Likes Likes:  0
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 112

Thread: Blocking with katana

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Long Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    318
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Hans,

    We hold the sword as you normally would. Most of it is in the positioning in relation to the body and the opponent's blade. We also will loosen the grip of the forward hand slightly and use the back hand to make small turns of the blade, then regrip with the forward hand. It takes less than an instant to avoid using the ha.

    Now not all are done in the above manner, some don't require turning the blade at all. And I will reiterate that it is not just a matter of doing the same form as others would but with the mune or shinogi, though this can sometimes be done, it has to match the rest of the movements that are in your style. A lot of it has to do with where you put your body, blade position, and make contact in relation to the opponent and his blade.

    It's all very specific and difficult put across in just words alone.
    Richard Elias
    Takamura-ha Shindo Yoshin ryu
    Yanagi Ryu

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Moffett Field, CA
    Posts
    896
    Likes (received)
    3

    Default

    Just a few disjointed words.

    I have a tanto made from a (I think) broken katana blade. It has two "chips" on the mune where the former monouchi would have been. The form of the cuts makes it clear that an opposing blade struck mune (the cuts are triange-shaped, with the apex facing the kissaki). I have no clue if this was combat damage, of someone playing around.

    Nakamura Taizaburo was a combat-kenjutsu teacher, teaching kendo/jukendo from 1932; then, army sword techniques from 1939-1945. I'd say his experience is worth listening to.

    1. "Blade to blade [that is, metal-to-metal] contact is to be avoided because swords break in combat." This point was made very clear last year when Joe Svinth posted a copy of a 1936 Nichi-Nichi Shinbun article about a swordsmith being contracted by the army to repair over 30,000 broken/damaged swords in China. Because of the damage that can occur in extremis, Nakamura sensei's kumitachi drills have none of the neat weapon-to-weapon exchanges as do other schools; instead, we are supposed to apply "issun maai" (one-inch interval) and "taisabaki" (body maneuvering). I never asked him specifically about edge-to-edge contact as by that time, I had already been taught it is a last resort measure.

    2. "Blades struck on the mune will break or bend." Sometime after the war he experimented on 5 meito (swords by well-known smiths). All 5 either bent or snapped when struck. I presume the blades were supported, lacking any flex; however, I don't know how the support was rigged. Sensei's admonition is "Supported blocks [uke-tome] are bad; sliding parrys [ukenagashi] are good." However, he states the ukenagashi is a very weak defense -- the weakest element is the wrist, followed by the elbow. What I learned: it looks nice for kata, but just try to avoid the blade in the first place.

    Granted, he maintained no notes about his experiments -- which really frustrated Chris Bowen when he stopped by one evening during his research of Tokyo swordsmiths. And, I have no idea who the blades were made by, what condition they were in, what sort of blade sensei was using, etc. All sorts of questions which I'm sure we'd all like to have answered. Oh ... but there are two photographs of two different blades that were bent at about 45 degree angles due to Nakamura sensei's informal test! If you want a scan, e-mail me and I'll send them (give me time to get the book scanned first, okay?)

    3. Finally: a sword can chip even when hitting a human. My assumption is extrapolated from Nakamura sensei's experience in killing three head of cattle at the war's end (to feed villagers & troops). Even he chipped a borrowed sword because his technique was not quite on target that day. Read the article http://rudy.bay-ad.com/~guypower/kenshinkan/cattle.html

    Wish I had more anecdotes to relay.

    Oh, Dan ... many of us old-timers (and perhaps a few not-so-old)really do understand a Japanese sword is just a man-made tool and that will eventually fail either through intended use or unintended abuse. It you smiths who are pressured. You are self-driven to produce the best weapon that your ability will allow(and always trying to exceed your current ability). I hope you guys never get fed up and quit.

    Carl,
    You and Dan have more in common than you know.

    Regards,
    Guy
    Guy H. Power
    Kenshinkan Dojo

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    82
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    An essay by Fukunaga Suiken titled "Nihonto no oremi" (Breakability of Japanese Swords) in the book Nihonto wazamono nyumon (Introduction to Japanese Swords of Noted Cutting Ability; 1972, pp. 23--82) is relevant to the above discussion. Fukunaga reviews the history of sword durability tests and their results.

