Creating new styles/forms/techniques

[MartialArtist]

Originally posted by Yiliquan1
The jian, the dao, the katana all are swords. The similarity in their use pretty much ends there.

The jian is used to cut vital areas. The broadsword is a utilitarian blade that can cut through limbs, but is much better at cutting softer body areas. The katana can cut through damn near anything.

As for weight, the jian is extremely light. The broadsword less so. A shinken ("live blade") katana is pretty darn heavy.

Musashi did use two blades at a time, and his katana is known to have been rather large (I have seen a replica of it in Japan, and it is much larger than contemporary blades). Musashi, however, was also known to be quite a large, strong man, and therefore better enabled to use two at a time.

The use of these swords, though, their intended purposes, are extremely dissimilar. The cutting action of a straight sword versus a cuved blade are significantly different, and function follows form.

Good luck, but I don't think you'll be able to do it without coming up with a new blade design to incorporate the movements you want to into one method. And given that blade technology is a very old art, I don't think you will be able to come up with a design that hasn't already been done before.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

Question... Did Musashi use two swords during combat at once or did he use one for specific situations/opponents/etc. or what? I think that would be interesting to know.

That reminds me of William Wallace. He had a very long sword (for people who have a 7' frame almost), and from the looks of history, fit him well. He would be much better off with a heavy sword like that then he would a lighter sword that was intended more for faster people. I mean, I can't imagine how a 5' person would walk with a 7' sword, when the hilt would be touching the ground and dragging along as he walked.

 

[Matt Stone]

Yes, Musashi did use two swords simultaneously. It is outlined in historical documents, the Go Rin No Sho, and is carried on in the teachings of the sword art he created, Ni Ten Ichi Ryu (still practiced widely in southern Japan).

As for William Wallace, it is my understanding from some limited reading I did that, though rumored to be of larger than life proportions, he was really a pretty normal guy. Large swords (like the claymore Mel Gibson used in Braveheart) of that design were certainly used, and used against other combatants, but specific versions (like the Landsknecht sword from Austria/German) were used specifically to disable pikemen (by damaging or destroying their weapons). Weapons with specific purposes like this (i.e. Chinese Pu Dao "horse chopper" sword) are not uncommon, and are not carried in a scabbard like normal swords, but are carried in hand.

Or I could be wrong.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

 

[yilisifu]

The creation of a form is something that should not be considered until one has spent at least 2-3 decades of study in a given system. There is much more to them than just so many outer, "obvious" movements. The old ones who designed the traditional forms inserted a huge amount of information into eahc one and they began designing these sets only after many, many years of training and experience.

It has been compared to writing a symphony, but it is so much more involved than that.

 

[Wmarden]

Isn't it possible the william wallace sword is a bearing sword menat for parade type events.

 

[MartialArtist]

Originally posted by Yiliquan1
Yes, Musashi did use two swords simultaneously. It is outlined in historical documents, the Go Rin No Sho, and is carried on in the teachings of the sword art he created, Ni Ten Ichi Ryu (still practiced widely in southern Japan).

As for William Wallace, it is my understanding from some limited reading I did that, though rumored to be of larger than life proportions, he was really a pretty normal guy. Large swords (like the claymore Mel Gibson used in Braveheart) of that design were certainly used, and used against other combatants, but specific versions (like the Landsknecht sword from Austria/German) were used specifically to disable pikemen (by damaging or destroying their weapons). Weapons with specific purposes like this (i.e. Chinese Pu Dao "horse chopper" sword) are not uncommon, and are not carried in a scabbard like normal swords, but are carried in hand.

Or I could be wrong.

Gambarimasu.
:asian:

About the two swords, do you know what types of swords they were? Betting the one he used with his better arm was heavier, maybe a katana? And the one he used with his weaker arm was...?

Yes, large swords didn't mean big guys... But that sword was at least twice as heavy as a normal two-handed sword. Fromwhat I understand, Wallace's broadsword is more comparable to a Chinese sword than a Nordic heavysword, right? But based on the design, what do you think the sword was intended for? The Britons were more famous for their archers than their pikemen, but I'm not really sure... Maybe the Celts had a need for them?

 

[sweeper]

well aren't most of the accounts of wallace recorded through bardic depictions? I mean couldn't they have been embellished over time?

 

[zen_hydra]

The darn dao, sabre, and katana are all much more closely related than casual observation might reveal. Prior to the end of the "Warring States" era of Japanese history the katana was most often used on the battlefield from horseback, and one-handed at that. It has a curved edge to achieve a better cut from horseback. There is archaeological evidence, that prior to the advent of horse-borne combat, the swords of the Japanese were not curved, or single edged. The curved, single cutting edged katana is essentially a heavier sabre, tulwar, or scimitar. The sabre draws a direct lineage from the scimitar. The darn dao is a little trickier. I have yet to find a history of development for this weapon, though it physically appears to share many of the properties of the scimitar family. In weight it is comparable to a katana. Here are some of my thoughts on combining these different elements. I have observed that both Japanese and European fencing try to use economy of movement, which is nothing like the darn dao forms that I have been exposed to (very frenetic). If the weapon that I choose to use is the katana (the direction that I am leaning), then one could not parry in the same manner as a sabre fencer (the katana blade can't handle that sort of blade on blade contact). Darn dao fighting tends to incorporate all of the bodies weapons in a fight (something that is understated in both Japanese and European fencing). Sabre fencing has a strong background in circular parrying (something that can be safely done with a katana blade), and riposte. Modern sabre is fought in a completely linear fashion (so it's tactics don't consider flanking attacks). Double darn dao techniques may easily be adapted to dual katana and wakizashi. I could go on, and on, and on about swords all day, but I should probably do some work.

 

[sweeper]

yeah but modern sabre is a sport, classical sabre you did move in a circle. Also hasn't european sabre fencing evolved (even in classical fencing) into a dualing art? All the manuals and writings I have seen on it suggest in the past couple hundred years it was learned more for ground combat than anything else..

But I tihnk the biggest diffrence is blade weight, if you look at the evolution of fencing from rapier to small sword to sport/foil, you can see the methods moving from one in wich distance and timming were more important to one in wich speed was the most important.. Now I'm not 100% sure about the sabre becoming much lighter, but I do know that there are diffrences between mounted sabre and dualing sabre, I can only assume japanese weaponry has simular distinctions, from what you have spoken of it seems like you are practicing on foot, wouldn't the dissimularities of the present form of the weapon supersede the simularities of past blades if you train in a modern style?

BTW I realy don't know a whole lot about fighting with curved blades, only fillipino weaponry and what I have read of other fighing styles, so please don't view my comments as directly confrontational, rather more inquisitive in nature. : )

 

[MartialArtist]

Originally posted by sweeper
yeah but modern sabre is a sport, classical sabre you did move in a circle. Also hasn't european sabre fencing evolved (even in classical fencing) into a dualing art? All the manuals and writings I have seen on it suggest in the past couple hundred years it was learned more for ground combat than anything else..

But I tihnk the biggest diffrence is blade weight, if you look at the evolution of fencing from rapier to small sword to sport/foil, you can see the methods moving from one in wich distance and timming were more important to one in wich speed was the most important.. Now I'm not 100% sure about the sabre becoming much lighter, but I do know that there are diffrences between mounted sabre and dualing sabre, I can only assume japanese weaponry has simular distinctions, from what you have spoken of it seems like you are practicing on foot, wouldn't the dissimularities of the present form of the weapon supersede the simularities of past blades if you train in a modern style?

BTW I realy don't know a whole lot about fighting with curved blades, only fillipino weaponry and what I have read of other fighing styles, so please don't view my comments as directly confrontational, rather more inquisitive in nature. : )

In my limited experience with weapons, I would agree with that statement. Weight and design have a lot to do with the tactics. Of course economy of motion is something common in almost everything, but the economy of motion with a sabre or an epee would be different from that of a katana. Same principle, yes, but how the weapons work as you stated, circular parries may be considered wasted motions for heavy broadswords.

 

[Deathtrap101]

I know pretty much nothing about swords, but...
I would have to say sword weight and design have everything to do with tactic. Those three weapons were built for differant purposes and techniques. I do not beleive they just forged a weapon and put a technique to it(I could be wrong). I would have to believe they came up with an idea for a way of doing something and then forged a weapon to suit what they wanted. IE: "I want a weapon that will destroy that city with one swipe" and wabamo! there's the A-bomb. "I want to kill this guy from really far away" pow! there's the sniper rifle.

