Likes Likes:  0
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 112

Thread: Blocking with katana

  1. #31
    Tony Alvarez Guest

    Default

    Gentlemen,

    It seems that this thread went from swords that get cut to swords that got broken!

    In ether case . The style of swordsmanship that i study and all of the other sword systems that i have been involved with dictate blocking or parrying with the Shinogi or the Mune.Not the Ha!
    However, to say that the Ha was never used to block with in a combative environment is stretching it a bit. Iv seen plenty of evidence from blades that have survived over the ages that the "Oh shit block" did exist. It just isn't suggested.
    As Mr. Harden and several others have mentioned . The blade is made of hard and soft properties. The hard being the "Ha" of the blade and the sorf being Just above the Hamon through the Mune.
    Blades that have had regular contact on the Ha are more suseptable to chips and cracks that will most likely lead to irreversible damage. When i say this i mean that the blades are beyond being put back into full polish and are deemned un-structurally sound for combat. I know you guy's know this , but i had to cover all of the finger pointer's out there!
    Anyway, a blade in my oppinion that has been struck either on the Mune or the Shinogi is more likely to "Live to fight another day".
    Why, because the softer areas of the sword will not cause the harder areas to fracture in a contact situation.
    The reason that i say this is because when the "PROTOTYPE" blade that i was using in the demo last year broke. It had a consistant crack or fracture line all the way to just below the Mune. From there it seemed as if it just peeled away at he softer end of the blade.

    As i stated in my response to the SwordForum thread regardless of what had happened, I was the one taking responibility for the blade breaking.
    I sent the blade to Howard for his evaluation of it and then sent it to Paul Chen to do a final study of the steel.
    Since then, i received confirmation that the blade was a forging flaw as it had been hardened close to 3/4 of the way up from Ha to Mune.
    I then took this information to Howard and the conclusion was that it was very realistic given the way that the blade came apart.
    Again, I still take the blame as i gave the cut to much power . Thus having to exit the target the way that i did and driving the Kissaki into the leg of the stand. From there Snap, Crackle, Pop!
    The outcome of Paul's testing goes back to what i said about the blade having a straight fracture area and then looking as if the top layer's kind of peeled away .
    Again, Howard seemed to agree with this synopsis.
    Also, for the record. Even though the Hira Zukuri design is structurally weeker than the Shinogi Zukuri. That blade had never been bent before it broke.
    This is why that type of blade is only a prototype and not a production piece.

    I hope this gives light to what you are thinking

    BIG TONY

    Bugei Trading Co.

  2. #32
    hg Guest

    Default

    Hmmm, a lot of metallurgical statements in a lot
    of posts, accompanied by some rather high-handed remarks about Japanese sword teachers. If one devises some "objective" tests to test the blocking abilities of swords, then one should not use a test in which the sword is used in a way which is not possible or reasonable in combat. In this forum, some very proud person announced the superiority of modern steels above un-enlightened Japanese medieval steel in bending tests. So what? Even my Japanese Kitchen knife came with the explicit instruction: Never use it to wedge or lever (written in English). And you did not wedge or lever open an opponents armor, though the analogy between a warrior and a canned sardine is tempting.



    1. I don't think that putting a sword in a vice is a good test for a sword. Maybe one reads about a vice-like grip on a sword in some Fantasy-Novels, but in general Japanese sword teachers will tell you not to have a vice-like grip. Your muscles will cramp, and the opponent will easily circumvent your block because you cannot loosen your position and counter in time.
    Even if you try holding your sword in a vice like grip with both hands at the handle, the impact at the blade will create a leverage which does not allow the same "full inelastic impact" as a sword in a vice. The most "vice like grip" you can have if you gave the right hand at the handle, the left hand hold the mune behind the monouchi. Then there will be no leverage effects, but- then you can only use the ha for blocking, else you cut yourself. Musou Jikiden Eishin ryu has such techniques in the Tsumeiai (Kata/Kumitachi, Namigaeshi and Yaegaki, not to be confused with the kata of the same name), but it is pretty last-minute-stuff. All other impacts will be much softer.

    2. Musou Jikiden Eishin ryu has another "block" with the ha with both hands at the tsuka which works in two stages: The uchitachi is cutting
    vertically (kiriorishi) down on the shitachi.

    a) The shitachi receives the cut: From a position holding the sword horizontally in front over his head, the ha faces the incoming blade, he strikes (kirikomi) the opponents ha
    (slightly from the side, not from the front). Because the shitachis blade impacts vertically, but the uchitachis ha is struck from the side, the damage on the uchitachis blade should be heavier then on shitachis blade. It should also dissipate a lot of kinetic energy.

    b) After the impact, shitachi is slowing down the opponents blade by holding against uchitachis downward motion and tilting the sword so that the final position is with the mune of the shitachi blocking the ha of the uchitachi. (Can be continued with a sideway move, freeing the blade and cutting the do of the uchitachi, sideway move would be difficult if ha is against ha with
    notched blades)

    This technique (Deai, Mappou in nanahon no kata) is not always performed correctly in exhibitions, and then it looks exactly like a daft block with
    the ha.

    3. Usually, there is a life after the block, at least there should be. If you do a one-handed block, at the moment of the impact it does not
    matter very much whether you use ha, shinogi or mune (only for the sword). After the impact, literally push can come to shove, and though a
    "backhanded" impact may be as strong as a forhanded one, it is much more difficult to mobilize strength one-handed in the backhand-direction.


    4. If you are doing Iai and you have to draw and block, the fastest block is with the ha, because the fingers are already in the right direction, if you want to block with mune or shinogi, you have to additionally twist your wrist and you are loosing time you may not have.


    5. What happens in the case where the block fails? Some poster argued that one should protect ones assets, and me meant the sword. But if the
    block with the mune fails, and you cannot withstand the impact of the opponent, you own ha will go where you wanted the opponents ha not to
    go- usually into parts of yourself. If you block with the ha, you will be struck by your own mune- not nice, but definitely preferable to getting
    struck with ones own ha. Blocking with the shinogi usually involves twisting ones wrist (at least if doing the block kata-te), and if you cannot withstand the impact, who knows which part of your sword will meet you first.


    6. Above I cited Otake-shihan of the Katori, saying that the sword will break if it receives a cut on the mune, and I also said I saw a sword
    with cuts on the mune which did not break. What I should have explained was, that I am sure Otake-shihan knows that there are swords around
    which did not break (after all, he is also sword surveyor of Chiba prefecture or something like that). What he means is: Use the
    ha for the impact in the kumitachi, because in the real combat situation you will avoid blocking anyway and will try to cut into the
    opponents hands and arms. Testing swords in a vice and saying: "see, it did not break" is besides the point: Use the sword in the way it was intended to
    used, cutting into soft parts.

  3. #33
    hg Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by carl mcclafferty
    Hans


    I would also caution that just because a three hundred year old sword has cut marks on the mune you should not conclude that its owner was actually a competent swordsman or survived the encounter nor that the cuts were obtained in actual combat. But it is refreshing that the blade survives so it can be examined.

    Thanks
    Carl McClafferty
    PS I hoped you enjoyed Otake Sensei and his Son's enbu.

    Actually, I am shure that the current owner of the shword would have mentioned if the previous owner was killed. Actually, I am shure the current owner would not have bought the sword if a previous owner was killed using it. I got a lecture on who was killed at which occasion with the sword, and which parts of the victims have been cut. If you want a night with really horrible dreams, spend half an hour in said sword owners companies listening to his accounts of historical suicides, killings, battles and duels and I guarantee for the result

    And I really enjoyed Otake-Shihans Demonstration

  4. #34
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Tucson, arizona
    Posts
    282
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Uh, The current owner knew the previous owner that cut off peices 300 years ago?
    Okay. I'm having nightmares already. I think this post is dead, goodbye.
    Carl McClafferty

  5. #35
    Dan Harden Guest

    Default

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by hg
    [B]Hmmm, a lot of metallurgical statements in a lot
    of posts, accompanied by some rather high-handed remarks about Japanese sword teachers.


    There were no high handed remarks.
    Experience in one area does not equate to experience in another.
    Free thinking, testing and analysis usually win out for me.

