I find inakajin's post quite relevant, something that would likely give those two guys on Mythbusters yet another excuse to abuse an anthropomorphic dummy. Pseudohistory is an interesting part of history, and like RapidAssault, I would be interested in citations of sources that mention wooden armor--as well as citations of people supposedly punching through it.
Speaking of the references in that book, one of them is that massive book entitled "Secrets of the Samurai." I'm not terribly sure myself (since it has been a long time since I glanced at that book), but I have a suspicion that the myth of the samurai's wooden armor may have came out of that book. Does anyone know?I took a quick look, and Secrets of the Samurai does discuss the use of leather, lacquered leather and metal in the construction of various types of Samurai armor.
As I was mentioning on another thread, I used to study Ninjutsu. My instructor explained that the hard "karate-style" punches were designed to be used against armored warriors, but they were NOT meant to break through the armor itself.
Rather, the unarmed warrior would attack the unarmored areas. A favorite target being right underneath the armpit. Basically, you don't just step in and throw a hard straight punch with a loud KIAIA!!!! and expect your opponents armor to blast apart and you win the day. You will lose your fucking head! LOL
Rather, you setup, and then time your punch. We were taught to trap our opponents arm, then deliver the punch directly below the armpit of the extended (and trapped) arm, as this area is VERY DIFFICULT to protect with armor lest one makes HUGE sacrifices in mobility.
However, after reading quite a bit on this forum and others (thanks to TFS and the rest of you who actually know things!!!!), I have my doubts about that as well. There seems to be *some* merit to the above, but I think that punching under the arm of an armored opponent is still unlikely to succeed.
Okay folks, we have got to stop destroying martial arts myths like this!
Whatever will we talk about after that?
FWIW, I think Nottheface hit a key point - a number of people plainly get their ideas about historical weapons, armor and fighting arts from role playing sourcebooks. Some of which in turn probably got their ideas from "Secrets of the Samurai." LOL
KK-
I think your teacher was partly right. He just forgot that those techniques were designed to be done with a blade in hand and not as punches. A lot of traditional Japanese blade work attacks the armpits, the inside wrists, and the backs of the legs - specifically because those points were little/not armored.
"I think your teacher was partly right. He just forgot that those techniques were designed to be done with a blade in hand and not as punches."
While that might be true of techniques developed in mainland Japan, I don't think the "our unarmed fighting is just blade-work without a weapon" argument applies to karate. Although the almost absolute dearth of historical records makes researching the subject difficult, the general consensus among serious researchers is that Okinawan karate is primarily a derivative of various (primarily) unarmed styles taught in and around Fuzhou. As such, it was most assuredly not developed in response to attacks by armored samurai, nor were the unarmed techniques themselves meant to train in "knife fighting." For one thing, the Okinawans would have had no need to "disguise" blade-work in their empty-handed kata. After all, plenty of other weapons kata exist in Okinawan karate. Why would the Okinawans have trained openly with sai, bo, kama, etc., and yet still have felt the need to practice knife techniques unarmed? Doesn't sound very productive to me. I think that, had karate been a "blade based" art, the Okinawans would have preserved some knife kata. And yet, despite the plethora of other weapons that are widely practiced, the knife seems to have gone unnoticed. Hmm...
P.S. I know you guys weren't talking about karate, but I've heard people use the "knife to vulnerable spots in the armor" idea to justify the old yarn about Okinawan peasants vs. samurai. I've even heard claims that the reason punches are chambered is so that you can practice drawing a knife--Puhleeease!
Anyway, it's getting to be a pet peeve of mine, and I didn't want another goofy myth spinning out of control.
Thanks Timbo!
Inakajin is of course correct.
I was proceeding on KK's comments because he mentioned that his teacher taught ninjutsu - which is made up today of several Japanese JJ schools.
Inaka nicely covered why the idea would not pertain to Okinawan karate styles.
"Were the peasants simply throwing punches strong enough, say, to knock the wind out of a warrior wearing something like metal scale armor or whatever it was?"
The peasents were throwing punches that were strong
enough to knock down other men with minimal risk
to themselves. Modern boxing looks the way it does
with bobing, weaving, fast combination partially
because of the limited number of rounds and the
quality of the gloves.
Old time boxers had to pick their punches carefully.
Conserving strength because it might be a 45 round
fight, and a misplaced punch could break your hand.
Karate fighters of the time had much the same
concerns. Focus on setting up the big hits, don't
waste energy, and do as much damage as possible with
the big punches when you get the chance.
"2. When boards are broken, the ends are typically held stationary and the board itself is struck so that it is able to break with the grain. For such a break to occur, the middle of the board must be accelerated a certain distance relative to the ends of the board (this is true of an unsupported "speed break" as well). Wooden armor, on the other hand, would be situated flush on the wearer's body, and as such, would require significantly greater force to break (assuming similar materials, size, tensile strength, and thickness). Because of the drastic differences between board positioning in a demonstration and board positioning for armor (that is if anyone ever used it), one's ability to break a typical 3/4" pine board does NOT mean they would necessarily be able to break through a section of wooden armor. "Also, boards aren't swinging three feet of sharpened steel at you as you punch them. ;-)
Also, boards aren't swinging three feet of sharpened steel at you as you punch them. ;-) LOL--seriously!