    In 1943 the Japanese Army devised a 3-fold test for new swords: 1 - impact test, 2 - straw bundle (makiwara) cutting, 3 - iron rod (3 mm by 10 mm thick) cutting.

    The impact test consisted of placing a sword on a stand where it was supported only at each end and repeatedly dropping a 3-kanme (about 25 U.S. pounds) iron weight onto the center of the blade from an ever-greater series of fixed heights. First the weight would be dropped from a height of 15 cm, then 25 cm, then 35 cm, and so on until the sword broke. Blades from each smith were subjected to three kinds of impact tests. The weight was dropped on the side (hira), on the cutting edge (ha), and on the back (mune) of the blades. Fukunaga (pp. 40--44) analyzes the results of the first round of tests conducted in November 1943. He charts the performance of blades from each smith on a graph that shows the height from which the weight was dropped, how much the swords bent, and when the swords broke. Here are the results for side vs. edge vs. back.

    =======
    Side (hria): the worst results were from a blade from an unnamed smith which bent 40 cm (or 40 mm?*) on the fifth impact dropped from a height of 55 cm. The best results were from a blade made by Takefuji Hisahiro (Fukuoka Pref.) which finally bent 35 cm on the ninth impact dropped from a height of 95 cm.
    * The text says "mm" but the charts say "cm" (same for all three results)
    =======
    Cutting edge (ha): the worst results were from a blade from an unnamed smith which bent 11 cm on the eighth impact dropped from a height of 85 cm. At that same point in the test a blade by Takefuji bent only 3 cm.
    =======
    Back (mune): the worst results were from several blades that broke when the weight was dropped for the first time from a height of 15 cm. The best results were from a blade made by Sakurai Shinkoku (Nagano Pref.) which bent only 8 cm on the sixth impact dropped from a height of 65 cm.
    =======

    The bottom line:
    Objective tests performed by the Japanese Army showed that stationary sword blades supported at each end broke most easily when struck on the back of the blades. Sword blades withstood the greatest impact force when struck on the cutting edge.

    Fukunaga notes that in spite of the fact that everyone always identifies the main defect of Japanese swords as being their inability to withstand blows to the back (mune uchi), Sakurai proved that it is possible to create a sword that can overcome this weakness.

    After the tests were completed, the blades were cut in half and subjected to metallurgical analysis. The smiths had used a variety of construction techniques (i.e., makuri gitae, hon sanmai awase gitae, kofuse gitae, etc.). Interestingly, the construction technique did not seem to be a major factor in blade performance, although blades with hard skin steel on all four sides (shihozume gitae) tended to perform worst while all the best performing swords were simple makuri gitae or kofuse gitae. Fukunaga states that the critical factor was the depth of the core steel, particularly how close the core came to the hardened edge (ha). Blades in which the softer core steel extended down almost to the hardened edge steel performed best, while the worst performance was by blades with edge steel so thick that the core steel began further away from the edge. Since the cross sections of the blades are so small, minuscule variations mattered a great deal.

    Fukunaga also reports on many other kinds of tests. I will just mention two more.

    (1) Tokugawa Nariaki (1800--1860), the ruler of the Mito domain, devised the following series of tests for the swords used by his men. 1 - bo tameshi: one person holds a sword in a seigan stance while a second person strikes it forcibly on each side with a stick about as thick as a human wrist. 2 - makiwara tameshi: cutting straw bundles. 3 - tsuno tameshi: cutting deer antlers. (Fukunaga reports that it was very difficult to produce an edge angle that could cut both straw bundles and deer antler equally well.) 4 - mizu tameshi: striking the flat side of the blade against the surface of water. Supposedly this final test produced the most failures. Unfortunately, detailed results were not recorded.

    (2) In 1937 the magazine Token kogei (Sword Industry) wanted to determine whether Japanese swords could withstand the rigors of warfare during the cold Mongolian winters. They took 12 swords and chilled them to minus 60 degrees Celsius. Then they asked Kurimoto Shinzo (who is identified as a "Yagyuryu" shihan) to cut with them. All 12 either broke or bent immediately.

    By the way, the term wazamono was popularized in the book Kaiho kenjaku (1815) by Yamada Asaemon Yoshichika who personally rated the cutting ability of swords produced by about 180 smiths. The essays collected in Nihonto wazamono nyumon are not concerned with those traditional rating, but attempt to summarize the state of modern (ca. 1960s) knowledge about the cutting ability of Japanese swords. Other contributors include Yoshikawa Kentaro (on the relationship between polish and cutting ability), Tokuno Kazuo (on lineages of sword testers), Wake Yutaka (on metallurgy and durability), Nakamura Taisaburo (on swords that can cut and cannot cut), and Hyakutake Masayu (on standard methods for tameshigiri) as well as a round table discussion with several other swordsmen and smiths.
    William Bodiford
    Professor
    Dept. of Asian Languages & Cultures
    UCLA

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Moffett Field, CA
    Posts
    896
    Likes (received)
    3

    Thumbs up

    Dr. Bodiford,

    Thank you for an extremely interesting post. You saved the best (to me) for last:

    ...Nihonto wazamono nyumon are not concerned with those traditional rating, but attempt to summarize the state of modern (ca. 1960s) knowledge about the cutting ability of Japanese swords. Other contributors include Yoshikawa Kentaro (on the relationship between polish and cutting ability), Tokuno Kazuo (on lineages of sword testers), Wake Yutaka (on metallurgy and durability), Nakamura Taisaburo (on swords that can cut and cannot cut), and Hyakutake Masayu (on standard methods for tameshigiri) as well as a round table discussion with several other swordsmen and smiths.
    Any chance of me obtaining the pertinent section by Nakamura sensei?

    Regards,
    Guy
    Guy H. Power
    Kenshinkan Dojo

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Long Beach, CA, USA
    Posts
    318
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    I totally agree that if you have a stationary blade supported on both ends and dropped a weight on the back it would break.

    You are allowing the weight to strike it in the same direction that it is curved. Because only the ends are supported, the greatest stress would be on the opposite side of the blade where the weight is dropped. And since the ha is harder and brittle it will not flex with the weight but crack and cause the blade to break. It’s like how some who do board breaking demos will make small cuts in the under side of the wood to make it break easier.

    When you turn the blade over you are putting the pressure against the curve (where it is stronger to begin with) and the area of the blade that is receiving the greatest stress is the mune which is softer and will absorb the shock better.

    It’s also like striking the top of a triangle, the force of the blow in distributed throughout the base. Blades are somewhat triangular with the mune being wider and the ha sharp and pointy.

    Swords are designed to withstand the force of a cut along its edge.

    I will reiterate what I said earlier. It’s not just a matter of the structure of the blade, it’s a matter of technique. The mune and shinogi can be used to deflect and block a strike without bending or breaking the blade. And without having to take a blow on the edge. It’s mostly a matter of body positioning and timing. Also the body can be allowed the bear the brunt of the force so the blade doesn’t have to. Just because the blade is the point of contact doesn’t mean it will take all the force. The body and the arms are flexible and absorb the shock just as the mune does when the weight is dropped on the edge. The force of the blow is distributed throughout the body. It's simple physics really.

    Basically, if you want to block with the edge, and that is what is taught in your style, then do so. But I personally train with live blades on occasion and can’t afford to be buying blades and polishes. And besides that, it’s not what is taught in our style. I don’t know that it is really any better or not, that’s just the way we do it and it works for me.

    Both will work and you should do what you are taught to do. Just know that (like in every other aspect of martial arts) not all styles do things the same way, and if you are not taught how to do it properly it may not work for you and may even be dangerous.
    Richard Elias
    Takamura-ha Shindo Yoshin ryu
    Yanagi Ryu

  6. #51
    Dan Harden Guest

    Default

    Thank you Mr. Bodiford for proving my case
    The test proved that placed in a devise that puts the maximum stress on the ha (back up, belly down) the ha failed. That is why the one hardened deeper toward the shinogi failed.
    Placed in a device that puts maximum load on the back (Ha up, back down) the back was the strongest.

    The test need not have been done, and those swords ruined.
    The results could have been predicted once the conditions of the test were made known.
    I am quite surprised that no one explained this to them before the test.
    Do you suppose that that the shape of a Katana has anything to do this?
    How do you think the test results would have turned out had the same convex curve been presented- but with a soft edge and hard back?

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

    Perhaps this is another case of "expert" sword people doing something entirely out of their field of expertise, and being given mistaken credibility in one field; because of their expertise in another.
    Since some of these men were “sensei” their statements will be listened to and quoted ad-hominem.
    Now we only have to sit back and watch as the misbegotten results of this test are quoted throughout the years; from one dojo to the next, and the results are “analyzed” by still more *swordsman* who don't know or understand what they are seeing; culminating on a day when the student of one of these men walks up to another practitioner who does otherwise....... and says
    "HEYY!! you can't do that. My teacher told me it won't work."
    I can picture the practioner looking at him askance and saying "Gee, thanks for telling me."
    Then continuing to do what he knows works and works well for the next thirty years
    Its sort of like staring at the big white mushroom and telling Oppenhiemer “You can't do that. My teacher told me it wouldn’t work.”

    As I said before
    Technique is technique
    But Steel is steel
    *********************

    Testing:
    Two people submitted first hand test results to counter the notion that the Mune/shinogi would fail. They were done independently and without either party knowing the tests or results.
    The conclusions were identical

    The point was rather simple
    The test was devised to determine if a sword could absorb impact from an edged weapon from the side and back.
    They did
    The test also revealed they could do so and then continue to cut

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

    For some, this is an academic exercise; others "do it" on a regular basis. I do not know most of these men who are agreeing with me, nor have I seen their technique-but it is obvious that like me, they have experience in using a sword this way- they have also done destruction tests like I have and don’t have failures like the ones quoted either.

    At the end of the day...If your style defends with the ha, or doesn't use the ha, or whatever- that is what you will do and that is enough. No problems there.
    Telling others their technique will fail if they parry/block whatever with the Mune or shinogi, causes a problem for some people here who know better and have a serious background doing otherwise.

    Oh well
    Dan
    Last edited by Dan Harden; 11th June 2001 at 04:41.

  7. #52
    Dan Harden Guest

    Default

    Other interesting topics could be the shape of the blade
    One of the tests commented on edge angle and its ability to cut straw VS deer antler
    Modern smiths call this edge geometry. Since very little written information survived, modern knife/sword smiths have been testing on their own for decades now and comparing notes.
    For our discussions here a few things of note:
    a flat edge angle; easy to polish will cut soft objects well (straw)
    a rounded angle; called cannard or appleseed edge will cut hard objects well.

    So your Iai-yo is nice for constant swinging
    tameshigiri-yo with flat edge for cutting grass
    tameshigiri-yo with rounded edge for battle

    flat shinogi-with hi-for constant swinging
    raised shinogi-with hi-for stronger constant swinging
    Flat shinogi-no hi-for tameshigiri with grass (best cutter)
    raised shinogi-no hi- for cutting hard objects (strongest cutter)

    Flat ridgeless design for ..........machetes
    and not much else (imho)


    Dan
    Last edited by Dan Harden; 10th June 2001 at 19:37.

  8. #53
    Dan Harden Guest

    Default

    I was digging around the archives for a friend and ran into this from a while ago. Haven't seen such in depth talk for awhile.

    People agreeing and disagreeing, and in general just being ourselves-opinionated budo people. And all so gentlemenly like....gees

    Dan

  9. #54
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Posts
    135
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Weren't strikes with the back of the blade mentioned way back at the beginning of this thread? James Williams has mentioned some Japanese swords with short back edges near the point, like their Chinese or Western equivalents. Could these techniques have originally been designed as back-edge cuts?

    Jesse Peters

  10. #55
    Dan Harden Guest

    Default

    Jesse
    So few of those were made that it isn't worth discussing. It's like talking about those late nineteenth century single shot, gun /knives. Just curiosities.

    The thread is more on the debate of slide blocking, and parrying with shinogi and mune. Not stiking or direct blocking. On the whole it leaves open the question of research done by modern smiths and Kenjutsu exponents:
    1.Those who have worked with steel on a regular basis and are long time Kenjutsuka who have opinions about their research.

    That matched the same results of those across the continent who had...

    2. Repeatedly tried to cause failure in swords and have whacked, bent, slammed, and abused blades on purpose and in vises in direct contact-a far greater stress then anything hand held would offer.

    Add to that...

    3. The WW2 tests quoted that support that. The backs- when placed in tension under heavy weight; held. The edge under tension? Failed.


    In contrast to:
    1.Field manual reports of what may have happened to some Japanese swords produced in the Sengoku Jidai. A very valid opinion by the way, since many of those swords were reportedly substandard due to the pressures of having to equip large numbers. Sort of like what we did to our boys in Nam.
    2. A plethera of Koryu arts that support edge blocking- possibly due to the uneven quality of swords produced and handed to them due to the steel and Kobuse forging methods used in their time. Soldiers are very practical you know.

    Just some interesting information and contrasting opinion to put under your bonnet.

    Dan
    Last edited by Dan Harden; 6th March 2002 at 13:46.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Palo Alto, Ca, USA
    Posts
    1,324
    Likes (received)
    1

    Default

    Dan:

    I seem to have understood Dr. Bodiford's post to mean exactly the opposite of what you seem to believe it means.

    First, I think that all of us are in agreement that parries, sliding blocks, wards, or whatever you call them, that is, techniques where the full impact of the enemy's blow is not absorbed by the blade but is either redirected or completely avoided if possible, are far to be preferred to any technique where you just stand there and take the full brunt of the enemy's attack. This really goes witout saying, it seems to me.

    That being said, Dr. Bodiford's post clearly states that, UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF THE TEST, which seemed simply to be a test to gauge how best the sword would absorb a direct impact (that is, a reproduction of a "worst case" scenario) that the sword best absorbed a direct impact if it took it on the edge.

    It seems that you interpret the results of the test otherwise, if I am not misunderstanding you completely. Throughout this thread, and in other threads dealing with the same issue, if memory serves, you have maintained that blocking with the egde is the worst thing to do (because of potential edge destruction) and that using the shinogi or the mune is the best approach. If we assume that you believe that STOPPING the enemy's strike with the shinogi or the mune is the best approach, then I would say that Dr. Bodiford's post directly contradicts this view. If we assume that you are advocating using the shinogi or the mune to REDIRECT the power of the enemy's strike (which is what you are advocating if I understand you correctly), so that the blade never statically receives a great deal of energy, then I am not sure what, exactly, the test Dr. Bodiford describes proves other than that the mune and the shinogi are the worst parts of the blade to use for STOPPING a blow.

    This does not address the issue of whether the test was properly conceived or not, of course, just what it is supposed to prove.
    Last edited by Earl Hartman; 6th March 2002 at 22:40.
    Earl Hartman

  12. #57
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Tucson, arizona
    Posts
    282
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Folks:

    This was probably one of the best discussions on the subject, I've seen in a long time. Maybe one of the best discussions I've seen on E-budo.

    Carl McClafferty

  13. #58
    Dan Harden Guest

    Default

    Earl

    To make it simple when the load is placed on the mune (edge down)- The opposite side and the ends (complex calculation) will carry more load. They will either deform or fail. And the edge cracked and failed.
    When a load is placed on the Ha side (edge up) the mune carried the load and the shape distributed the load more evenly over the arc.

    Again the subject is a complex one in that during the time period where they were used the most-the swords were nowhere near uniform in quality. Mostly due to the realites of fielding an army with weapons made under the pressures of mass production. Add to that the simple fact that some methods are just inferior to others. The kobuse method frequently will leave a very soft and courser structure exposed on the mune. This lower foundation forged piece will not absorb impact as well as tempered steel (Otake's soldier manual quote). Others were using more complex folding methods, some simpler but methods that still afforded more refined steel which did not expose such a weakness. If one Japanese smiths research is correct- Masamune did not use a core method, just folded his steel like many of us do today. This would leave a much higher quality peice of steel throughout the piece, greatly reduce the chances of unseen weld failures and overall leave a higher quality piece of steel in the back.
    The idea that they needed a soft core was simply not true. Complex folding is not always better with steel- in fact you increase the the chance for a weld failure. Go past a point and you will ruin your efforts entirely. The Japanese NBTHK researchers in Leon Kaps book attribute it's resurgence due to shin shinto smiths trying to recreate the look of the Koto blades. I'll leave that question to my betters.

    So the questions are really
    What is the quality of the piece?
    Who made it?
    And how?

