Powers & Abilities Debunking Literally Every Argument Against Ryokugyu’s Black Blade

Does Ryokugyu Have A Black Blade?


  • Total voters
    84

Fleet Admiral Lee Hung

Conqueror of the Stars
#1
Hello everyone,

Welcome to the most TLDR post of your entire life. Today I wanted to take a minute to address a topic that is weirdly controversial on WorstGen: the idea that Ryokugyu has a black blade.



Now sure, this is not a 100% confirmed idea yet, but it is 99.9% likely to be the case as of the making of this thread, and all of the arguments I’ve seen online denying this idea are riddled with errors in logic.

I did a troll post on this in the past but this thread will be my serious attempt to prove the point and convince any doubters that this is in fact the case. Let us not waste any time:

The Case

Before I start debunking arguments, I think it is best to establish the actual argument itself. I’m going to approach this topic like I’m trying to convince someone who has never read One Piece before.

Firstly, what is a black blade?



A black blade is when a sword becomes permanently black across many battles. Turning a sword black increases it’s strength grade by one rank. It is also implied that you can train to achieve one:



Black blades have multiple special characteristics, one of which is extreme hardness/durability:



And that’s it! That is literally all we know about black blades so far. Now I’ve seen some online propagate a myth based on this quote here:



That conqueror’s Haki is required to turn a blade black as conqueror’s Haki was what Zoro needed to tame Enma. However, this is not confirmed to be the case for a few reasons:

1. Zoro was completely oblivious to the fact that he had CoC prior to Wano, and you would think Mihawk would’ve mentioned this if this is what is required to turn a sword black. But Mihawk never mentions this to Zoro apparently, despite specifically training Zoro to turn his swords black.

2. Enma is not a normal blade, it is a “cursed” blade that most swordsmen can’t wield because it drains their Haki.

So from this, the reasonable assumption is that some blades require CoC to tame (Enma) not all (or else Mihawk probably should have mentioned this to Zoro). Mihawk’s explanation very much makes it seem like the only two components to turning the average blade black are

1. CoA
2. Time

There is likely more to black blades but this is the knowledge that we have at the present.

So!

Why do gigabrains say that Ryokugyu has a black blade?

Firstly, Ryokugyu’s blade looks exactly like other black blades we’ve seen:



When Oda draws Katanas and other sword blades, he does not intentionally blacken the entire sword unless Haki is specifically being used. Some brief examples:





As we can see, Ryokugyu’s sword quite clearly appears to be a black blade in comparison to blades that are not black.

Secondly, Ryokugyu and Fujitora both seem to specialize in specific types of Haki, Fujitora with CoO and Ryokugyu with CoA:




Thirdly, Ryokugyu’s presence as the final antagonist of Wano subtextually completes both of Wano’s themes of monsters and swordsman:

(Wano’s theme about monsters is represented by all of the Zoan users present in the arc, Ryokugyu completes this theme by showing a “monster” form that is a Logia instead of a Zoan)


(Wano’s obvious swordsman theme is completed by Ryokugyu who shows up as a black blade user, the only one present in the arc)

And these are the three big reasons why it is highly likely (99.9% exactly) that Ryokugyu actually does have a black blade.

So now let’s actually debunk some arguments as to why Ryokugyu doesn’t actually have a black blade.

“It’s not a black blade, it is a wooden sword or some other color sword.”

1. This is not what Oda draws wooden swords as looking like, this is:


Now if you think this is a wooden blade that Ryokugyu turned black, that’s fine but this sword looks nothing like an un-blackened wooden sword.

2. I know Oda likes to mislead his audience a lot, but specifically coloring Ryokugyu’s sword in the exact same way that he colors black blades, but secretly intending for the sword to actually be a different color with literally no explanation…that would be just far too weird to actually believe. You can basically just make up any argument you want with no basis or validity, and Ryokugyu’s sword being green or some other color is one of these baseless arguments.

“It is a black blade, but Ryokugyu didn’t turn it black, somebody else did”

This argument is at least halfway there, it acknowledges that Ryokugyu does in fact have a black blade, but then tries to downplay him by saying that someone else is actually responsible.

What’s interesting is that Ryokugyu’s sword appears to be a sheatheless grasscutter katana, which is a straight-bladed katana rather than a curved one:


Which would certainly imply that this blade has belonged to him for a long time since it matches up with his forest theme. But this argument is ultimately just like the argument above, it’s just baseless assumptions with no evidence from the manga backing it.

“Ryokugyu is not a swordsman”

Let’s set aside the fact that turning a blade black being related to “how much of a swordsman someone is” is an assumption unto itself.

So this is a really weird argument for me, because we have literally no idea what Ryokugyu’s swordsmanship abilities look like. People have assumed his level of swordsmanship based on the fact that he never once reached for his sword during the brief stint we saw from him.

But what’s really weird with this..and I mean really weird…is the fact that people are applying the exact opposite logic to Ryokugyu that they apply to other characters.

King shows up with a sword on his hip, and immediately almost the entire fandom in unison declared him a swordsman and assumed he would have some kind of fight with Zoro.

Fujitora shows up with a sword, and immediately agenda posters set out to label him as a swordsman to declare him weaker than Mihawk.

Gandhi has a sword with him and people have labeled Gandhi as a swordsman.

But Ryokugyu shows up with a sword very clearly drawn on his hip, and yet all of the sudden there are sword fans who think this is not enough to declare someone a swordsman? Where did this level of skepticism come from all of the sudden? The sheer mention of bisento’s in the same class as swords was enough for many Zoro fans to label Whitebeard a swordsman, but Ryokugyu carrying a sword on his hip is suddenly not enough to confirm him as a swordsman?

In my head, I have labeled this phenomenon “the black blade effect.” Essentially, if Ryokugyu would’ve showed up with a sword on his hip that was clearly not a black blade, agenda posters would’ve immediately declared him a swordsman who is weaker than Mihawk,

But when Ryokugyu shows up with an obviously black blade, the opposite happens. “It can’t be a black blade because Ryokugyu is not a swordsman.”


“Fujitora/Zatoichi is more of a swordsman than Ryokugyu/Yoshio Harada. If any Admiral was going to achieve a black blade, it is Fujitora.”

So this argument is an extension of the assumption I talked about above. We have literally no idea to what extent Ryokugyu (or Fujitora for that matter) is a swordsman. So to assume his swordsmanship level based on the fact that he has simply never touched his blade and Fujitora has is fallacious.

But another point I wanted to make here:

Yoshio Harada is well known for playing rebels.

Ryokugyu is a hardcore World Government extremist.

Yoshio Harada and Ryokugyu are extreme opposites, and assuming Ryokugyu’s abilities based on Yoshio Harada is extremely flawed lol.

….even though Yoshio Harada frequently played overwhelmingly powerful swordsmen

“Look at what Shanks did to Ryokugyu, a black blade user would never be treated this way”

I feel like I don’t even need to address this one, this argument is sheer 100% speculation with no actual argument being presented.

And that which can be asserted without evidence,

Can also be dismissed without evidence.

“Ryokugyu is an Awakened Logia, there’s no way he’s also a black blade user”

This argument begs the question by building an assumption right into the premise: we have no idea if Ryokugyu is an awakened Logia or not.

But even if Ryokugyu were an Awakened Logia, that would not mean he couldn’t also be a black blade user. From what I gather, this argument is based on two assumptions:

1. That an Awakened Logia/Black Blade user would be too powerful.

…But would they? Would they really?

Look at Luffy for example. Luffy is an Awakened Mythical Zoan (spongebobmock) with all three forms of advanced Haki including AdCoC, but Luffy is still not viewed by the World Government as being a threat on par with Shanks, Mihawk, or Blackbeard.

Katakuri is an Awakened Paramecia user with advanced CoO, but his power level gets dogpiled regularly.

Would the simple idea of any character being both an awakened Logia and a black blade user be too overpowered? I would easily argue no.

2. That Ryokugyu is too young to have achieved both a black blade and Awakening.

So, Awakening only takes about a decade, maybe a little longer as Luffy and Law have shown us. Roughly 12 years in total.

The Black Blade timeframe is still unclear, but I would like to point some facts out about Mihawk:

1. Mihawk likely obtained Yoru way later in his life (late 20s/early 30s), as it’s unlikely Mihawk obtained a supreme Greatsword before he was a WSS contender

2. Mihawk has been fairly inactive for many years now since he has ran out of competition (5 years, perhaps more?) meaning Mihawk achieved the black blade long before the beginning of the series.

So if it takes a decade to Awaken, and let’s say 15 years to achieve a black blade, that would mean it would take roughly 25 years for someone to achieve both a black blade and awakening.

Ryokugyu appears to be in his early 40s (heavy-estimate), meaning he has easily had more than enough time to achieve both awakening and a black blade.

So this argument bites the dust as well.

“The scabbards didn’t comment on Ryokugyu’s black blade, that means he doesn’t have one”

I mean…no. What else do I even need to say here? It’s just another assumption argument that the scabbards would’ve perceived Ryokugyu’s black blade as a more important observation than the fact that he was an enemy from an outside land, which to me seems far contextually more important.

There are many assumptions in this argument:

1. That the scabbards even saw Ryokugyu’s sword given how briefly it was visible on his body
2. That the scabbards would perceive a black blade as a more significant observation than an enemy invader
3. That Oda must draw a dialogue bubble stating something or else it didn’t happen
4. That the scabbards would even care enough about a black blade to vocalize an observation of one to begin with

Just to name a few.

“Ryokugyu was actually using Haki to turn his sword black”


…Come on Lee, you promised this would be a serious thread…

Okay, so we should all be able to agree that Ryokugyu was using his Devil Fruit against the Beasts:



There is absolutely no indication that Ryokugyu used his sword in this scene. So far as we can tell, he exclusively used his Devil Fruit power.

For one to believe he was actively coating a non-black blade in Haki, one would have to believe that Oda chose to have Ryokugyu coat a sword hanging from his hip in Haki for no other reason than to simply confuse readers. Which obviously makes not one ounce of sense.

“Oda would not give a throwaway Admiral a black blade”

So, regardless of what you think of the power level of the Admirals, from Oda’s perspective, there is no such thing as a throwaway Admiral. