|
|
Post by Dalaran1991 on Nov 16, 2021 23:20:24 GMT
Hi everyone, if you are familiar with the katana then you all know the Suriage techniques, one of the most basic deflection techniques and my favorite. However I've rarely been able to do this in a bokken/shinai sparring, maybe 1 out of 4 times. With steel sparring I've NEVER been able to pull it off once, even against complete beginner.
But I wasn't about to let my favorite techniques go to waste, so I "modified" it slightly.
Here's my take on the technique to be used in combat WITH 1st PERSON VIEW. It's in FR with EN subs (especially for you Scorpion :P )
Hope you guys enjoy it 😊 Subscribe to our channel if you do and let us know what kind of content you'd like to see.
Disclaimer: before the kenjutsu purists burn me at the stake for going off the beaten path 😂, please know that this is my personal take that works for me. If you have another way of doing it against steel blade (way thinner than a shinai or bokken) please show me your vid, I'd love to learn 🙇😊
|
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Nov 17, 2021 2:32:49 GMT
It's not wrong if it works. And the only way to know if it works is by using it... I rejected the "purist" kenjistsu a long time ago simply because the techniques required a willing partner that would perform the expected moves to make everything work in a highly rigid and inflexible style of patterns. It failed 9 times out of 10 when confronted with an actual fighter who didn't know or follow the established rules. I therefore went on a path towards what I would consider "Jeet ken-jitsu", or blending of techniques that worked for me, regardless of any style or nationality it originated from. Sorry if that offends anybody's lineage, but my take on all of this is from a viewpoint of practical application, not preservation of history. Therefore, "do your thing" my brother. There are many that share your philosophy. With luck, we can get together in the spring and share some knowledge.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dalaran1991 on Nov 17, 2021 10:23:30 GMT
Couldn't say it any better 😊 cant wait to train with you Scorpion!
I believe what we are trying to do here is exactly the same thing japanese swordmen did long before everything became codified into katas. They tested out bunch of techniques, made adjustments, keep what works and discard the rest.
Im happy now that Im no longer bound to any ryuha so I can freely experiment 😊 Again, I have the utmost respect for Kenjutsu techniques but Im just the type who need to pressure test thing the old fashioned way
|
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Nov 17, 2021 14:31:15 GMT
Indeed, but there lies a problem. The Japanese developed their techniques by fighting each other, and therefore we have to consider a cultural bias in their performance. Even during warring periods when they would discard non-functional things, there is a bias towards expecting everybody to know and understand an unwritten rule of conduct. Every culture is guilty of this as it is human nature, but we see it more in the JSA forms due to their isolation. We see the proof of this in weapon and armor development over the course of a few hundred years. While there was some advancement in that area, by and large the main ideas behind weapons and their use didn't change much, so swords and armor, at first glance, are so similar that it's difficult sometimes to see the actual changes that were made.
Europeans fell prey to this cultural bias as well, but for much shorter periods of time as they had a tendency to be fighting divergent peoples, weapons, and tactics. Europeans were far more open to the idea of adaptation and adoption of new ideas than were the Japanese. There is a huge variety of arms and armor over relatively short periods of time that are clearly distinct.
Naturally, every form has it's downsides and it's both folly and arrogant to think that a particular single system is "superior" to all others whether that be Japanese or European. Of course given the exact circumstances in which a particular weapon and style were developed, then that would naturally prevail over other styles. For example: a gladius and scutum will be supreme in a battle formation vs. an arming sword, but that's comparing apples to oranges. The gladius will fail miserably against an arming sword in single combat in a dark medieval alleyway. Two weapons designed for different purposes, neither one is objectively superior to the other when taken in context.
There is always something new to learn, no matter what the source. Being open minded is the best approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by Murffy on Nov 22, 2021 15:30:12 GMT
Indeed, but there lies a problem. The Japanese developed their techniques by fighting each other, and therefore we have to consider a cultural bias in their performance. Even during warring periods when they would discard non-functional things, there is a bias towards expecting everybody to know and understand an unwritten rule of conduct. Every culture is guilty of this as it is human nature, but we see it more in the JSA forms due to their isolation. We see the proof of this in weapon and armor development over the course of a few hundred years. While there was some advancement in that area, by and large the main ideas behind weapons and their use didn't change much, so swords and armor, at first glance, are so similar that it's difficult sometimes to see the actual changes that were made. Europeans fell prey to this cultural bias as well, but for much shorter periods of time as they had a tendency to be fighting divergent peoples, weapons, and tactics. Europeans were far more open to the idea of adaptation and adoption of new ideas than were the Japanese. There is a huge variety of arms and armor over relatively short periods of time that are clearly distinct. Naturally, every form has it's downsides and it's both folly and arrogant to think that a particular single system is "superior" to all others whether that be Japanese or European. Of course given the exact circumstances in which a particular weapon and style were developed, then that would naturally prevail over other styles. For example: a gladius and scutum will be supreme in a battle formation vs. an arming sword, but that's comparing apples to oranges. The gladius will fail miserably against an arming sword in single combat in a dark medieval alleyway. Two weapons designed for different purposes, neither one is objectively superior to the other when taken in context. There is always something new to learn, no matter what the source. Being open minded is the best approach. Well put. |
|