    ****************
    Hanz:
    If one devises some "objective" tests to test the blocking abilities of swords, then one should not use a test in which the sword is used in a way which is not possible or reasonable in combat.

    me:

    I disagree
    It is far more reasonable to devise a test that exceeds the demands of the test object. This ensures the design parameters or "in-service" use of the object will be below its test demands.
    I explained this in some detail. If you did not "hear it" there is no use in repeating it.
    It is incontrovertible logic to me

    I am quite content that the structural engineers I employ disagree with you as well.
    It makes me feel safer with thousands of people walking about my Buildings.

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

    Hanz
    In this forum, some very proud person announced the superiority of modern steels above un-enlightened Japanese medieval steel in bending tests. So what? Even my Japanese Kitchen knife came with the explicit instruction: Never use it to wedge or lever (written in English). And you did not wedge or lever open an opponents armor, though the analogy between a warrior and a canned sardine is tempting.

    Me:
    Other than your obvious sarcasm, there was a point in my posts. I fail to see any value in this contribution of yours
    There is no pride in the tests or materials stated. It is simply fact.

    Would you like to discuss the hard won knowledge through repeated failure by many smiths?
    Would the discussion of years of testing, sweating, bleeding and failure make you realize the humility and tenacity involved in gaining that knowledge?
    There is no pride in that. Just confidence, hard won confidence
    At least our knowledge is first hand.
    I and others I know, take nothing at face value, regardless of the source.

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

    Hanz:
    1. I don't think that putting a sword in a vice is a good test for a sword. Maybe one reads about a vice-like grip on a sword in some Fantasy-Novels, but in general Japanese sword teachers will tell you not to have a vice-like grip.

    me:

    Your techniques and descriptions are not really relevant to the test limits. They are far below the limits of an adequetly forged blade
    You do not, or cannot, uderstand the concept of a testing procedure that exceeds the design parameters of the weapon.
    Further, the use of the Vise and the comparison to the softer hand held grip was explained in detail.

    Are you being sarcastic, or dismissive, or did you have trouble understanding the explanation?

    Vice like grip? For a sword?
    Your kidding right?

    *******************
    Hanz:

    Use the ha for the impact in the kumitachi, because in the real combat situation you will avoid blocking anyway and will try to cut into the opponents hands and arms. Testing swords in a vice and saying: "see, it did not break" is besides the point: Use the sword in the way it was intended to
    used, cutting into soft parts.

    me:
    Agreed.....but

    Although the truth of the techniques lies in cutting the opponent and using position instead of blocking, Get out of Kata and into randori a bit; you may be surprised at what will and won't work for you, regardless of teachings.

    Training is training
    Ryu's teaching is Ryu's teaching

    From the onset of a soldiers training to his facing an opponent was much shorter then than now.
    Now we have the twenty year men; then you had soldiers in training to fight.
    How long do you suppose it took to get Menkyo then as opposed to now?
    Do you think the technical aspects of relevant techniques got better? Deeper? It would be interesting to go back in time and see how much any of them got to absorb prior to having to use what they learned in battle. And when the long protracted training syllibus started up.
    So in talking about techniques of the average Johnie- soldier VS the one year trained guy VS the five year "Master." As compared to the twenty year men- where do you suppose all this sublime technique was to be found?

    How much do you think they really used the weapon in combat?

    In the combat scenarious you were quoting do you think that an antagonist was able to get through armour openings and cut without clashing everytime?
    Do you think contact with armor didn't happen?
    Do you really think are intrepid little beetle bug man ONLY touched soft parts with his blade??

    I just think your explanations are a bit simplistic.

    At any rate,
    IF you want to be sarcastic and dismissive and allege "fantasy" as you did in your response; we could get into a lengthy discusion of Martial arts and artists in general.
    There is much to be said in that regard.

    I agree with Carl ....... this is played out

    Cheers

    Dan
    Last edited by Dan Harden; 4th June 2001 at 05:45.

  6. #36
    hg Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Dan Harden
    Hmmm, a lot of metallurgical statements in a lot
    of posts, accompanied by some rather high-handed remarks about Japanese sword teachers.