    Again as James And I have put forth;
    While some older blades did fail. Others (ones we have purchased )
    And new ones (Made by myself, by Howard Clark and Paul Chen) have survived surprisingly similar "tests to destruction." And these were done independently, on opposite ends of the continent, without the knowledge of either party. For the first time they were revealed here.

    I think that in summation the best weapon is:
    Simple folding with no core
    A raised profile shinogi
    No Hi
    Significant Hira Niku (which will also spread a cut)
    and proper distal tapering
    and a low clay application to the body to produce more strength

    Nothing is indestructable-but that's about the best you will get.
    and THAT along with $1.50 will get ya a cup of coffee


    Carl
    Has been fun eh?
    Who says Budo people can't get along.

    cheers
    Dan
    Last edited by Dan Harden; 9th March 2002 at 00:32.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    29
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Originally posted by Dan Harden
    3. The WW2 tests quoted that support that. The backs- when placed in tension under heavy weight; held. The edge under tension? Failed.
    Oof. This comment was a bit hard for me to understand - atleast before your second explanation.

    So what you meant by this is that when pressure is applied to the edge, the backs held? And that when pressure was applied to the back, the edges did not hold?

    Sorry about this rehashing, I'd just want to get it straight in my mind for once and for all.

    Thanks,
    Nuutti Kotivuori

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    135
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    I agree with Dan's opinion on the strongest most functional katana design and construction. My opinion comes from personal experience as one who uses swords extensively. I have never forged a blade so I cannot speak to that side of the equation however I have used many different swords made with various design and construction techniques.

    Because of my relationship with Bugei Trading Company as well as my interest in ancient Samurai military arts I have spent considerable time cutting with, testing and abusing Japanese swords both modern and ancient. And for those of you who block with the edge, if that discussion is still viable in this thread and I don't recommend the practice, you will be looking for new swords and that may be good for business.

    Modern sword construction has evolved to the point where many blades will equal or exceed the performance of ancient blades. From an aesthetic standpoint this is not yet the case in this country, however I believe that most American smiths are probably more performance oriented. There are some very beautiful swords being made here however and some have the Japanese believing that they were forged in Japan.

    Speaking to some of the testing that has been done, it is may experience that if you can hold a sword absolutely rigid that most can be broken or badly damaged. This is not however the reality of combat usage, unless say you smash the blades together. As I have expressed in previous posts it behooves the warrior, even in battle, to use his blade in a way that will preserve it’s integrity and function. To fail to do so is perchance to die. In our most recent Bugei catalog I chronicle two such instances in which samurai, just pre-meiji, broke their swords in fights and subsequently died in that conflict. I have no idea the quality of their swords or the exact circumstances that caused them to fail, however that failure was fatal. Knowing how hard it is to break a well made blade I would have to guess that technique and or circumstance put them in that position.

    I am not one who accepts everything that is taught as traditional/classical in Japanese swordsmanship without trying/testing how it would work in the real world. I am fortunate in being in a position that if I damage a sword in that process it is not the only one that I have. Many of the motions that are taught as a part of particular ryuha do not translate well to actually cutting with a blade. While tameshigiri is not combat and many of the cuts are not necessarily combat cuts the sword must still be able to cut with the motion that the practitioner is using. This is what swords do. If this is not the case, if you are interested in what would actually work in combat, than the practice needs to be looked at and not just accepted on account of because. While this may seem blasphemous to some this is actually how swords styles evolved from the old days. This questioning keeps the style alive, blind imitation is certain death.

    Yesterday, as part of a seminar at my dojo, I cut for six hours. Opportunities like that give you a chance to really explore how to cut, why some techniques work or work better than others. You get to explore how different blades and designs perform in regards to particular aspects of cutting and stress. This is only one aspect of sword work of course however it is an important one.

    I agree with Toby Threadgill, Dan Hardin, and others on this thread. If you really want to know, go out and try it. Then we can have a real discussion and perhaps further all of our knowledge on this subject. Whether or not a samurai several hundred years ago could do this or that has only minor relevance to whether or not that would work for us. Be careful, some of this can get dangerous and expensive. There is, however, no substitute for first hand knowledge and experience.

    Yours in verbosity,
    James Willliams
    Kaicho
    Nami ryu

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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
  •