurrent study of any, or all of the above, to be self defeating.
    Only dozens Dan..? My, the million or so people in the Kendo Federation must all be out to lunch, eh...
    Nulli Secundus

    Ed Chart

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Carrollton, Texas
    Posts
    64
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Dan Harden



    Yes I have it. I also have a computer version. If you were going into a duel lets say and not combat wth armor. You may sharpen your soft steel sword to a "very" sharp edge, It will hold that edge against flesh. But even bone can deform an edge that soft. Inversely at a rockwell of 60-62C it oculd even chip it if the edge is too fine (I did that on a hog hip while proving out the theory that an edge must have sufficiant support with the body
    Who cares though, in our scenerio the guys dead


    Okay, I see where you're going finally. Cutting swords of any type or hardness are not very effective against people in plate armor. Chain is slightly different, but swords still aren't the weapon of choice. Swords are best used against the unarmed and unwashed masses of peasantry and when it comes to taking a shot at the other knight in shining armor, you use your lance, war hammer or mace. When fighting a man in plate harness, the suggested method was to use the long sword in a "half sword" manner to sort of poke at the holes in the armor. No swords were made to cut through steel armor, and your rockwell 62 edge would probably fare less well than the rockwell 52 edge from trying. At least the 52 edge could be banged straight and resharpened.

    One last thought and I think I'll let this topic drop for now: Some European weapons did have hardened edges. Of course not all of them, but enough to make it clear that they did know the technique. I would expect it was either a special service sort of like having your car undercoated or perhaps a specialty of certain smiths. I do know that it was more common during the days of chain armor than in the days of plate which makes sense. I don't have any data on the hardnesses or methods I'm afraid. I'll see if I can find some though.

    I appologize if you thought the hollywood swordfightin' comment was a personal dig. I was trying to make the point that swords are designed to cut things a hell of a lot softer than they are, and that edge retention isn't a big deal for a steel juggernaut carrying as many as ten implements of destruction, a couple of spares back in the tent and a few squires to go fetch a new one and resharpen the old one. We both know there's nothing that will mess up a sword faster than an edge on edge parry, regardless of the hardness of your edge.

    Oh, and I wasn't the one who started using the term broad sword.
    Dan Beaird

    The best time to be a hero is when all the other chaps are dead, God rest 'em, and you can take the credit.

    H. Flashman V.C., K.C.B., K.C.I.E.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Lindenhurst, Illinois
    Posts
    1,114
    Likes (received)
    0

    Lightbulb

    Sorry, Folks. I need to back up to the sword/spear thing.

    The tenor of one source I was reading seemed to support the idea that archeologists had a hard time getting the Japanese government to support investigation of mounds from the Yamon period. Apparently a contributing factor to this was evidence that the three most common items uncovered in these mounds were Korean pottery, mirrors and spear points. The conclusion by the author seemed to be that rather than support the contributions of Korean culture to the establishment of Japanese culture as we know it, the strategy instead was to let sleeping mounds lie. However, excavations seem to support the idea that the queen of battle was the spear, and swords were secondary and rapidly became associated only with the nobility and trained cadre rather than the common foot soldier (much as was the fashion to use the horse in battle as it was introduced by Korean emigres). The more I listen to people discuss this material, the more I find myself believing that martial tradition as we know it now in the 20th century is more a product of how we wish it had been, or how people lamenting the impact of firearms on the battlefield wish things had been (in the bad ol' days). I remember a comment made by an individual reflecting on the romance of the American Old West and sharing that only about a third of cowboys were White. His conclusion was that this little stat was often overlooked because most romantics could relate two-thirds of American cowboys being Black, or Hispanic to what they saw in the media. That same program also mentioned the travesty of believing that gun fights and gun fighters were anything like Gary Cooper in HIGH NOON.

    I think this romance thing is hitting me hard today as I reflect on a documentary I saw last night on MS-NBC on violence in the penitentiary system. In 60 minutes of viewing I didn't see one stance, one spinning heel kick, and not a single Nunchuk. What I saw was blurs of motion in which people were pummeled and stabbed many times in scant seconds. Had I blinked I would have missed it--- literally.