    There were no high handed remarks.
    I didn't like the: Sensei , Shihans, Soke's and whatnot aside, their considerable skills do not make them all knowing.
    [B]
    Originally posted by Dan Harden
    I disagree
    It is far more reasonable to devise a test that exceeds the demands of the test object. This ensures the design parameters or "in-service" use of the object will be below its test demands.
    I explained this in some detail. If you did not "hear it" there is no use in repeating it.
    It is incontrovertible logic to me
    I disagree. It is pointless to test a part (the sword) of a mechanical system (sword-arm-shoulder) under conditions the rest of the system cannot sustain. If you build a building to withstand a earthquake of strength 7 , but your
    foundations will yield in an earthquake of strength 5, something is wrong. The point of blocking is not only a problem of the blade, it is
    a problem of arm- and shoulderstrength.
    Just because you can reach the yield point of the blade in a vice does not mean you can reach if it is hold in one hand.

    [B]
    Originally posted by Dan Harden
    Iand others I know, take nothing at face value, regardless of the source.
    I never take anything on face value.
    If someone says: Something is proven under this and that condition, I allways think: Do these conditions really apply?
    [B]
    Originally posted by Dan Harden
    Your techniques and descriptions are not really relevant to the test limits. They are far below the limits of an adequetly forged blade
    You do not, or cannot, uderstand the concept of a testing procedure that exceeds the design parameters of the weapon. Further, the use of the Vise and the comparison to the softer hand held grip was explained in detail.
    The thread started not about test limits, but about which part of the sword is used best for blocking. That is not only a matter of the blade, but also of the technique. A combat situation is not a situation where you can choose your initial conditions arbitrarily.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Long Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    318
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Hanz - et all,

    "if you want to block with mune or shinogi, you have to additionally twist your wrist and you are loosing time you may not have."

    "But if the block with the mune fails, and you cannot withstand the impact of the opponent, you own ha will go where you wanted the opponents ha not to go- usually into parts of yourself."

    "Blocking with the shinogi usually involves twisting ones wrist (at least if doing the block kata-te), and if you cannot withstand the impact, who knows which part of your sword will meet you first."

    I'm not trying to be confrontational but the above statements are untrue, based on what system you study. And implies that perhaps you do not have techniques for blocking with the mune and shinogi within your practice.

    I am not a smith I am a swordsman. I understand why our system uses the mune and shinogi for blocking because I have seen and felt the results of both types of blocking that have been dicussed here.

    Performing such blocking and deflection techniques is not simply just a matter of doing the same technique you usually do, but with the mune or shinogi. Your techniques are designed to work in a particular manner and the specifics and mechanics of such things are not necessarily interchangable.

    Most of the posts on here that speak out against using the mune or shinogi have been by those who have not been given instruction in how they are to be done, have seldom or never done them themselves, or haven't even used a real sword before.

    If you have not been given proper instruction, in any technique, and do not use it in your regular practice then you cannot properly judge the efficacy of those techniques. It all becomes academic if not actually put into use.

    We have direct blocking and deflections performed with the mune and shinogi, they are practiced regularly. I have also done such with live blades at full speed. In one such practice the person I was working with was unable to properly position the blade, due to reasons of his own, and the blade he was using is now a saw that is beyond repair. The blade I was using had some cuts and scratches on the side and back but the edge is usable, the sword was not bent, and I was never in danger of getting cut by my own blade.

    "That is not only a matter of the blade, but also of the technique. A combat situation is not a situation where you can choose your initial conditions arbitrarily."

    I agree here completely. But if you do not have those techniques and know how they are done then you cannot with any authority or experience speak on how they don't work, the effects they have on the blade, or how dangerous they are.
    Richard Elias
    Takamura-ha Shindo Yoshin ryu
    Yanagi Ryu

  8. #38
    Dan Harden Guest

    Default

    Hanz

    I would agree with Richard here. In fact, I find no instance where the blade was returned to me when parrying/blocking.
    We sometimes practice the Kata with much force "added" for training purposes. This type of training has built up positional, center based, strength (no not muscle) and speed wthout any sacrifice of mobility. I have never seen any of my students waiver or falter with someones Bokuto coming at them to the point their bodies collapsed.
    The ability to hold off a committed power strike and use its power to counter with, is really not that difficult. I have taught many novices to do it and have seen other stlyes do it with ease. I struggle to see where you are having difficulties with it

    Are you perhaps refering to one handed Iai parrying / blocking? I have seen that fail many times. But that is one hand against two.