Those are really broad examples but you get the drift. I might be just repeating something someone els said, im sure i am. But that's my idea on it. Still though, im not you zen_hydra, and you could have a completely differant idea on exactly how you want to merge them. I don't have your eye's.

Good luck :asian:
have fun

 

[Marginal]

Originally posted by MartialArtist
About the two swords, do you know what types of swords they were? Betting the one he used with his better arm was heavier, maybe a katana? And the one he used with his weaker arm was...?

A short sword.

 

[Don Roley]

Originally posted by zen_hydra
As I said in my first post, I am not ready to begin developing these ideas. They are just passions of mine that will one day be developed, when I feel I have the mastery I need to do so. I was primarily interested in hearing from those that have experience in this. What are your experiences with combining elements of different styles? What about developing a completely new school of thought? Please, those of you who have experience in this, share.

Good. You are not going to immediatly run out and create your own style. It has been my observation that once someone has created something and put their name on it, they cease to develop. They may show up to a few seminars, they may give lip service to never giving up the begginers mind, but in reality they stop making the type of progress that a student does.

First of all, you have read Musashi. You realize that he said he did not really understand swordsmanship until after he was 50. And he went around killing a lot of people with a sword before he was three decades old. You can probably see that someone who has not killed anyone with a sword looks a little silly creating their own style before they hit that age. In fact, since you will never have q chance to use a sword as it is intended, you should be extra conservative about announcing your own style. So you have plenty of time to be a student. Go out, try things and reach farther than you can grasp. When you fall flat on your face, dust yourself off, figure out how you got on the ground and don't repeat your errors.

Leave one style out of your mind while you train with another art. In time, you will start to see patterns by themselves. Don't rush it. Don't force it. Sometimes you can fool with them, but try to leave a katana mindset outside of the dao class.

Make sure you have good instruction. There are only a very, very few people fully qualified to teach a katana in the US. Who are you training under? For that matter, who are your teachers in all the arts? For a few decades you should just be a student, and you need to be the best student you can.

I have studied the jian, study the katana and am a member of ARMA. (ARMA.org.) In all three arts, it is not just the forms that are important, the underlying knowledge of the era and circumstances are important parts of the learning process. I would say that to fully understand the katana, you need to live and experience Japan for a time. There may be ways of picking up the type of knowledge I am talking about outside of Japan, but I do not see how. The same thing probably applies to the dao. Have you thought about travelling overseas to live and train Someday?

In short, think less of how you are going to combine them and concentrate on just learning all you can right now. If you get the best instruction you can and do your best, later the whole problem of combining things will probably take care of themselves. You are going to have to be wary of the temptation of being a master. I have seen that before. If you make a very determined effort to just be nothing more than a student for a few decades, you will stand a much better chance of getting to where you want to get, rather than those guys that make their own styles and then start defending what they do rather than grow further.

 

[KennethKu]

Originally posted by Don Roley ..... Musashi.....said he did not really understand swordsmanship until after he was 50. And he went around killing a lot of people with a sword before he was three decades old.....

I was thinking about this and it seems to me that he DIDN"T need to understand swordsmanship to excel at using a sword, wouldn't you say?

I have always thought that martial art is a skill set. The "do" and other philosophical meanings are just "add-on", to make the art richer. In some cases, it is most likely the product of the founders' half-baked attempt at philosophy. Some founders are/were flawed individuals with questionable personal lives. Yet, they piled on boat load of philosophy and "DO" etc onto their arts.
It makes them look greater than life, to the uninitiated.

 

[MartialArtist]

Originally posted by Marginal
A short sword.

So he used his wakizashi (other than something more of a decorative peice)? From what I've read, the wakizashi was more of a decorative piece and a symbol of rank? Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[chufeng]

MA,

From what I've read, the wakizashi was more of a decorative piece and a symbol of rank?

