# Why did the Katana and some Chinese swords like the Jian develops schools of unorthodox grip approach but European styles never did?



## Bullshidog (Nov 3, 2021)

I was just watching Iajitsu practise. While the style does have two handed techniques, a lot of focus is quick draw and thus so many techniques rely on a single hand.

As someone who watches a lot of Wuxia, there are entire styles in China devoted to teaching how to use a Jian only ith one hand while another school will focus on using a Jian two handed hile others teach Jan and sword combination or to Jians, and other stuff.

Now I know European sword schools emphasize heavily for one handed weapons ho to use a sword and shield combo or ho to use dagger and short sword so the concept isn't entirely unknown.

But I still have to ask. Considering katana is a two handed sword by design but you have schools teaching one handed fighting and some Dao schools in China focus on a two handed grip as the style's core despite Daos beng designed as one handed weapons (esp with a shield), I have to ask why European styles never developed an approach like this? Afterall later Jians ere gentlemen weapons similar to rapiers (to the point Skallagram even had a video where a Jian expert comments how similar many early rapier cutting techniques were to later Jians) and thus ere made for a single arm to wield-yet eve by the gentleman's era of peace so common in the cycle of Chinese dynasties, there existed schools completely focused on to handed Jian styles.......

I'd have to ask why European styles ere so focused on predominantly single or two arms? Sure Iajitsu and Iado has some two handed techniques but compare that to say wielding a claymore. Single hand techniques in Claymore use aver very few in comparison to one hand slash in Iado.

I mean I play tennis a lot yet there are plenty of two handed moves tot he point some players focus almost just as much one to handed strike and there's at least several pros who focused on power hitting thus using double grip in their careers.

So why did European styles never developed for example a focused approach to using an arming sword with double grip or a Zweihander with a single hand? Very few single handed moves with a Scottish CLaymore and even though some later longer gladius had lager hlts, the focus was still one single arm despite the fact some recorded duels had killing blows with to swords. Compare that to plenty of schools teaching single hands in Japan and two handed approach to single armed gentleman's swords in China!

Why?


----------



## wab25 (Nov 3, 2021)

I am going to go with the swords are different. It is no surprise that a Claymore has very few one handed options. Katana and Claymore are two very different types of swords, with very different uses. As for the other weapons you mentioned... one that were able to be used one handed and or two handed were trained one handed and two handed. The design of each weapon greatly influenced that way it was used... which in turn influenced how people trained with them.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 3, 2021)

Bullshidog said:


> I'd have to ask why European styles ere so focused on predominantly single or two arms? Sure Iajitsu and Iado has some two handed techniques but compare that to say wielding a claymore. Single hand techniques in Claymore use aver very few in comparison to one hand slash in Iado.


Well for one thing, among many others: A quick google search tells me that a claymore generally weighs a little over five pounds, while a katana weighs on average about half that, and a jian less than 2 pounds. 

It doesn't surprise me, before going into any further information about culture or style, that a sword that weighs twice as much or more than another sword would be less fit for using half your arms to carry it. Unless the people carrying it were twice as strong.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 3, 2021)

They did. I can show you 6 different grips used on the rapier. And that's just one weapon. There were Greatswords designed with a second quillion a couple feet up the blade, with the blade blunted between the two. Specifically so that this monster of a blade (the traditional length of a Greatsword has the Quillion level with the bridge of the nose; add the handle and it's longer than the wielder) could be used by someone "choking up" on the blade. There was a design popular amoung the Templars with a blade generally a bit more than 3' long, and about 18" of handle. A two handed sword, but it was commonly used one handed, in conjunction with a shield. It was also one of the earlier examples to have a really usable point. 
It's less that European styles didn't mix grips and less that European styles are not as well known by todays martial artists as a whole.


----------



## isshinryuronin (Nov 3, 2021)

As said, using a heavy sword requires two hands.  If a shield is standard, obviously the sword needs to be able to be wielded with just one hand.  And a light weight sword like a rapier or foil requires only one hand.

The Samurai sword can be used with one or two hands.  Musashi used a style using two swords, so, one hand per sword.  But this style, he wrote, was best for taking a prisoner.

The katana (shinken more exactly) is worn so as to be able to be drawn and cut/parry in one movement.  This is of course one handed.  Sometimes a second move will be done one handed as well, but generally_ two hands are used the great majority of the time, _contrary to what Bullshidog inferred.