    The times I have seen or felt other Kenjutsuka of differing styles, I have seen no essential weakness to the pont of their shoulders, arms collapsing.
    To be in a position where your shoulder/arm is the support mechanisim suggests a fundemental strategic failure to me anyway- that is not where your power should be coming from.


    >Deleted diatribe of structural engineering from the foundations up-as well as explanation of testing that exeeds use. <
    It doesn't seem to work with you

    I question whether or not we are still having an informative exchange or a merely arguing.
    I don't want to waste time arguing

    Dan
    Last edited by Dan Harden; 5th June 2001 at 03:00.

  9. #39
    Guest

    Default

    Guys,

    Here is the bottom line to this whole thread.

    Talk is cheap. Experience isn't. Experience entails consequences. Talk is well.... talk.

    If you think that blocking or parrying with the ha is the way to go... heck... go out and do it with your own shinken sometime. Full power, full speed. Stop talking about it.

    But... be prepared because swordsmen with experience are telling you that it will likely so severly damage your sword that it will be compromised as an effective weapon. After your experience send us here at e-budo pictures of your new Katana mounted..... saw.

    BTW..

    I am familiar with the blade Richard Elias described. It was a sound and servicable blade before the person in question performed his kumitachi (with witnesses) incorrectly by parrying with the ha instead of the shinogi. The resulting damage to the blade was sobering. In only minutes the blade was irreparably converted into a coarse hacksaw. It is now beyond repair. Ruined, wrecked, unservicable.

    Like I said, if you don't believe those posting here with actual experience, put down your bokken and go out and wreck your shinken by blocking or parrying with the ha. It's called learning! And experience is.... the ultimate teacher.

    Good Day,

    Toby Threadgill

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Carrollton, Texas
    Posts
    64
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Throughout this thread I've seen a lot of discussions about how swords work and don't work under conditions that frankly, none of us have experienced. We talk about battlefield conditions against armored opponents and blocking full strength cuts if it be on ha or mune or on your grandma's petunia pot. I have two perspectives on this, a historical perspective and a practical perspective.

    From the historical perspective Japanese swords are not optimized for facing an armored opponent. Japanese armor would most likely turn any cut that hit it unless, (and possibly even if) the wearer braced himself to take the impact. On the battlefield, facing men in armor the sword was a secondary weapon, much like a modern machine gunner might carry a pistol. The steely eyed killers used weapons that were capable of defeating armor; when it came time to draw your sword, chances are you were already losing. Talking about the effectiveness of swords against armored opponents is like comparing the effectiveness of a .45 Colt automatic against a tank. Yeah we all know Audie Murphy captured an enemy tank with one, but it was hardly an every day experience.

    From a practical perspective and I might add one without extensive training in JSA but good experience in other sword arts, when someone swings a sharp weapon at you, the correct answer is to do whatever it takes to keep the blade from hitting you. If your sword winds up looking like a crosscut saw afterwards that's not as important as being alive to buy a new one. Swords are tools that are meant to be used, like any tool they will break and they will wear out with use.

    Finally, I see the term block being used quite a bit in these posts and it implies that the motion of an attacking blade is stopped and absorbed entirely by the blocking blade. In actual use a block is the least efficient of defenses, an attack should be parried which isn't a block but a deflection of an attack in preparation for your own attack, the force of the attack is redirected (often combined with voiding) and allowed to spend itself rather than having to be absorbed in a sword breaking block. I'm sure all of this is obvious to most of you who have been following this thread but from appearances many of the posters have adopted either an unrealistic view of armed combat or are describing it in terms that don't seem to make sense in my own experience.
    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.

  11. #41
    Dan Harden Guest

    Default

    Dan

    Some good points, some not so good

    As far as you’re opener;
    "Throughout this thread I've seen a lot of discussions about how swords work and don't work under conditions that frankly, none of us have experienced."

    I realize you your intent was to clarify that we were not "there" in battle.
    But you should at least come to terms with the fact that there are men who have tested these blades (old and new) to destruction, and who train with live blades using the shinogi and mune. In that regard you may be talking to men who have decidedly more experience than many out there.
    You do not have to like it or agree with it. But there is a knowledge in it all its own.

