Okay, that's what I thought you were meaning. Yeah, kodachi is used like a sword. It's a tip-directed slicing weapon, not a slashing one, and it's really not "light and short enough" to be considered a knife, and isn't used as such. There's still a fair amount of weight behind the weapon, with it usually only about 200 grams or so lighter than a katana, and, as such, used single handed. This is based on the methods I've had direct exposure to, as well as handling many examples of the weapon, and other research into it's usage.
Actually, I was noting that thrusting swords are very different than cutting swords, therefore a thrust will look different from a cut. Not an exception, just an observation. I might add that your response seemed a tad overly argumentative there in my opinion. Actually, Sekiguchi ryu is not really an exception. They use predominantly right handed cuts because the majority of their cuts are pushing down onto their opponent from above. In those cuts that are forward rather than down, the hands are expected to divide evenly. In my opinion, those are minor system differences. At the moment of the cut, all three of your examples have the feet angled such that the hips are moving directly through the opponent. While each of them ends with the feet slightly different, that is a dictate of the strategy and useage difference of the respective schools. The moment of the cut for each of those is very similar, even though they differentiate widely as to what is done between cuts. Also, in each of your examples, the hips and center are moving. It is easy to find myriad examples of bad swordsmanship on youtube where the hips are not at the opponent and/or are static during the cut. These would be considered universally bad.
I agree. All the schools that I am familiar with use the wakizashi as a shorter version of the sword. Tanto and its variants are used much more like a knife by closing distance and slashing/thrusting.
Yeah, there was no argumentative intent, it was written with a smile of happily joining in intelligent conversation. Sorry for any unintended aggravation... but to continue with it: Your OP is only really asking about universal ideas within swordsmanship... not any distinction between thrusting sword and cutting sword. So, when you made the distinction to show a variance based on a different form of types of sword, to the point that you disagreed that there were differences in power generation in different sword arts, then mentioned that there was a difference in arts that focused more on thrusting than cutting. So are you wanting to talk about universal ideas in all sword arts, as implied in the OP, or only double handed cutting weapons? This is where Sketco came from with his mention of Indian sword-whip (damn scary things, really!), hook swords, and so on. Honestly, I'm with him in those all being swords, therefore up for discussion in this thread. They might be shown as exceptions to general rules, though... I'm not quite following you here, Paul... Sekiguchi Ryu isn't an exception when it's different from all other Japanese sword systems, but here's why it's different? I'm not arguing why they do things differently, just that it is a difference. And the why should really come into it when exploring what the difference is. I agree that they all feature moving from the hara/tanden (hips/center), which would be a good example of a universality, however, they do employ their hips and footwork differently. Yakumaru Jigen Ryu keeps them front on, and drops straight down (by bending the knees and pushing back up with the thighs), which allows the feet to remain facing in the same direction (different to the other two), whereas the Niten clip shows that for some kata the hips stay forward, in others they turn, depending on the action required (both of which affect the footwork), but in none of the cases are they using something similar to the Jigen Ryu methods, and the Katori clip shows a focus on keeping your hips turned... so they're really not the same usage at all, even though each do feature the movement from the hips. Absolutely agreed on the bad clips, though...
Sorry, I guess I just wasn't clear enough in my original post. When someone says to me "look, that guy has a sword", I see in my head a long metal implement meant to slice another person. I would not think about whips or hooks or skewers unless someone were to ask me "what other types of things have the word 'sword' in them?" I understand that a lot of people do equate Olympic style fencing and rapiers with 'swords', so I thought to clarify that I meant cutting swords. I guess I should have clarified much further, and will ensure that I'm much more exacting in my comments in the future. You're being deliberately obtuse here Chris. Sekiguchi ryu's use of the right hand is because they are hacking downward in an axe-like motion. In those parts of the kata where they are cutting forward, as most schools do, they do not use the right hand for power, they cut like everyone else. This means they are doing different things, not doing things differently. I thought that was pretty obvious from my explanation. Hmmm ... I disagree. I have a feeling we are just disagreeing on semantics, but we'll see. These schools all utilize the movements differently, but for the same effect. If you were to freeze a single cut from each of those three schools at the point where the sword is supposed to reach a normal target, you would see that each of them would have their feet and hips in the same position. Lead foot directly at the target, trailing foot slightly outside the target, and hips pointing forward. Where the feet and hips go before and after the cut varies quite a bit, but the moment of the cut is the same for each. It is likewise in European sword, as far as I have seen. I'm sure I'll be told if I'm mistaken in that.
Cool. I was taking a wider usage, I guess. Ah, following you now. Again, all cool. Honestly, I'd still disagree there... I've played with the methods of each (or have experience with each), and they do have quite a different body structure from my perspective. That's not even getting into factors like "which cut are you talking about in Katori Shinto Ryu?", because that changes things again...
These look like swords to me. I wouldn't disqualify them just because the ends aren't pointy. They are in fact cutting swords with no thrust from the tip but additional lethality from the bladed guard.
If we don't allow for notable exceptions, then any "common traits" would have to be so general as to be utterly useless (e.g., all sword styles require that you use your hand(s) to hold the weapon). I think you can see whichever (differences or similarities) you choose to see most clearly here.
Really? They look a lot more like props from a Star Trek convention to me, but to each their own. If that's your preferred "sword", then more power to you.
Depending on how functional your definition of sword is. For the definition to be useful in this context it should describe weapons which can be grouped in terms of usage or properties. By insisting on opening the definition so wide you actually negate the very purpose of it. I suspect because you quite enjoy disagreeing with the people you're disagreeing with. Personally I wouldn't rely on anything that's as likely to spill my guts as the opponents. And a weapon with a sodding great knife for a pommel seems to fit that definition. For the record I also wouldn't claim to practice a sword art.
Kind of a self fulfilling prophecy don't you think? You only include things which fit your definition of sword, and disregard others which are technically swords, to make it easier to find the universality within sword arts. It's kind of like looking for commonalities in a group of balls and then eliminating any that aren't blue. Well that's a matter of weapon preference but it still doesn't change the fact that it's a sword.
If I failed to make myself clear then I apologise, I'll attempt to rectify that. If we are trying to compare the use of different weapons and weapon styles, then it makes sense for the terminology to be functional. In this context it makes most sense to group weapons depending on their form and function. Something like the Hook sword is neither formed like most swords nor does it function like most swords, therefore a definition of sword which includes it is unfit for purpose. No you're quite right, my personal preference does not make it any less of a sword, I hope that I have clarified my position regards the value of a functional definition, if I haven't, then I would only ask you to explain to me WHY it is a sword?
Well, by your definition then, this is also a sword ... Since I've no idea how one would go about using that either, I'll let you worry about it. Feel free to include it in any definitions you choose.
Took me a second. That's actually a picture of a steel bladed 'sword'. Why someone would pay money to have it made is beyond me, but there's alot in life that I don't understand.
Final Fantasy fans need to have suitable accessories for Comic-Con! Though usually they have wooden or foam mock ups of that one, the true devotee will have a 50 lb steel one..... saw a smaller steel one once when demoing at a anime convention, only weighed 4 or 5 times as much as my katana, maybe 1/4 size to the original. I suppose it is technically a sword, its got an edge, a point, a handle that is too short to qualify for a polearm, no extraneous parrying elements - but its not a functional sword by any stretch of the imagination.