Stabbing swords like foil and old Roman gladius are lightweight and used one handed grip, similar to the Spartan's or Zulu's short stabbing spear, plus these last two warriors usually carried a shield.

The main idea, or fighting doctrine, of the shinken long sword is to cut broadly and decisively with the goal of killing the opponent. For this, a two-handed grip is best and practical since the Samurai did not use shields - their style was very offensive in nature.

I don't see too much mystery in the one or two hand thing.  Weight of the sword, how it was used, shield or not, and doctrine pretty much determines which grip is used.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 3, 2021)

Why did European styles develop an unorthodox grip approach but the Katana and some Chinese swords like the Jian schools never did?​


----------



## lklawson (Nov 5, 2021)

Bullshidog said:


> I was just watching Iajitsu practise. While the style does have two handed techniques, a lot of focus is quick draw and thus so many techniques rely on a single hand.
> 
> As someone who watches a lot of Wuxia, there are entire styles in China devoted to teaching how to use a Jian only ith one hand while another school will focus on using a Jian two handed hile others teach Jan and sword combination or to Jians, and other stuff.
> 
> ...


Your basic assumption is wrong (I've noticed you do that a lot with your thread starts).  Longsword integrated single-handed use directly into the system instead of, bizarrely, separating one handed and two handed into two separate systems, which makes a much more complete system of fighting.


----------



## Blindside (Nov 5, 2021)

lklawson said:


> Your basic assumption is wrong (I've noticed you do that a lot with your thread starts).  Longsword integrated single-handed use directly into the system instead of, bizarrely, separating one handed and two handed into two separate systems, which makes a much more complete system of fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well that was much much better than my planned response of "but.... but... they did...."


----------



## isshinryuronin (Nov 5, 2021)

lklawson said:


> Your basic assumption is wrong (I've noticed you do that a lot with your thread starts).  Longsword integrated single-handed use directly into the system instead of, bizarrely, separating one handed and two handed into two separate systems, which makes a much more complete system of fighting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting pics.  I noticed two things about many of the one-handed techniques shown.  Several show a grip using the sword as an overhand stabbing spear.  This seems like a _specialized application and not typical of its generally designed use_. Also, several pics show the one-handed grip used in conjunction with grappling. Again, a specialized technique for a specific purpose, also not the way this sword would be used in common application. Note that the opponent is usually using the convential two hand grip with the same kind of sword.

So while many styles of MA may contain exceptions to their doctrinal rules, they are not representative of the style as a whole.  

Again, your post was very interesting to me as I didn't know that European swordsmanship had these techniques in their toolbox.  Necessity is the mother of invention, especially when life or death is involved.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 5, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> As said, using a heavy sword requires two hands.  If a shield is standard, obviously the sword needs to be able to be wielded with just one hand.  And a light weight sword like a rapier or foil requires only one hand.


A foil is not, nor has it ever been, a sword. It could be considered the European version of a shinai; a sword-shaped object intended solely for making practice safe.
As for the rapier, they came in a huge variety of sizes, shapes, and weights, including two-handed versions. So no.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (Nov 6, 2021)

isshinryuronin said:


> Interesting pics.  I noticed two things about many of the one-handed techniques shown.  Several show a grip using the sword as an overhand stabbing spear.  This seems like a _specialized application and not typical of its generally designed use_. Also, several pics show the one-handed grip used in conjunction with grappling. Again, a specialized technique for a specific purpose, also not the way this sword would be used in common application. Note that the opponent is usually using the convential two hand grip with the same kind of sword.
> 
> So while many styles of MA may contain exceptions to their doctrinal rules, they are not representative of the style as a whole.
> 
> Again, your post was very interesting to me as I didn't know that European swordsmanship had these techniques in their toolbox.  Necessity is the mother of invention, especially when life or death is involved.


Yeah, the longsword can be used one-handed but it really only makes sense for specific situational techniques. The length, weight, and balance are such that two-handed use is far superior for the majority of your fencing time.


----------



## Cynik75 (Nov 6, 2021)

Katana is not a sword. It is a sabre.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 6, 2021)

Cynik75 said:


> Katana is not a sword. It is a sabre.


It is, and its greatest proponent really did make all of European swordplay look like a picnic.

The style was revolutionary...two streamlined sabers, one in each hand?  Ingenious.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 7, 2021)

Cynik75 said:


> Katana is not a sword. It is a sabre.