    I can't shake this growing feeling that somewhere between 1700 and 1900 somebody started selling a bill of goods to a people that deperately wanted to buy it up. They in turn seemed to have found willing customers here in the States.I don't mind a little romance now and then, but it would help us all to identify and report it as such, ne?

    Best Wishes,

    Bruce W Sims
    http://www.midwesthapkido.com
    Bruce W Sims
    www.midwesthapkido.com

  9. #69
    Guest

    Default

    Dang,

    You guys have been busy!

    I was going to explain that my question about spears & and sophistication had nothing to due with spearmanship or the forging methods of the blade. It was a comment on the shaft construction methods and inherent lateral weaknesses of all the Japanese pole arm designs. Dan and I have discussed this a little in the past but this thread has shot of in another interesting direction.....so.....

    Thanks Dr Friday for your input and opinions. They are much appreciated!

    Tobs

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    113
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Bruce,

    I have just finished reading your comments about the special on violence in the prison system. As a former Correctional Officer, I can confirm what you witnessed in the report. Among the inmate population the level of violence is startling. The most common modus opperandi is to stalk the victim, hit quick then drop the weapon and walk on as if taking a Sunday stroll. Variations can occur depending on the message that is being sent. If the attacker approaches from the front and the attack is weaponless the most common form of attack is the right-handed hay baler. The receiving inmate usually leans backward often loosing his balance. The fight usually ends up on the ground. When a weapon is involved and killing is the purpose, an upward stab from the front attempting to pierce the heart underneath the rib cage is preferred. Sometimes a razor is melted to a toothbrush or comb and a throat slice is attempted. Surprise is always the tactic used in an assault against inmates and staff. One of the most interesting things I have learned from my prison experiences is how durable the human body is, at least among the brutes of society. I have seen inmates with all kinds of various and sundry injuries some even with 9mm Glaser round wounds. Most of the tough ones just take these attacks and injuries as apart of prison life and it is not that big of deal. There are also attack specialists that train the beginners in tactics and target areas. Many prison gangs have their own codes of conduct and fitness requirements. Some have a blood in blood out pact as well. This means you must make a committed hit on someone to become a full member of the gang and if you try to leave the gang, the remaining members will attempt to take your life.

    On an interesting note, I was talking to an inmate one day and he related to me a story about a fight he had witnessed at another prison on the exercise yard. It was between two Asian prison gangs. Hearing his story reminded me of the song, “Everybody was Kung Fu Fighting.” He said these Asians were performing all manner of flying kicks and acrobatics off the lunch benches. He said that all the other inmates just stood around and watched these guys fight each other until staff intervened with chemical spray and batons. It was apparently quite an exhibition. Most of the Asians were all little skinny guys near the 5-foot mark so I guess they could get away with all those acrobatics and flying kicks without doing too much damage.

    Sincerely,
    Scott R. Brown

  11. #71
    ben johanson Guest

    Default

    Bruce wrote,

    "The tenor of one source I was reading seemed to support the idea that archeologists had a hard time getting the Japanese government to support investigation of mounds from the Yamon period. Apparently a contributing factor to this was evidence that the three most common items uncovered in these mounds were Korean pottery, mirrors and spear points."

    "However, excavations seem to support the idea that the queen of battle was the spear..."

    This deals with the "Yamon" (I'm assuming you either mean Jomon or Yamato?) period, which was way before the martial traditions of Japan, indeed even before the samurai caste itself, developed. The era in question in this discussion has mostly been the Sengoku period, which was much much later. I fail to see how the conclusion based on very early evidence from the "Yamon" (Jomon? Yamato?) period that the spear was the "queen of the battlefield" is applicable to the much later 16th century (unless you're talking about excavations of Sengoku period sites, which I don't think you are).

    Besides, the biggest contribution from the mainland to the establishment of Japanese culture, in almost every area, was undeniably made by the Chinese in the Yamato, Nara and Heian periods I believe. True, the lines of cultural exchange between Japan and China may have passed through Korea, but the mainland source was, for the most part, China, not Korea. I'm not sure, but I would guess that, in light of this extensive contribution from China, any influence on Japan directly from Korea is almost negligable, if not nonexistent.

    Bruce:
    "The conclusion by the author seemed to be that rather than support the contributions of Korean culture to the establishment of Japanese culture as we know it, the strategy instead was to let sleeping mounds lie."

    I don't see how the existence of Korean-made objects in Japanese mounds of about 1,500 to 2,000 years ago constitutes a significant cultural contribution when compared to the influence of China on Japan. But if I'm totally off base here, please enlighten me.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Lindenhurst, Illinois
    Posts
    1,114
    Likes (received)
    0

    Lightbulb

    Dear Ben:

    "...in almost every area, was undeniably made by the Chinese in the Yamato, Nara and Heian periods I believe. True, the lines of cultural exchange between Japan and China may have passed through Korea, but the mainland source was, for the most part, China, not Korea. I'm not sure, but I would guess that, in light of this extensive contribution from China, any influence on Japan directly from Korea is almost negligable, if not nonexistent....
    ...I don't see how the existence of Korean-made objects in Japanese mounds of about 1,500 to 2,000 years ago constitutes a significant cultural contribution when compared to the influence of China on Japan. But if I'm totally off base here, please enlighten me...."
    __________________
    Ben Johanson

    Yes, you are totally off-base. The LoLang colony which is documented as a primary trading location and point of exchange was located in Korea. Metalugical studies seem to support the transfer of forging and weapons technology from Korea to Japan. The immigration of Korean ancestry from Paekche to the Japanese islands including their martial traditions are also documented.Nor would you want to discount the introduction of Buddhist thought attributed to Korean rather than Chinese exchange. We are not talking 1500 to 2000 years ago. Rather these were developments during the Three Kingdom period (C 400 to 700 AD). As far as I am able to determine the single greatest contribution from the Chinese culture was the influence of Tang dynasty Confucianism which could only be approximated rather than copied owing to the interesting governmental form developed in Japan at the time.

    I wouldn't surrender my position though, were I you. The view that Japan owes little to its continental cousins across the Sea of Japan has been popular for quite a while. Ask any good ultra-nationalist worth his salt and they will tell you that Japan did it all-- by themselves- with no in-put from anyone.

    Best Wishes,

    Bruce W Sims
    http://www.midwesthapkido.com
    Bruce W Sims
    www.midwesthapkido.com

  13. #73
    ben johanson Guest

    Default

    Bruce,

    No, I don't think I was TOTALLY off base at all. What I said was that, although the lines of cultural exchange passed through Korea and then to Japan, there was little or no direct influence of the former on the latter (emphasize direct). All Buddhist doctine that came to Japan from the mainland was Chinese (or, going back even further in time, Indian) in origin. Yes, the religion was passed on by the King of Paikche to the Japanese court in about the year 552, but the major reason that Buddhism spread to Korea and then to Japan is because of the favour which it enjoyed under the rulers of the Wei and Liang dynasties of China. If not for China, the arrival of Buddhism in Japan may have been delayed for centuries (if it ever would have arrived at all), totally altering the course of Japanese history. Korea simply acted as the middleman between the two countries, not as a direct source for cultural exchange.

    "We are not talking 1500 to 2000 years ago. Rather these were developments during the Three Kingdom period (C 400 to 700 AD)."

    500 AD, which is included in the Three Kingdoms period, was exactly 1,500 years ago. By the way, is the term "Yamon" a Korean word? Because there is no period in Japanese history known by that name. Just curious.

    "...the single greatest contribution from the Chinese culture was the influence of Tang dynasty Confucianism which could only be approximated rather than copied owing to the interesting governmental form developed in Japan at the time."

    Actually, it ran deeper than that. The Japanese, in the 7th century adopted the T'ang Chinese system of land tenure and taxation with very little change (the Reform Edict of 646). It was only later, through experience, that the refomers realized they followed the T'ang system too closely and that the Japanese situation was too different from that of China for a wholesale adoption of the latter's system of government. This episode in Japanese history (the adoption of Chinese ideas of government) was absolutely integral to the later developement of a native system, for indeed, without it, Japan would not be what it is today.

    (I could go on, but I'll end it here.)

    My overall point was that, although Korea's position as the middleman between China and Japan was essential for the transmission of ideas and doctrine from the former to the latter, any DIRECT contribution to Japanese thought Korea may have had (if she had any at all) pales in comparison and significance to the influence of China on Japan.

    By the way:
    "I wouldn't surrender my position though, were I you. The view that Japan owes little to its continental cousins across the Sea of Japan has been popular for quite a while. Ask any good ultra-nationalist worth his salt and they will tell you that Japan did it all-- by themselves- with no in-put from anyone."

    This is not my view at all and I think both my previous post and this one prove that.


    Regards,
    Ben Johanson

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Lindenhurst, Illinois
    Posts
    1,114
    Likes (received)
    0

    Lightbulb

    Dear Ben:

    This really isn't rocket science, and we are not discussing some obscure historical backwater. The choice is really very simple. Either you give credence to the contribtuions of the Korean culture for their influence on the development of of Japanese culture and martial tradition or you don't. Even the quote that you used in your response states that "...reformers realized that they followed the Tang system too closely and the Japanese situation was too different for a wholesale adoption..." Isn't that what I said? My sense is that your investment in "proving" yourself right may make it difficult for you to participate in an even-handed exchange of information to our mutual benefit. From the position at which I find myself I have a genuine envy to those sword people who seemed have been able to exchange information and views without getting caught-up. For myself I have been through these doorways and over this information way too many times to attempt to moderate what are apparently cherished points of view.

    Your position, and welcome to it.

    Best Wishes,

    Bruce
    Bruce W Sims
    www.midwesthapkido.com

  15. #75
    ben johanson Guest

    Default

    Bruce,

    "This really isn't rocket science, and we are not discussing some obscure historical backwater. The choice is really very simple. Either you give credence to the contribtuions of the Korean culture for their influence on the development of of Japanese culture and martial tradition or you don't."

    Tell me exactly what in history is this cut and dry? Nothing I know of. Ideas should be based on evidence and analysis of data, and historical ideas are no exception. All I'm doing here is presenting evidence to support my ideas. I hoped you would respond with further evidence to support your claim, hence continuing what could be a very lively and interesting debate, but instead you chose to break from the discussion and to start launching personal attacks. I really think this is unwarrented.

    ""...reformers realized that they followed the Tang system too closely and the Japanese situation was too different for a wholesale adoption..." Isn't that what I said?"

    Yes that's what you said, but you left out the most important part of the above quote, which stated that, originally, the Japanese adopted the Chinese system of government without changing it significantly. Only later did they adapt it to the Japanese situation. I was not really arguing with you on this point, I was simply expanding on what you originally stated to illustrate the importance of the Chinese influence on Japanese government. Like I said, the situation ran deeper than you made it appear.

    "My sense is that your investment in "proving" yourself right may make it difficult for you to participate in an even-handed exchange of information to our mutual benefit."

    I really resent this comment. An "even-headed exchange" was exactly what I was trying to achieve with my posts by stating my theory/opinion and supporting it with evidence from a reputable source. I am not so much concerned with "proving" myself right, but with, like you said, exchanging information for our mutual benefit. Instead of attacking me, why don't you continue this great discussion by proving me wrong with evidence of your own? That's how debates are conducted-with each side presenting evidence to support their conclusions, not by attacking each other.

    "For myself I have been through these doorways and over this information way too many times to attempt to moderate what are apparently cherished points of view."

    I do not have a "cherished" point of view on this. I, just like anyone else on e-budo, am searching for information. I have certain views on things based on what I've read and studied. Any corrections or additions to my knowledge base are totally welcome as long as they are supported with evidence or accompanied by a reference to a source. It seems to me that you are the one with the "cherished point of view" that you can't let go of even in the face of strong opposition and that you also don't seem to be able or willing to prove with supporting evidence.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. A sword grip question
    By Jerry Johnson in forum Sword Arts
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 13th October 2002, 15:26
  2. Question about some videos
    By Kevin73 in forum Aikido
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 4th June 2001, 03:42
  3. Built for swordsmanship?
    By Andy Mayer in forum Sword Arts
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 22nd December 2000, 17:50
  4. Question on Modern Methods
    By Keith Frederick in forum Fumio Manaka- Jissen Kobudo Jinenkan
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 5th December 2000, 14:34

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •