 Ambidexterity, two weapon fighting |
  |
 Aug 17 2004, 05:07 AM
Post
#126
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei  Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802  |
If someone cares to claim an insult that wasn't offered, I'm usually happy to offer it. That being said, the idea of "weakling women" (or anyone else you could put the term "weakling" to) fighting effectively with two the-longer-the-better swords is still something that all of my experience would lead me to believe is ridiculous. I'd forgotten about that claim. Having cooled off some, I've relocated it to "exaggeration" rather than "lying". My above comment about people who claim insults I haven't offered still stands. The fact that, as it turned out, we were talking about two different things when we were arguing over two-sword vs. one-sword (one sword held in one hand vs. one held in two hands) didn't exactly promote mutual understanding either. And yes, I'm underrepresenting my disagreement with him on this subject in an attempt at detente. ~J |
||
 |
 
|
||
|
Aug 17 2004, 06:26 AM
Post
#127
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
If you feel I was referring to you then that is your problem. I thought you and I had pretty much agreed on the same thing. musashi clearly stated to train with two long swords and you agreed. I found more video links to my fighting style and it clearly shows many fighters using two swords quite well for armored fighting purposes. I have already been whacked by a kendo martial artist enough to know that my superior upper body strength is not much of an advantage in swinging a boken. With no armor to protect me I will readily admit defeat to the superior skill with these faster weapons styles. With armor the fencer or kendo fighter is dead because he has never trained that way. Just like I am dead if I take my armor off and try to go against one of you. Do you agree?
OK, I will try to keep that definition in mind. Is there anything in particular that I have said you don't like? I will try and rephrase my answer if there is. I am just tired of constant insinuations is all. If you read back, I didn't even feel you were directing your comments to me and didn't respond to you until you started attacking my sport with insinuations. And you did jump to a conclusion over this boat house thing that turned out to be some movie joke. You don't have to directly call me a liar to convey the implication.
I hope you are not a guard. Unless I were a homo I do not think I could stomach having grown men bend over and spread their ass cheeks in my face all day. And I have spent my share of time in jail, and prison. I was a guest of the state of North Carolina for a few years back when I was a mean bastard.
Sure, but then instead of neutral and just leaving it at saying you feel I "believe" everything I am writing you then concoct imagry of someone that would obviously be considered stupid by saying people were taught that the moon is made of cheese. See my point here? As if my points are so outlandish it is like believing the moon is made of cheese. You are clever with your words and careful with the rules of the thread to get your little digs in?, I am just a high school drop out, I am blunt and to the point. It is a clash of personality. And if you are not questioning my honesty why would you be so quick to jump to the conclusion I did not know the color of some boat house? And then it turn out to be just some movie thing. Doesn't really fit with what you are now saying.
The only grandiose statement I have made that I am aware of is that I would fight someone's whole school without being touched, simultaneously. One at a time I am confident I can do it, because I have done it hundreds of times with new fighters and others who have not had alot of experience with full contact fighting. Everything else I have posted I can explain logically. If you think there is some wild claim I have made you are not comfortable with please do provide an example for and I will go into detail as best I am able.
I was only there for two weeks. Never made it to Oceanside either. The two most violent places in America one year per capita was #1 Oceanside, CA, and #2 Jacksonville, NC. Coincidence that our two largest Marine Corps bases are just outside those two towns, huh? My theory is that is not the Marines though as much as it is the locals preying on them and the willingness for Marines to fight why you had more chances of being a crime victim in those two places than anywhere else?
Musashi disagreed with you apparently. He claimed it was easy to wield two long swords and reccomended you train with them. So not sure what your disagreement could be? That you can't use two long swords? Did you look at any of the footage from the new video links I found? I didn't even know our group had those videos until one of the guys told me at last fight practice. And I take directly calling me a liar and insinuating it the same. I don't care to go back and read thru what was said, I have dropped it from my thoughts for the most part as I assumed it was pretty much at rest until you just mentioned you are holding something back that you disagree with me on? |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Aug 17 2004, 08:21 AM
Post
#128
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
According to tradition, Musashi wielded a katana and a wakizashi, not two katanas. In fact, he speaks out against relying exclusivly on long or short swords in the Wind Book. http://www.samurai.com/5rings/ http://members.ozemail.com.au/~priordan/gorinosh.html As for the Roman army, their primary advantage was discipline, not skill. Their strong formations made peronal combat skills pointless. This is clearly seen when in situations where they were forced to fight on terain where their formations formations were unusable. Regimented training with wooden swords is great for teaching basic attacks and defenses and making them second nature. Free sparing with wooden swords is great for teaching how to sparing bouts using wooden swords. As I said, sparing is important in that it prepares one to continue fighting after being hit and can teach many subtle things about body positionng and distancing. However, it must be regimented and carefully monitered, especialy early on, otherwise the trainees will devolp many bad habbits from exploiting their safety gear. Neither free sparing or regimented training teaches how to kill. The former teaches motions capibly of killing and the latter usualy does, as well. But, their are sublties there are tings that simply can't be reproduces. Fighting on one leg can't adaquatly prepare you to have the spiked end of a warhammer driven through the back of your knee and stabbing dummies can't prepare you to drive a blade through someone's gut and push him away with your shield before his can use the last of his strength to drive his blade into your neck. I have no doubt that any SCA fighter could destroy me in SCA combat. I'm argueing practical theory and strategy, not the superiority of one style over the other. The truth is that their is no such thing as a superior style, only superior warriors and suppior warriors aren't necessarilary the ones with the best skills. In a real battle, skill means little, it is just one small advantage out of many potential advantages and disadvantages. Winning is first about maximizing advantages and minimizing disadvanages and then about exploiting the enemy's disadvantages with your advantages, wihile preventing the enemy from doing the same. Musashi knew this. It is apparent from how he writes about strategy in the Book of Five Rings and from accounts of his duels. In sport, fitness and skill are most important. In combat, strategy, deception, awareness are far more important. No sport translates into combat. The fact the neither participant is activly trying to kill the other makes it completly different from combat. Rules and safety gear only compound this. The rules become advantages and disadvantages to exploit. If the rules change, the sportsman isn't prepared to exploit the new rules, you agree. Musashi teaches to be prepared to exploit any set of advantages and disadvantages. Getting back to the original topic of conversation, fighting with pared weapons of the same length creates disadvantages that an experienced warrior will exploit. With swords on on the street there's also the issue of concelability. When a cop asks "Is that a sword under your jacket or are you just happy to see me?", 'tis best to be able to honesty affirm the latter. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 17 2004, 08:57 AM
Post
#129
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 541 Joined: 2-August 04 From: South Africa Member No.: 6,531 |
In Chinese kung Fu they specialized in 2 weapons of the same size. The japanese Ninja would also fight with 2 ninjato. These where not as big as the Katana. though one could fight with 2 Katanas.
I have had the great pleasure of my grand master from Japan demostrate the Technique not tought. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 17 2004, 10:23 AM
Post
#130
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 486 Joined: 4-August 04 From: Fomorian Wastes Member No.: 6,538 |
Any chance that this thread will die? Feel free to disagree, but are these the points covered.
1) SR canon list is incomplete, to be used as suggestions. 2) Fighting with 2 "long" swords is NOT common 3) SCA is a full contact fighting sport that hurts 4) Unless your training includes getting hurt you are at a disadvantage 5) Authentic does not mean best, just authentic 6) Any MA that has a school has been effective at a point in time 7) MA styles can and should develop over time 8) Any developing style will improve; it may not be the "best" style but people are willing to try and make it so 9) "Traditional" just means we have been doing it for long enough that it is fixed behaviour 10) Nobody and I mean nobody likes to see their hard work denegrated 11) Two katanas = cool, but poor to concealability 12) Personal attacks cause retaliation; stop it! I have a book that has a title along the lines "Encyclopedia of Every Weapon and Armour Ever Made Ever". I can't remember exactly as my brother has it at the moment and we call it the "Big Book", the reason being is that it runs to thousands of pages and is nearly 10cm thick. Every conceivable melee weapon has already be developed and has it's own fighting style which evolved over time sometimes to the pinacle of its possible development. We used to produce specialist LRP/SCA-style weaponry in the UK and have personal experience of many forms of weapons. One of the perks was that you got to spar with your clients who have very varied styles, weapons, and body types. I do not claim to be an amazing swordsman, actually swords are one of my weaker weapon groups, but I know one thing. If you are a great fighter then your personal style is great, for you and if you want to win it had better be bad for your opponent. The yo-yo was first a cunning invention to kill wild pigs (a rock without the need to climb down from the tree to retreive it after attempting to brain the pig), then became a weapon and years after it was superceeded it became a toy. In fact the majority of weapons have their roots in agrarian tools. A katana has come a very long way from a sharpened stone, no? When you look at a list of weapons that comprehensive it makes you realise that any weapon list in any game has to be a summary. All historical MAs are based on resources, costs, physiques and combat environments. Modern MAs benefit from better access and understanding of these, but suffer because of a GENERAL reduction in the dedication of the student base. Just answer the following question. Is Bruce Lee's MA style pants? |
|
|
|
|
Aug 17 2004, 11:29 AM
Post
#131
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Yep, as far as the thread topic goes the two of us have come to consensus. I'm just pointing out why some of us may be reacting to you with such hostility. I didn't particularly think that the comment was or was not directed at me, I'm just pointing out that (like my earlier comment, mind you, I do realize) it's not going to reduce the adversarial feel of the thread. And if you check, I didn't jump on you about the boathouse thing, I actually objected to BitBasher apparently deciding that you didn't know after three minutes. Turns out it was a movie reference. Also, "this subject" in terms of my disagreement is the effectiveness of SCA as actual combat training, but I've realized that whether you're right or whether you're wrong, it's not important to me unless I either end up having to fight you or having you fight for me for whatever bizarre reason :) ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 17 2004, 12:37 PM
Post
#132
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 109 Joined: 28-October 03 From: End of Earth 2mi. Home 4mi Member No.: 5,764 |
Thank you Botch for getting my head out of all the details and and summing everything up.