A saber is a class of sword.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Nov 7, 2021)

Oily Dragon said:


> It is, and its greatest proponent really did make all of European swordplay look like a picnic.
> 
> The style was revolutionary...two streamlined sabers, one in each hand?  Ingenious.


Dual weapon use, pairing one long and one short, is about as revolutionary as pooping a few hours after eating.  Humans have been doing for as long as they have had two arms.

You're trolling us, right?


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 7, 2021)

lklawson said:


> Dual weapon use, pairing one long and one short, is about as revolutionary as pooping a few hours after eating.  Humans have been doing for as long as they have had two arms.
> 
> You're trolling us, right?


Trolling you by referring to the famous ronin with the 61-0 dueling record who developed 二天一流 in the 17th century?

No, I don't think 二天一流 is nearly as old as pooping.  You might be, though.  How's that for trolling?


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 7, 2021)

Also trolling: Johannes Liechtenauer's _Zettel _was overrated.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 7, 2021)

Xue Sheng said:


> Why did European styles develop an unorthodox grip approach but the Katana and some Chinese swords like the Jian schools never did?​



Because white men can't jump?


----------



## BrendanF (Nov 7, 2021)

Oily Dragon said:


> The style was revolutionary...two streamlined sabers, one in each hand? Ingenious



Hate to be disagreeable.. but the whole notion of him inventing nito is pretty farfetched.  There are accounts of others doing so earlier.  And he was taught in that style by his father.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Nov 7, 2021)

Bullshidog said:


> I was just watching Iajitsu practise. While the style does have two handed techniques, a lot of focus is quick draw and thus so many techniques rely on a single hand.
> 
> As someone who watches a lot of Wuxia, there are entire styles in China devoted to teaching how to use a Jian only ith one hand while another school will focus on using a Jian two handed hile others teach Jan and sword combination or to Jians, and other stuff.
> 
> ...


My thoughts is that 2 handed weapons are an option by design and not a requirement.  I think this is true of all swords.  In battle there is a good chance one of your arms / hands will be come damaged.  When this happens you'll still need to use a sword.  It would only make since that there would be single hand cutting and defending techniques even for two handed weapons.  Even a spear can be used with one hand.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 7, 2021)

BrendanF said:


> Hate to be disagreeable.. but the whole notion of him inventing nito is pretty farfetched.  There are accounts of others doing so earlier.  And he was taught in that style by his father.


He didn't invent anything.

He made it work though.  The five element theory.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 8, 2021)

Oily Dragon said:


> Trolling you by referring to the famous ronin with the 61-0 dueling record


According to him with no independent verification.  Did I mention my own 112 to 0 dueling record?



Oily Dragon said:


> who developed 二天一流 in the 17th century?


If you believe he was the first dude to pair a short blade in one hand and a long blade in the other then I've got a bridge to sell you.  Heck the very term "left hand dagger" to refer to that in Europe dates to the 16th century and examples go on back through time.



Oily Dragon said:


> No, I don't think 二天一流 is nearly as old as pooping.  You might be, though.  How's that for trolling?


I might be.  But that doesn't make Musashi's dual-weapon use particularly innovative.  And your claim he made "European swordplay look like a picnic" really reads like trolling.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 8, 2021)

lklawson said:


> According to him with no independent verification.  Did I mention my own 112 to 0 dueling record?


Bah. Rookie. I'm at 280-0.


lklawson said:


> If you believe he was the first dude to pair a short blade in one hand and a long blade in the other then I've got a bridge to sell you.  Heck the very term "left hand dagger" to refer to that in Europe dates to the 16th century and examples go on back through time.


I think paring a long blade and a short blade likely goes back as long as people have been fighting with blades. 
I do think the rapier & main gauche combination is both the most deadly and the most elegant.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 8, 2021)

Oily Dragon said:


> Also trolling: Johannes Liechtenauer's _Zettel _was overrated.


Possibly.  Still doesn't make Musashi particularly innovative.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 8, 2021)

lklawson said:


> Possibly.  Still doesn't make Musashi particularly innovative.


Innovative and revolutionary are not the same thing.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 8, 2021)

lklawson said:


> According to him with no independent verification. ....really reads like trolling.



No he didn't, but yes, you do.

Now, troll, explain why you just lied about his record.

Japanese history vs. you.  go.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 9, 2021)

Oily Dragon said:


> Innovative and revolutionary are not the same thing.


_Innovative: Characterized by the creation of new ideas or things_

Dual wielding weapons was not a new idea by Musashi's time.  Therefore, not innovative.

_Revolutionary: Marked by or resulting in radical change._

Because dual wielding weapons was comparatively common around the world there was no "radical change."  Therefore not revolutionary.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 9, 2021)

lklawson said:


> _Innovative: Characterized by the creation of new ideas or things_
> 
> Dual wielding weapons was not a new idea by Musashi's time.  Therefore, not innovative.
> 
> ...


Great job!  You proved innovative and revolutionary are, in fact, not the same thing.

Because when I said revolutionary, the zen enso must have been obvious to a gentle scholar such as yourself.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 9, 2021)

Best book on Niten Doraku, ever.

Heh, swords.  Musashi mastered the jutte and shuriken too.

So unorthodox it hurt.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 9, 2021)

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Strongly held opinions are good. Debating them is good. Calling people names during the debate is not good. And it violates the Terms of Service.
So stop it. Keep the conversation polite and professional.

Mark A. Cochran
@Dirty Dog 
MartialTalk Senior Moderator.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 10, 2021)

Okay... as the central question of the thread was answered pretty simply, and clearly, by Kirk already, I'm only going to concern myself with the Musashi part of all this... 



isshinryuronin said:


> Musashi used a style using two swords, so, one hand per sword.  But this style, he wrote, was best for taking a prisoner.



Actually, no, he didn't. The only reference to "taking prisoners" in the Gorin no Sho is stating that you should use the appropriate tool to the job (and not be dependent on any one tool or style of weapon), commenting that a spear is of limited applicability in taking prisoners. When it comes to applying nito, he stated that that is best applied against a group of enemies, and the first time he used it in combat was in the third encounter with the Yoshioka, where (depending on the record you read), the ambush set for Musashi involved between 70 and 200 swordsmen... he cut down enough of them that the rest scattered.



Oily Dragon said:


> It is, and its greatest proponent really did make all of European swordplay look like a picnic.
> 
> The style was revolutionary...two streamlined sabers, one in each hand?  Ingenious.



I think the term "revolutionary" is not really accurate here... additionally, he didn't use "two streamlined sabres, one in each hand", it was a daisho set (long and short).



Oily Dragon said:


> Trolling you by referring to the famous ronin with the 61-0 dueling record who developed 二天一流 in the 17th century?
> 
> No, I don't think 二天一流 is nearly as old as pooping.  You might be, though.  How's that for trolling?



"Ronin"? No, he wasn't.

61-0 record? Not sure where you got the exact number from... in the Gorin no Sho, he simply states that he has had "as many as 60 matches" (or "duelled more than 60 times", or "fought more than 60 times", or similar, depending on the translation you look at). Some records indicate around 64 or 65, for instance... 

Oh, and Kirk wasn't suggesting that Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu was that old, but that dual wielding is... in case you missed that.



BrendanF said:


> Hate to be disagreeable.. but the whole notion of him inventing nito is pretty farfetched.  There are accounts of others doing so earlier.  And he was taught in that style by his father.



This is where we get to the "revolutionary or not" aspect.

Did Musashi invent dual wielding for Japanese swords? Nope. Schools such as Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu predate Musashi by about 150 years (as you know, Brendan), and contain two-sword methods (referred there to Ryoto). Other arts also include it, such as Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, Yagyu Shingan Ryu (often with two kodachi), Araki Ryu Gunyo Kogusoku (in their iai... quite interesting!), Shingyoto Ryu, Shinto Muso Ryu (in their Uchidachi methods, as well as in the Shinto Ryu Kenjutsu portion), Tendo Ryu Naginata (with two medium sized single hand swords... a bit shorter than a "regular" katana, but longer than a kodachi), and so on and so forth. And, aside from one school there, there isn't a direct connection back to Musashi in any of them (in fact, the records of Katori Shinto Ryu show Musashi as having trained with them for a little while, as well as with the Takenouchi Ryu in their records, and a few others).

This brings us to exactly why Musashi is so associated with Nito methods... one could argue that it's due to his naming his school the Nito Ryu (or Nito Ichi Ryu) for much of his later life, seemingly only changing it to Niten Ichi Ryu right at the end, but personally, I don't think that's enough. Instead, I think it's more in line with Hayashizaki Jinsuke being described as the "founder" of Iai (sword drawing)... and that is that, in each case, while the skill was already present, these men were the first to have these aspects as a central core to their schools.

Pretty much all Japanese arts have a central focus, even the larger sogo bujutsu methods. This might be bojutsu (Kukishin Ryu as a sogo bujutsu centred around the bo, but we also look at bo specialist schools, such as Muhi Muteki Ryu, Chikubujima Ryu, and so forth), Kenjutsu (again, sogo schools include KatorI Shinto Ryu and Kashima Shin-ryu, as well as more solo-focused schools such as Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, Ono-ha Itto Ryu, Yakumaru Jigen Ryu, and almost innumerable others), naginata (Tendo Ryu, Toda-ha Buko Ryu, Jikishinkage Ryu, Chokugen O-Naginata, and so on), spear (Hozoin Ryu, Owari-Kan Ryu, Saburi Ryu, and so forth), or jujutsu (Takenouchi Ryu being the most famous, although very much a sogo system, Iga Ryu-ha Katsushin Ryu, Tenjin Shin'yo Ryu, and many, many more). Prior to Hayashizaki Jinsuke, the concept of Iai (or Batto) was already present in a number of schools, however it was not until Hayashizaki that an entire school was based around it, being the Tosa-Iai schools (today most commonly seen as Muso Jikiden Eishin Ryu and Muso Shinden Ryu). Yes, there were a number of innovations made in this area, which is to be expected if it's the focus of the school, but it wasn't really the first school to develop Iai methods.

Similarly, Musashi wasn't the first to develop Nito methods either. What he was, though, was the first to develop his entire art centred around the use of two swords (he writes that, in the Niten Ichi Ryu, a beginner should start holding both swords at the same time... showing that, in his school, Nito is a primary focus). Indeed, in the Gorin no Sho, the only "techniques" listed are the five Nito kamae and the five Nito waza (for the record, this is the smallest section for sword in the school... there are 12 single long sword kata, 7 short sword kata, and only 5 two sword kata... as well as some 20 bojutsu kata, and a small set for jutte, and another of yawara/jujutsu), making it entirely likely that Musashi primarily only taught his two sword methods as his school (the earlier version of his teachings, taught under the name Enmei Ryu, contained no single sword techniques, and had some 11 two sword kata, for the record), with the other methods being developed either slightly later, from his teachings, or simply used as further expressions of lesser importance.

Regarding what Musashi was taught by his father (Munisai), it is likely that he learnt the basis of his kenjutsu, as well as an approach to jitte... which, for the record, is not the jutte we think of today, with a completely different design and usage. This school was also called the Enmei Ryu (for the sword, it was Tori Ryu for the jitte, a school developed by Munisai himself), but was not the same one that Musashi taught later, despite the same phonetic name.



Oily Dragon said:


> He didn't invent anything.
> 
> He made it work though.  The five element theory.



He invented plenty, including a range of artistic techniques that are difficult (to say the least!) to replicate today... with regards to his kenjutsu, especially regarding his nito methods, I would suggest that he really did come up with his own approach to using two swords that I haven't really seen in any other school unrelated to him. Most other nito methods either use both swords doing the same thing at the same time (Yagyu Shinkage Ryu, Araki Ryu), or they use the swords in singular action, one at a time, each with it's own individual action (Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu, Shindo Muso Ryu, etc). By contrast, Musashi's nito methods emphasise performing two different, distinct actions with each sword at the same time (ie one blocking while the other counter-cuts, one clearing while one attacks, and so forth).

As far as "five element theory", all I can say is... HA!!!!!!!!! Nope.



lklawson said:


> According to him with no independent verification.  Did I mention my own 112 to 0 dueling record?



Actually, the majority of the duels are recorded... some obviously are more famous than others (Sasaki Kojiro, the Yoshioka, Muso Gonnosuke [only one!], Arima Kihei), but many others are recorded (such as the ones around the controversy of his dojo near the gate of Himeji castle). Some weren't officially recorded, of course, but the majority were.



Oily Dragon said:


> Best book on Niten Doraku, ever.



William de Lange's work is always good, agreed.



