CARRYING A SWORD ON YOUR BACK

[GrReaper]

Since none of you guys are citing any sources, I did a quick search on the internet and found what ya'll are talking about as far as "the myth" of the ninja-to. Certainly, there's tons of bs about what the historic ninja sword actually looked like. I was thinking more that it was shorter than the usual katana, maybe also that it had the large guard. That was pretty much the extent of what I was saying. I was not saying that the garbage they sell everywhere is a realistic replica of the historic ninja-to. The best article I could find about the subject seems to be this. http://www.coloradospringsninjutsu....2/4_The_Myth_of_the_Straight_Ninja_Sword.html
Now, I don't claim the article to be definitive or anything, just that it appears to be truthful. It mostly debunks the claim that the ninja sword was straight and basically asserts that Stephen Hayes went off on his own thing after learning from Hatsumi. (Sorry if I misled everyone, but I did not mean to say the historic ninja sword was straight. I don't know if it was straight or curved, nor do I care.) Anyway, the article does say that "Hatsumi is quite clear in saying that they were shorter than the normal katana, but not by much." Also it says that "while the image of the ninja with a sword slung over his back is overdone, it is the logical place to put the blade when climbing or crawling."

If anyone knows about Hatsumi, or any other of the handful of modern practitioners of ninjitsu, saying the ninja sword was no different than a katana and that it was the same length, please post the source.

 

[GrReaper]

All of the juicy details that we point to on the internet (or in old-school print) are entirely reliant on people who are self-reporting and identifying with a--get this--SECRET group of killers. The Japanese super spies somehow lost all their ability to keep their mouths closed?

Times have changed. Feudal age spy techniques and gear aren't necessary today and aren't really secrets. So the few remaining, like Hatsumi, have talked about their practices. Does that make it less likely that they're telling the truth? Well, some newer guys, like Stephen Hayes, I wouldn't put much stock in, for sure. Hatsumi and the few others like him, I don't see any reason to discount. Especially on a point like the length of a sword.

 

[GrReaper]

It's possible to find a source for anything you want. Legitimacy is another thing again. I invite you to try it. Get a yardstick measure off twenty inches and see how convenient it is to draw over your shoulder. Then ask yourself why super secret warriors would bother with something so impractical. As for ninja-to I invite you to point out historical artifacts either art or the weapons themselves corroborating the existence of super short, big tsuba (handy for using as step stools and pogo sticks presumably) straight bladed swords with snazzy scabbards that can be used as snorkels in a pinch.

I have never tried drawing over the shoulder, but I'll try it out tonight and then report back on feasibility.

 

[GrReaper]

Y

Your response in point #1 is dead on. Whatever attire was appropriate. But the consensus is that ninjas were themselves of the samurai class. For point #2, your 1960s sources are probably (and I won't swear to this as it would be putting words in your mouth) tied to Ohara Publications and Stephen K. Hayes and his deification of his instructor, Masaaki Hatsumi. There is a LOT of reinvention of the Ninpo tradition going on in Tokagure Ryu.

Zieg

Without doubt, at least some were samurai. Yes, the book I cited above was published by Ohara in 1970. And from doing a search on the internet, I see what you're talking about regarding Stephen Hayes and all the nonsense surrounding him. But I was talking of Hatsumi and Yumio Nawa.

 

[BitingSarcasm]

Times have changed. Feudal age spy techniques and gear aren't necessary today and aren't really secrets. So the few remaining, like Hatsumi, have talked about their practices. Does that make it less likely that they're telling the truth? Well, some newer guys, like Stephen Hayes, I wouldn't put much stock in, for sure. Hatsumi and the few others like him, I don't see any reason to discount. Especially on a point like the length of a sword.