The wakizashi was not just a decorative piece...it was a very effective weapon.
In the time when samurai were essentially running Japan, one was not allowed to enter into someone else's home with a long sword (katana or tachi)...but, they were allowed to keep on their person the wakizashi (and most also carried a tanto). Yes it showed rank in that a samurai was allowed to keep a sword on his person...but it was still a very effective weapon.

:asian:
chufeng

 

[MartialArtist]

Originally posted by chufeng
MA,



The wakizashi was not just a decorative piece...it was a very effective weapon.
In the time when samurai were essentially running Japan, one was not allowed to enter into someone else's home with a long sword (katana or tachi)...but, they were allowed to keep on their person the wakizashi (and most also carried a tanto). Yes it showed rank in that a samurai was allowed to keep a sword on his person...but it was still a very effective weapon.

:asian:
chufeng

thanks for the information

 

[Marginal]

Along those lines, Musashi also gives some practical reasons for carrying a short sword and a long sword in the Book of Five Rings. The short sword's more effective indoors where a katana's length may be restrictive and stuff like that.

 

[Don Roley]

Originally posted by KennethKu
I was thinking about this and it seems to me that he DIDN"T need to understand swordsmanship to excel at using a sword, wouldn't you say?

I take it to mean that Musashi was a very, very efficient killer when he was young. And when he hit about 50 he knew even more than he did at 30. In fact, from the way he wrote about it, he realized a vast amount of information that made all his previous knowledge pale in comparison.

Yagyu Muneyori- another dangerous individual who killed a lot of people with a katana, also wrote soemthing along the same line. And the greatest Japanese swordsman in history- Tsukahara Bokuden, did not really teach much until he was pretty well along in years.

Now, I do not have a lot of experience fighting other people to the death with swords. Nor do I have the experience of hitting 50. So when I see people whom I can respect like that seeming to regret not waiting until they hit 50 to teach, then I have to pause and try to learn from them. It may be conservative, but I am in no rush to be a teacher or a master. I may have to use my art before I hit 50, but I think I will put off creating my own style for as long as I possibly can- if ever. If I have to fight using my art, then the consequences for my lack of knowledge all end with me. But if I create something and pass it along to someone else, then the consequences of my imperfect knowledge falls on other people. I do not want that type of responsibility.

Back to practice!!!!!

 

[sweeper]

well I think people try to create new stuff before they have learned the old for good reason.. if you tell me I have to study for 30 years to attain a good understanding of something such as martial art, I'm gona look for better ways of doing it now.. yes I may say the same thing when I'm older, but especialy when self deffence is concerned, I'm interested in what I can do now or relativly soon, otherwise there isn't much point...

(edit) Almost forgot, most weapons are not created for a specific purpose so blunt as to kill someone from a distance, to cut better or whatever, it's more of a gradual evolution.. Yes some weapons have been designed for something like more power (.44 mag for example) but something like a sword tends to evolve over time, or you get a suden burst of creativity with a new artisan comming into their prime. Very rarely has a weapon in the past been created scientificly.

 

[Don Roley]

Originally posted by sweeper
well I think people try to create new stuff before they have learned the old for good reason.. if you tell me I have to study for 30 years to attain a good understanding of something such as martial art, I'm gona look for better ways of doing it now.. yes I may say the same thing when I'm older, but especialy when self deffence is concerned, I'm interested in what I can do now or relativly soon, otherwise there isn't much point...

Of course, I should point out that there are different levels of ability in terms of using techniques, being able to teach those techniques and being qualified enough to create new techniques. In the case of this thread we are talking about the last case, the case that require the most skill of the subject.

And the problem with creating something new now rather than muddling along with the old system is that people keep re-inventing the wheel. That is, if they even get that far. All too often, people who start their own styles have only a very superficial knowledge of the subject matter. If they stayed in one system, they may find that the answers were staring them in the face all along. It is amazing how many "new discoveries" can be found in the writings of the ancients. I am talking about things like Ichi- no tachi, Sen- no- sen and Kyojitsu tenkanho. These concepts and ideas are ancient, yet they have been lost by people who only gain a very limited breadth of knowledge of the subject before they run off and "improve" something. I honestly believe that if we spent more time trying to learn what the old guys did, we would have less reason to create new things. I think it was Bismark who said that a fool tries to learn from his mistakes, while a wise man tries to learn from other people's mistakes.