Oily Dragon said:


> Heh, swords.  Musashi mastered the jutte and shuriken too.
> 
> So unorthodox it hurt.
> 
> View attachment 27554



Firstly, what makes the learning of jutte and shuriken "unorthodox"? Seems pretty standard, really, especially for someone who advocating using the correct weapon for the task, and to not get overly reliant on a single weapon or style of weapon... his encounter with Baiken (note: not Shishido Baiken, the "Shishido" name was invented for Yoshikawa's novel... the only name recorded in the school is "Baiken") wielding a kusarigama showed the usefulness of shuriken technique and tactics... and, really, only a handful of schools would only have techniques for one thing or aspect... they may focus on one, but often had a range of other lessons as well

Secondly, what is your connection Musashi? I mean, are you just a fan? My point is that, while enthusiastic, you're not being overly accurate in the way you're describing him and his school... and we'd rather that only accurate information went out, if you wouldn't mind.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 11, 2021)

Chris Parker said:


> Okay... as the central question of the thread was answered pretty simply, and clearly, by Kirk already, I'm only going to concern myself with the Musashi part of all this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Finally, I have a few questions for you.

Why did you claim he was not Ronin, when he abandoned General Hideyori and became a wanderer.  Of top of literally being the stereotypical image of a ronin in all of popular culture.  And it being in the book.

Why did you claim his 61-0 record is a surprise to you?  Right before you said_ "Actually, the majority of the duels are recorded... some obviously are more famous than others (Sasaki Kojiro, the Yoshioka, Muso Gonnosuke [only one!], Arima Kihei), but many others are recorded (such as the ones around the controversy of his dojo near the gate of Himeji castle). Some weren't officially recorded, of course, but the majority were."_. So, about 61-0 sounds right to both of us, because it's right in the histories.

As far as 5 Element "theory", can you read this?  五輪書.  How bout 五大??

Not a Ronin?  No five elements?  No record?   Really, I'm speechless.  

At least you could admit he was very unorthodox, hence the thread.


----------



## Chris Parker (Nov 12, 2021)

Oily Dragon said:


> Finally, I have a few questions for you.



Really? I note you didn't answer mine... 



Oily Dragon said:


> Why did you claim he was not Ronin, when he abandoned General Hideyori and became a wanderer.  Of top of literally being the stereotypical image of a ronin in all of popular culture.  And it being in the book.



While Musashi did spend some time acting as is commonly seen to be a ronin, the majority of his life was spent either in the service of a number of daimyo, so I'd not categorise him as a ronin as a way of characterising his life. Popular culture really doesn't mean much here, as much of it is based in more fantasy than anything accurate or historical. Speaking of... Hideyori? Um... what? Hideyori was the (somewhat illegitimate) child of Hideyoshi Toyotomi... he was not a general, he was Toyotomi's chosen successor, who the Western forces (lead by Mitsunari at Sekigahara) were loyal to. And Musashi was never with him, the lords he was working for (there's that pesky non-ronin thing) were very close to the Tokugawa... Musashi was involved in the Osaka campaigns that ended with Hideyori committing suicide... 



Oily Dragon said:


> Why did you claim his 61-0 record is a surprise to you?  Right before you said_ "Actually, the majority of the duels are recorded... some obviously are more famous than others (Sasaki Kojiro, the Yoshioka, Muso Gonnosuke [only one!], Arima Kihei), but many others are recorded (such as the ones around the controversy of his dojo near the gate of Himeji castle). Some weren't officially recorded, of course, but the majority were."_. So, about 61-0 sounds right to both of us, because it's right in the histories.



The "surprise" is that you are giving a definite figure for the record, considering we don't have an absolute definite one ourselves.



Oily Dragon said:


> As far as 5 Element "theory", can you read this?  五輪書.  How bout 五大??



Oh boy.... yes, I can read Gorin no Sho and Godai... can you understand that there isn't really anything like it in Musashi's teachings? Here's a clue... when the current soke was asked about the connection with the Godai, he said "What is that?"

Musashi used the concepts of a Buddhist stupa (a Gorinto... see any similarity in the name?) to group the various major topics of his book... but they don't follow anything like the established "Godai" concept. Instead, it's more a way to differentiate the themes and overarching concepts he was discussing.



Oily Dragon said:


> Not a Ronin?  No five elements?  No record?   Really, I'm speechless.



Speechless is good. Maybe it means you'll listen a bit then?



Oily Dragon said:


> At least you could admit he was very unorthodox, hence the thread.