Rory, I think the only thing left from your original post that hasn't been addressed in the list of weapons that you can dual wield according to SR cannon. Forget what the rest of the arguements are take it up with the only person who matters, your GM. If your GM agrees with you then go for it. If your GM doesn't agree with you then ditch the swords and get yourself a paddle. Because if your GM won't let you do it then nothing else matters in SR. "They're not so much as they are guidelines." Edit: As you can see from alot of the other topics on this forum there are lots of things about SR rules that people here have problems with |
|
|
|
|
Aug 17 2004, 03:44 PM
Post
#133
|
|||
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
Ummmm... I wasn't referring to anything. I was directly quoting the movie in reply. I'm a movie buff. I nearly always reply the next line anytime someone quotes a movie.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 17 2004, 04:10 PM
Post
#134
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I know. I didn't realize it at the time, and assumed it was an overly-hasty assumption that he wouldn't know and that this therefore meant something. I was incorrect.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Aug 17 2004, 04:41 PM
Post
#135
|
|
|
Avatar of Mediocrity Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 725 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle, WA (err, UCAS) Member No.: 277 |
Yes! Out-of-place movie quote strikes again!
Rory needs to watch Ronin, I guess. |
|
|
|
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
Aug 17 2004, 06:00 PM
Post
#136
|
||||
|
Guests |
But that's not the next line... unless you're quoting Gregor's repeating it back to Sam. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 17 2004, 06:55 PM
Post
#137
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 81 Joined: 22-July 04 From: East Lansing, MI Member No.: 6,506 |
I am big and tough. I can bench 600 pounds. The volume of my genitals greatly exceeds that of yours. You don't believe me? Here is a video.
<fake link> Seriously though, I think I'm slightly ashamed for having read as many of these posts as I did. For those of you who actually wrote stuff...wow. Take a minute and consider that this is a role playing game forum. -Joe |
|
|
|
|
Aug 17 2004, 07:33 PM
Post
#138
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
This is from the link you provided. apparently musashi says to train with a long sword in both hands....wow, just like sca fighters do. Amazing isn't it? No matter how you look at it an individual fighter should use weapons that fit his own strength. We learn to walk with two arms and two legs. Our center of balance is set in the middle because we are symmetrical beings for the most part. Holding a sword in one of your hands throws this balance out of whack, holding a long sword in one hand and a short sword in the other helps correct the inbalance, but it is holding two equal length weapons that returns balance to the body. In my opinion, anything else is unnatural. Thru training and use you can force your body to compensate, but it will always be what it is, a forced compensation. That is my opinion from thousands of hours of wielding a sword. The reader can take it for what he wants. "It is not difficult to wield a sword in one hand; the Way to learn this is to train with two long swords, one in each hand. It will seem difficult at first, but everything is difficult at first. Bows are difficult to draw, halberds are difficult to wield; as you become accustomed to the bow so your pull will become stronger. When you become used to wielding the long sword, you will gain the power of the Way and wield the sword well."