    ********

    Your comments about historical accuracy’s I may agree with. Further, One needs to concede that many Ryu teach ha blocking. If you belong to a Ryu that does it that way, that is what you will do.
    Since no one has to create a NEW sword style for combat anymore that should be enough.
    If one were to "choose" to optimize his training though, There are people out there using old Ryu techniques, and pushing the limits. A cross comparison could be jujutsu, there are a few people taking Koryu principles and techniques and updating them for modern application. It is "outside" and quite viable in and of itself.
    There is knowledge to be gained there that is within, yet apart from the battlefield paradigm.

    *************
    Blocking

    You said
    "From appearances many of the posters have adopted either an unrealistic view of armed combat or are describing it in terms that don't seem to make sense in my own experience."

    What statements are you referring to? And what personal experiences are you referring to? I recited several, other recited more

    Several were specific in stating that "blocking" is an oh @##$$ technique. Parry/sliding and reversing would be more appropriate.
    But we are talking about parrying, sliding with the shinogi / mune

    Did you miss that?

    Secondly I discussed "in some detail" the superiority of positioning,

    Did you miss that?

    Thirdly, the reality of the encounter should be to avoid and cut.

    Did you miss that?

    Further, at least one other contributor agreed to all of the above

    Did you miss that?


    Wherein do you see anything unrealistic?

    ***********

    Your description about encounters and "bracing yourself to make an impact on a hard object, I covered as well. Going further to state that planting your feet and bracing yourself would probably be suicide. I made a distinction between planted feet power and moving power
    But I also examined that further; stating that one would be going for openings in the armor

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

    You stated:
    The correct answer is to do whatever it takes to keep the blade from hitting you. If your sword winds up looking like a crosscut saw afterwards that's not as important as being alive to buy a new one.

    I disagree
    For me
    The correct answer is to train to do what is best. Inculcate that response / movement into your wiring.
    Otherwise you can throw the idea of Mushin out the window and revert to the flight or fight adrenaline dump.
    We should be training to install instinctive movement in ourselves.
    If I have to beat my body into an OH@##$% response. I will endeavor to make good use of that.
    To simply say "who cares, I'll wreck my sword and buy another doesn't cut it for me. I'll take the thousands of hours to teach my body to say "I'll respond better than your average bear and win as well."
    Even having to stick within the governing techniques of a Ryu, I would personally go for broke to make "me" better.
    Excellence and all that.........
    It takes no more time to train one way then another.
    There is superior technique out there to be had.


    Should I ask you pay ten grand for a shinken and I told you, you absolutely had to use it to save your life then kill an opponent; then I offered you four thousand hours to perfect your skills before the event what would you prefer to do?
    Since you had to learn one way or the other, I would choose to train to use techniques that preserve the blade and kills the foe, to one that sacrifices the blade and uses a portion of the blade to kill the foe
    Seems reasonable to me


    On the whole, I found the arguments for those who use the back and edge to be sound and experiential to their training.
    The detractors have not submitted anything of merit, other than.
    "Sensei told me not to do it"

    None of this is important in life anymore, So I hope for a reasoned discussion without anger and sarcasm.
    We all like Budo. Think of it as shoptalk

    Dan
    Last edited by Dan Harden; 5th June 2001 at 11:52.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Carrollton, Texas
    Posts
    64
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Hi Dan,

    I'm not going to quote your entire post or try to respond to all of it, as usual it was well written and to the point. Like always we disagree on a few things so I'll pick at those. I'm sorta grabbing out of your stack here at the things that stuck most in my mind.

    First off, about testing to destruction. This is an important part of testing, but it's not the only part or indeed even the most important part of testing. What's important is does the tested object work reliably and efficiently within it's required scope of operation. Any sword can be broken and the fact that one sword breaks before another does not necessarily make it inferior to the second. Since swords are handcrafted items (any that are worth using anyway) testing to destruction does not necessarily prove anything about other blades made by the same hand. Smiths have good days and bad days too. Like art, it's by judging an overall body of work in a non-destructive manner that a smith's work is judged. Destroying a sword to test it only allows approximations of data on similar swords.

    Since you admit that blocking is a defense of last resort in the fight, it becomes more obvious that the ability of the sword to block is subordinate to the other qualities that it requires. In this case most sword construction would probably follow Stalin's Dicta that perfect is the enemy of good enough.

    My entire post wasn't meant to disagree with everything I've read here, just parts of it and the overall impression made upon me about the subject of blocking. My experience is adequate to discuss the subject intelligently, but I don't feel the need to post a resume in order to participate in this discussion.

    The idea of going for "openings" in armor seems to ignore the dynamics of combat. Certain targets may present themselves but with both combatants moving, attacking and defending these targets will be fleeting and hard to hit. Still a strong blow to an armored opponent while perhaps turned by the armor may be enough to stun or incapacitate a limb. More likely a swordsman finding himself against an armored opponent would attempt to use the point of his weapon perhaps even using half swording techniques to be able to deliver thrusts which can possibly punch through the armor. I've seen examples of a few of these techniques in my studies.

    Your final statement seems sort of at odds with itself. You admit that blocking is a defense of desparation, but also seem to think that by training you'll learn how to use this desparation tactic in a battle winning manner and keep your sword intact. Put it like this: every pilot who flies over water learns or at least reviews the method used to ditch the plane. Not one of them ever expects to be able to fly it again afterwards, they only hope to survive. A block can result in a broken, chipped, bent or otherwise damaged sword, superior craftsmanship and training may mitigate this to an extent but the fact remains that blocking is to be avoided when possible, and when blocks are made the swords will be damaged by the impact.

    I approve of trying to achieve excellence through training, but you're an engineer, that sword is still a sword whether it's held by Musashi or some guy who learned to swing from watching the WWF. I've probably broken twenty or thirty blades in my life in one manner or another, I know that the sword can break and that it will break if I do things with it it was not meant to do. Even normal use and practice will damage a blade through stress. Like any tool, swords wear out. A good craftsman learns to recognize when the reliable life of a tool is spent and replaces it.
    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.

  13. #43
    hg Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Richard Elias

    Performing such blocking and deflection techniques is not simply just a matter of doing the same technique you usually do, but with the mune or shinogi. Your techniques are designed to work in a particular manner and the specifics and mechanics of such things are not necessarily interchangable.

    ..... If you have not been given proper instruction, in any technique, and do not use it in your regular practice then you cannot properly judge the efficacy of those techniques. It all becomes academic if not actually put into use.
    Agreed. I wanted to point out in my above post that we have some blocks, which are actually blocks- attempts to bring the blade of the opponent to a halt, because you have no space or time to deflect the opponents blade and move your body out of the way. As far as parries and deflections are concerned, we have those too, usually with shinogi or mune, depending on the situation. But I have never been able to perform a block (in the sense of stopping the opponents blade as a last resort) without anything other than the ha (if the opponent was comparable in strength and speed with me). Not that I didn't try. If your ryuha has blocks which with something other than the ha, i would be very keen to know in which situation they are applied and how the sword is held.

  14. #44
    hg Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by carl mcclafferty
    Uh, The current owner knew the previous owner that cut off peices 300 years ago?

    Carl McClafferty
    The current owner showed me an article on the sword in one of these "Nihon no Bujutsu Reikishi" or what they are called magazines. There article showed also reproduction of a drawing of the
    duel (in color, of the moment where the blade went into the opponent).

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    135
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Both Yanagi ryu kenjutsu and Komagawa Kaishin ryu kenjutsu have blocks that stop the blade. The techniques are quite different however there is commonality in that all are done using either the shinogi or the mune. There is a picture of one such shot on the Bugei website. I will try and post some others when I get my dojo website up and running.

    James
    James Willliams
    Kaicho
    Nami ryu

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Imperial Forge High Carbon Katana
    By Ryo Hazuki in forum Buy, Sell, or Trade
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12th September 2005, 06:29
  2. Straight bladed ninja-to
    By Hurtzdontit in forum Ninpo and Ninjutsu
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 19th August 2005, 03:11
  3. Question on katana blocking
    By cesarjohnson in forum Sword Arts
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12th May 2004, 19:37
  4. Cutting test of Shogun Katana and Tiger Wakizashi
    By Toyamadude in forum Sword Arts
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 14th December 2000, 15:18

Posting Permissions

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