Yes, it does make it less likely. Freemasons don't cut stones anymore either, yet they get pissy about people putting their noses in their business and secret history. The whole tower of modern 20th century ninjutsu lore is based on a small number of people who say, "trust us, we know what we are talking about." The fact that Hatsumi has been out there a long time doesn't make him any more valid; all it means is that he has been talking longer. Maybe he is a great martial artist, a wonderful human being, a gentleman and a scholar--I really don't know. But I have run into a man before who had exceptional martial abilities, the charisma to draw people with him, and a supernatural ability to twist the truth and have you believe it. If it wasn't for the power of information technology and modern private investigator practices, I would still totally believe his line of bull. The passage of time doesn't make things true, truth makes things true, and I don't know if Hatsumi's claims would stand the level of scrutiny we can bring to bear today. But he is established as canon in the absence of contrary opinion, so his version of history is bootstrapped into place. Ninja debate is useless because it is completely circular and stands upon flawed logic. Let's get back to carrying swords on our backs.

 

[Lapedog]

Since none of you guys are citing any sources, I did a quick search on the internet and found what ya'll are talking about as far as "the myth" of the ninja-to. Certainly, there's tons of bs about what the historic ninja sword actually looked like. I was thinking more that it was shorter than the usual katana, maybe also that it had the large guard. That was pretty much the extent of what I was saying. I was not saying that the garbage they sell everywhere is a realistic replica of the historic ninja-to. The best article I could find about the subject seems to be this. http://www.coloradospringsninjutsu....2/4_The_Myth_of_the_Straight_Ninja_Sword.html
Now, I don't claim the article to be definitive or anything, just that it appears to be truthful. It mostly debunks the claim that the ninja sword was straight and basically asserts that Stephen Hayes went off on his own thing after learning from Hatsumi. (Sorry if I misled everyone, but I did not mean to say the historic ninja sword was straight. I don't know if it was straight or curved, nor do I care.) Anyway, the article does say that "Hatsumi is quite clear in saying that they were shorter than the normal katana, but not by much." Also it says that "while the image of the ninja with a sword slung over his back is overdone, it is the logical place to put the blade when climbing or crawling."

If anyone knows about Hatsumi, or any other of the handful of modern practitioners of ninjitsu, saying the ninja sword was no different than a katana and that it was the same length, please post the source.

I would be very wary of any school claiming to teach ninjitsu which is not considered a real or credible martial art. It is largely due to the history of it’s teachers using fake tecniques against non resisting opponents and also when its pedigree of martial art heritage is looked into there is always a dead end usually ending at someone who was found to be a scam artist. Just type ninjitsu fake or ninjitsu fraud or ninjitsu is it real in google and there are countless articles on the subject.

Here is an excellent resource on not only Japanese swords but many swords of the far east.
http://www.arscives.com/historysteel/japaneseintroduction.htm

That said there are katanas in various lengths. Perhaps shorter ones were used by certain people for certain roles. Other times they likely were not. They would use what they had available.

 

[GrReaper]

That said there are katanas in various lengths. Perhaps shorter ones were used by certain people for certain roles. Other times they likely were not. They would use what they had available.

This I definitely agree with. Above all, they were practical, so I'm sure they used what the situation called for.

 

[GrReaper]

Well, I tried out the draw over the shoulder/behind the back, whatever you want to call it. It was easier than putting up this post. I used a Rob Criswell wakizashi with a 19 1/2 inch blade and an 8 inch handle. It has a three section kydex scabbard, with each section overlapping onto the next section, attached by a screw. There is no "lip" to make it catch on a belt and no holes to attach it to a shoulder strap using paracord. This scabbard is good for storage but doesn't seem to be for carrying. So I was at a loss as to how to attach this to a strap for back carry. I ended up just holding the scabbard with my left hand behind my back and then using my right hand to draw the sword out over my right shoulder. Did this four times. The first time felt awkward but it was still surprisingly easy. It was very easy by the fourth time. I could see that fast draw would work from this position, might even be better than a belt draw, in some respects. You would have to be careful to develop the kinesthetic awareness to avoid cutting your scalp or slicing your own ear off with a mistake. I suppose it proves nothing, except to myself that I could do it easily.

 

[Triton]

......