That is why the SCA combat style is so superior. The SCA fighter wears the exact same armor he would fight in, carries a weapon weighing the exact same amount as the weapon he would be using, and trains full speed exactly as he would in real combat. The other training methods that use unrealistically light weapons, padded swords that wobble and bend when you swing them, or do not allow full contact hitting can't come close to the level of realism the SCA has in recreating combat. The only difference in SCA combat and real combat is that the swords are made of wood, the arrows are blunted, and there are a few minor rules for safety (which every training style ever developed has).
What you just said does not make much sense. Ancient armies did conditioning exercises which included chopping a pell with a heavier sword and other exercises to build strength and endurance. They did discipline exercises which includes close order drilling and other things to get them to work as a unit. And they did sparring with wooden weapons to teach them how to kill. Ancient soldiers did learn how to kill from fighting for real. They all received training from someone or went on to design their own weapons and or fighting techniques. It is not reasonable to believe that killing is only learned from battle. I have already pointed out that our modern soldiers are able to go into battle where artillery and airpower are not a factor and make staggering kill ratios against long time combat veterans using nothing but small arms and the training they have received. Skills they learned thru non lethal training techniques. The same principle applied to any successful army back then. You trained as realistically as you were able so that when the time came to fight you already knew how to go thru the motions. That said, this is same flaw in training is applied to ALL martial arts equally. I am just pointing out you are wrong in that training is exactly what makes you a better swordsman. Whether it be SCA training or kendo training it is all the same. The real and only question is how close to real combat does one way of learning expose the student to when examining which produces the best swordsmen possible.
Avoiding to train from the hamstrung position would also ignore that you would ever find yourself in that position. There are alot more injuries that can bring you down than having your knee blown out by a warhammer. Are you suggesting to ignore that training or to come to fighter practice the day after you have been in a horrible car accident, so you can see how it feels to fight while you are in great pain so you will be adequately prepared just in case you ever got your leg amputated in battle? That really does not mean the training system used by the SCA is not the best system possible does it?
Ok, I am defending my style of training. But I am also disagreeing with some of your conclusions on training in general as well.
Like this statement for example. There is superior fighting styles, for example if I had to chose who my opponent was going to be it would not be a boxer who has fought in the ring, I would rather fight the guy who just shadow boxed for training. Get my point? They are both legitimate training methods, but a boxer who actually spars with a live opponent will be better trained fro fighting.
It sounds as if you are confusing massed warfare and combat. In single combat fitness and skill are just as important to the individual fighter. It would be a slaughter if a thousand kendo artists met a thousand SCA fighters in a full armored battle. Skill does have alot to do with it. Vice versa, it would be just as bloody a slaughter if the battle was fought unarmored, but with different results. I wonder if anyone gets this idea? Armor is the key. And it doesn't make any individual any better or worse "potentially" than the other. That is not an argument I would engage in. Either side can be trained in the other's way of fighting. After that it would come down to strength, speed, flexibility, reaction, and desire of the individual.
No, I disagree. Treating the fight realistically or not is a mental state of mind. Competition from tournaments promote a very real desire to excel. Not only does a martial art need realistic training methods to be effective, but it needs competition to push it's students to higher levels of ability. There are tens of thousands of fighters in the SCA, it is a large organization and covers this nicely. Other more obscure schools do not have the advantage of numbers. Other schools do not even have the advantage of competitions at all. The ancients had survival as a motivator and competitions. The Romans had problems with troops refusing to wear bulky body armor and casualty rates climbed when fighting the Vandals, Visigoths, and others. Discipline was not uniformly enforced. This just shows that even life and death motivation is not enough to maintain fighting ability. Competition, espre de corps, and unit pride went alot further. A separate point you seem to be trying to make here is that changing the rules of the encounter will have an impact on the outcome of the fight by virtue of having no training in the new rules. This is true, it depends on how restrictive your rules were and how radical a difference the new ones are. At one point face thrusts were not allowed in SCA fighting, when they were suddenly allowed one day there was no sudden change in who was winning fights and who was not. It apparently had little to do with the outcome of fighting. In the case of the SCA restrictions, not allowing striking below the knee makes it harder to attack the legs. In the real thing where any shot would count it would be much easier to make those shots. In that case training was tougher than reality. This is what many tank commanders said about fighting the Iraqis. Our training methods in Fort Hood are much tougher than the actual war is.
Musashi as I have pointed out also said to train with a long sword in each hand. And fighting with paired weapons of the same length creates much bigger advantages than disadvantages that an experienced warrior will exploit as well.
I have pointed this out as well, but it is sadly ignored, so is the long tradition of the Thais.
I am impressed. I wouldn't think that anyone not directly involved in the debate would be paying this close of attention. The list is not complete on the points made, but it is a wonderful list. Thank you for making it. I am pressed for time, but just a few more points: 13) Competition is good for honing and applying learned martial skills, and awards and ranks help provide the motivation to excel 14) Learning your techniques facing the widest possible variety of opposing weapons combinations and usage techniques is more realistic 15) Learning your techniques facing the widest possible variety of worn armors is more realistic for prepared battle encounters, but not necessarily for unprepared or civil encounters 16) Training full contact in single combat and large scale melees and wars rounds out a fighters skills as it applies to a much wider range of fighting conditions 17) There is no substitute for actual combat regardless of the method used for training, but matching realism as closely as safely possible is the best way to produce superior fighters able to engage in warfare effectively 18) Striking with precision at a smaller target in training will decrease the difficulty of scoring a hit when a larger target becomes available
This is true. I pointed this out in the beginning. I would add that humans are getting stronger and faster though. Not to mention there are alot more of us and we have access to far more information than any of the ancients did. In short we have alot of decided advantages that can produce better fighters. The motivation in general is lost I agree, but I am questioning if it is a factor in those who are interested in learning to fight. Certainly from those of us that do well there is no lack of motivation. And the growing appeal is a good sign. More competition is good and will drive the quality of fighting upwards even more. Real world jobs and lack of employment from fighting does dampen dedication as you say though, most definitely.
Which is something I could not have known since I watch very little cinema and have never seen the movie ronin, or even ever heard of it until now.
Nice little joke. Should I actually see it? I probably will now, just because it was used on me.
Nobody is twisting your arm. Beat it if you don't have anything to add to the discussion. I am sure alot of us could care less. I certainly don't. You have a good point though. The question I asked was can I use two long weapons in combat? I am not going for munchkinism you guys think is so terrible. I don't care if the extra katana is hard to conceal or not. And to get the same bonus I could use a butter knife according to the rules. I can even increase my range by choosing a more concealable morning star which is a one handed weapon and a whip as the secondary weapon to gain the extra reach advantage. That combination is "legal" according to the list. Anyone want to argue that it is easier to use two whips than two long swords? Or that a whip is useless for fighting in close? It is just a character concept. Nothing more, nothing less. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Aug 17 2004, 07:41 PM
Post
#139
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Musashi trained with two full-sized swords, but used a long and a short sword in actual combat.
By the same token, people will sometimes practice for track and field events carrying heavy loads they won't normally be carrying during the actual event. If you have to do something, a good way to practice is by doing something similar but harder. Note that this is purely a comment on Musashi's advice. ~J |
|
|
|
|
Aug 17 2004, 08:35 PM
Post
#140
|
|
|
Avatar of Mediocrity Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 725 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Seattle, WA (err, UCAS) Member No.: 277 |
Generally, the presence of a smiley implies "Don't take me too seriously - I sure don't." :D
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 17 2004, 09:48 PM
Post
#141
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
No, I did appreciate the joke! Great timing. It fit perfectly. And I just went to Blockbuster to rent the video. I found a couple others as well since I am going to watch a little tv. I like movies and all, I just don't spend much time watching them.
That is cool for Musashi. I want to stick with my two long blades I have been training with. Doesn't mean I am any worse of a fighter than somebody else that uses any other weapon combination. I don't see Wakizashi listed either though. If it is a "sword" it is apparantly impossible to wield in the off hand. Just don't ask me to define "off hand" for an ambidextrous character. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 17 2004, 11:50 PM
Post
#142
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 665 Joined: 20-November 03 Member No.: 5,834 |
Didn't Musashi primarily use swords of wood, even in real combat?
Not surprising considering how superior even wood is to the steel in Japanese swords but still, that would drastically alter the combat style. Wooden swords would be far lighter, and consequently far easier to use two-handed and faster to move. Still it's obvious other people here know more about melee combat than I do, I just thought the wooden part deserved mention. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 18 2004, 12:53 AM
Post
#143
|
|||
|
Street Doc Group: Admin Posts: 3,508 Joined: 2-March 04 From: Neverwhere Member No.: 6,114 |
Yes you are correct. As one version of the legend goes he met his nemesis Kojiro Sasaki on an island to fight a dual. While he waited for Sasaki to arrive he carved a bokken from a boat oar and then used it to kill Sasaki in the dual. There are lots of similar stories. They say Musashi could remove limbs with bokken. As a side note, there is a modern bokken design called the Musashi Trainer that is about as thick as a base ball bat. Used for suburi its sopposed to build strength, but not just because its hard to swing. It wears you out faster so that you stop using your muscles and start cutting with proper technique. [EDIT] For those unfamiliar with the principles of japanese sword- powerful cuts come from your center and its relationship to the earth, not your upperbody strength. If done properly you shouldn't need to be a 300 pound brute to cut someone in half- thats what the rediculously sharp blade is for... You can see the contrast with western broad sword technique...) [EDIT2] (i really need to think before i submit... :S ) Thats also a technical reason why it would be insanely difficult to weild a katana effectively in each hand. Musashi might have been able to do it, but then he is regarded as the greatest swordsman in Japanese history... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 18 2004, 02:18 AM
Post
#144
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
That's pretty misleading. Japanese swords were designed, more or less, to cut bare flesh, and to cut harder objects with excellent form. Any sort of significant angle on the blade when it hits something hard will destroy it, but that doesn't mean that wood is "better" than the metal, just more versatile. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 18 2004, 02:21 AM
Post
#145
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 177 Joined: 23-February 03 Member No.: 4,141 |
Funny how we keep breaking records all the time since we have actually started recording them, but the men in the old tales grow taller and taller down the line. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 18 2004, 02:24 AM
Post
#146
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Hey hey hey. I'd like to see you beat a rail-driving machine :)
~J |
|
|
|
|
Aug 18 2004, 02:56 AM
Post
#147
|
|||||
|
Street Doc Group: Admin Posts: 3,508 Joined: 2-March 04 From: Neverwhere Member No.: 6,114 |
I should have italisized the might. Although he touted the benefits of such training its pretty unlikely that he ever used two katana in an actually dual. In fact, I think historically speaking the katana and wakazashi were used individually as the situation required (mostly depending on maai- the distance between you and your opponent and weather you were indoors or out). Samurai wore two swords so they could be prepared for different situations, and it was vouge. Styles like Nitoichi ryu and Yagu ryu developed as a novelty, and their techniques were closely guarded secrets. Those who practiced those styles were a rare exception and a small elite. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 18 2004, 03:14 AM
Post
#148
|
|||||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Actualy, the differiential hardening used in Japanese blades makes them far more durable than european blades. Because the vast majority of the blade is left soft springy it won't break during a sloppy cut. It will bend, certainly, but it can still be used and later repaired. Musashi used a Bokken against Sasaki to defeat his reach advantage. Musashi chose the oar because it was longer than Sasaki's nodachi. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 18 2004, 03:48 AM
Post
#149
|
|
|
Resident Legionnaire Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 2,136 Joined: 8-August 04 From: Usually Work Member No.: 6,550 |
Not true man.
Musashi arrived on the island with both a katana, and the bokken carved from the oar. The katana was used to parry the Odachi, while the oar delivered the blow that they say crushed Kojiro Sasaki's skull. There is another legend (i say legend because it is not as well documented as the Kojiro duel) that says one day while musashi was carving a wooden bow, a samurai challenged him to a duel. Musashi accepted and when the samurai attacked, Musashi gently deflected the samurai's blade and smacked him on the head with the unfinished bow. The samurai left in shame. According to Musashi, reach conferred no advantage but actually disadvantage. Niten Ichi Ryu primarily focuses on one weapon at a time, depending on the situation. It is not unheard of to use both when fighting a particularly tough opponent, but two swords are generally used when fighting multiple opponents. While Musashi may or may not have been the greatest swordsman in Japan, it is a matter of fact that he participated in no less than 3 campaigns of war, and fought over 50 to 60 duels in his lifetime and still lived to die an old man. Absolutely true, when cutting with a japanese sword, technique is far more important than upper body strength. However when in a prolonged battle (as one would see on a battlefield) upper body strength reduces fatique when weilding swords, which deserves mention. One must also note, that in a battlefield situation, the sword was often the weapon of last resort. It was important to train with yari, naginate, bow and other weapons, especially when engaging lines of spearmen. As far as weapons go, many European swords were differentially heat treated, however the goal was not the same as for a japanese sword. The japanese sword is a stiff blade which resists bending. If bent enough, it will stay bent, which is why proper technique is paramount. As one already said, improper entry angle can ruin a blade. Westerns blades were made with flexibility in mind. Many western strikes are chops and stabs, in which upper body strength is very important, as is having a flexible blade. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 18 2004, 03:53 AM
Post
#150
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
A properly-made katana won't bend, it'll just shatter.
~J |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 14th May 2026 - 07:46 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.