Seems rather...curious. Which ryuha is it that teaches the use of this hammer (apparently from a quasi-tatehiza against an unarmed opponent?)? (I actually don't recognize that quasi-tatehiza stance from any ninpo ryuha-gata I've ever practiced or seen. Can anyone de-cluelessize me on this one?)
I think SDFR was mentioned in the blog post. If that helps..? Perhaps reading the blog would suggest that it doesn't matter.
The Japanese name is Tsuchi or Otsuchi. It's also a little misleading calling it a warhammer. Warhammer is a classification of a western weapon that looks very much like the modern carpenters hammer. It had a head for bludgeoning and a spike for piercing armor. Here is a good example The Otsuchi is more akin to the western Maul which was a cheap backup weapon for archers. The reason archers used it was because of its duel use as a sledgehammer to drive in stakes and erect barricades. Mauls and Otsuchi never became popular as combat weapons because they were too heavy to wield swiftly and were always outmatched by slashing and piercing weapons. That being said lighter variations like Flails, Maces, Warhammers and Kanabo were used in various countries in various periods but never displaced the more popular and cheaper weapons like Bows, Spears and Swords. And yes, I know how to use the Otsuchi (and Maul, Mace, Warhammer, Kanabo), it handles very much like a weighted hanbo or battleaxe. Not a very useful weapon but you would have needed at least a few in every army.
Actually, no. The article's point is to address that question. So by repeating it rather than discussing specific lines of thought, supporting statements, or points discussed in support of, or as evidence against the article's thesis, it makes me think there is a lack of understanding of what was read.
StephenK's point is that training in taijutsu should engender such skills and concepts that an exponent should be able to pick up any weapon (even one not specifically trained in the Bujinkan, or even something not even designed specifically as a weapon) and use it to some combative effect. Am I right Stephen?
Nice read. This is perhaps similar to Soke's writing in "Essence of Ninjutsu", where he describes being able to pick up and be quickly familiar with weapons that he's never seen before, and people thinking he was some sort of wizard for doing it - the "basic" principles transcend specific weapon types. I'll ask a question, then, based on this atricle: I can see how this principle works with melee weapons, but what about say, firing a gun? Can sanshin/kihon be applied there? Or would it be more about your movement and positioning while firing, but the actual operation of the gun itself would still be something you need to study more in depth?
The article was written by James Morganelli, so it's his point - which I, of course, share as well. But, yes, I would agree with you. I think the other, potentially controversial to some, idea in the article seems to be thinking about the best way to reach that level of skill. One (shallow) example: Training Ichimonji no kata isn't going to make you a marksman. However, you could deliver one hell of a shuto if you're holding a hunk of metal which happens to be shaped like a gun.
Agreed. This is what I first assumed Jim would be talking about in his blog. As stephenk indicated, this won't make you a marksman. . .directly. . .though a good structural base and alignment acquired from training will help with accuracy. It seems that with any projectile weapon, however -- firearm, bow, crossbow, sling -- you do also need some functional knowledge of the equipment itself. When Harada shihan was here in California for a year, I asked him if he had an interest in firearms and he said yes; so I set up a combined handgun disarming & retention and range firing session, which he attended. He was very taken by my approach, commenting to my students that unlike what he usually saw from foreigners demonstrating firearms stuff in Japan, what I was doing was purely budo taijutsu: Essentially muto-dori and daisho-sabaki type stuff with handguns instead of bladed weapons. The difference, however, was that I also was taking specific characteristics of the weapons into account. Instead of being aware of edges and points, one had to instead account for line of fire from the muzzle (friends or noncombatants in the line of fire across the room for instance), slide or cylinder movement, muzzle blast, etc. After the range session (which I was unable to attend), he told my students that there were some things I'd shown that he would have been inclined to do a bit differently himself -- until he did some actual shooting after training with me. Then he could understand exactly why I'd done things the way I had.