Again, what precisely do you know of Musashi's methodologies? What makes you think he was unorthodox? What do you think "orthodox" even means in this respect? You're not going to tell me you think Musashi was the first to apply psychology to combat, do you? Or the idea of disrupting the opponent mentally before physically engaging? Do you think his physical techniques were "unorthodox"? Please explain why. Oh, and also realise you're talking to a member of the school, direct student (monkasei) to the 12th soke, and Australian representative for the school... if you think you have a better idea of Musashi than we do, you may want to rethink things a bit...


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 17, 2021)

Chris Parker said:


> While Musashi did spend some time acting as is commonly seen to be a ronin, the majority of his life was spent either in the service of a number of daimyo


So what you're saying is, you lied about Niten Doraku when you said he was never ronin.

Just like that Wheel of Time dude, Kirk, just claimed his entire duel record was "self reported".  That you contradicted, yourself.

And you just claimed to be part of his Zen Buddhist heritage.  Even with your flawed ideas about the Five Elements.

Splendid.  So am I.  The revolution is now.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 18, 2021)

Oily Dragon said:


> So what you're saying is, you lied about Niten Doraku when you said he was never ronin.
> 
> Just like that Wheel of Time dude, Kirk, just claimed his entire duel record was "self reported".  That you contradicted, yourself.
> 
> ...


Are you trying to dispute my 112 to 0 record?  I just won a few more.  I think I'm up to like 115 to 0 now.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 18, 2021)

lklawson said:


> Are you trying to dispute my 112 to 0 record?  I just won a few more.  I think I'm up to like 115 to 0 now.


Wheel of Time was a great series.  

Taste the revolution, mon.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 18, 2021)

Oily Dragon said:


> Wheel of Time was a great series.



I loved the series.  Hated the ending.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 18, 2021)

I just started the Wheel of time, I’m half way through book two.  I dunno, I think it’s ok but not sure it’s good enough to get through 14 books.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 18, 2021)

Flying Crane said:


> I just started the Wheel of time, I’m half way through book two.  I dunno, I think it’s ok but not sure it’s good enough to get through 14 books.


I think it was book 3 or the end of book 2 that hooked me.

But I hated the ending.


----------



## Flying Crane (Nov 18, 2021)

lklawson said:


> I think it was book 3 or the end of book 2 that hooked me.
> 
> But I hated the ending.


I’ll give it some more time then.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Nov 18, 2021)

lklawson said:


> I loved the series.  Hated the ending.


I never read it, but have heard what it's about. Isn't the whole idea that there shouldn't be an ending?

Also, from what I recall, the final books were handed off to Sanderson, after Jordan's death. Not sure how much was "Ending", and how much was already written, and Sanderson's a great author. But at any given time he's working on like 5 different books, and it's tough to work on someone else's project and get the mindset right.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Nov 18, 2021)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I never read it, but have heard what it's about. Isn't the whole idea that there shouldn't be an ending?
> 
> Also, from what I recall, the final books were handed off to Sanderson, after Jordan's death. Not sure how much was "Ending", and how much was already written, and Sanderson's a great author. But at any given time he's working on like 5 different books, and it's tough to work on someone else's project and get the mindset right.


As I understand it, the ending was pretty well outlined by Jordan before his death, and Sanderson was specifically expected to adhere to that outline as much as possible. The ending was the end of a cycle of the wheel. I agree with Kirk, though. It was weak.
I enjoyed the series, but felt like it was too long. By the last couple books, I was more than ready for them to get to the final battle with the BBEG.


----------



## lklawson (Nov 18, 2021)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I never read it, but have heard what it's about. Isn't the whole idea that there shouldn't be an ending?
> 
> Also, from what I recall, the final books were handed off to Sanderson, after Jordan's death. Not sure how much was "Ending", and how much was already written, and Sanderson's a great author. But at any given time he's working on like 5 different books, and it's tough to work on someone else's project and get the mindset right.


Not exactly.  There's a definite end to the story arc.  But one of the basic premises is that all major "history" for humanity repeats and everyone is reborn, often playing the same major role in the new repeat of the old saga; especially for the big, important characters.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Oily Dragon (Nov 18, 2021)

lklawson said:


> Not exactly.  There's a definite end to the story arc.  But one of the basic premises is that all major "history" for humanity repeats and everyone is reborn, often playing the same major role in the new repeat of the old saga; especially for the big, important characters.
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


That reminds me.  As a disciple of the Enso, twin sabers, not to mention the 三十六計, I have to remember the true meaning of revolution.  Melting the iron wheel. 

On this, I shall meditate.  While slashing the wind with two swords.  So unorthodox.


----------

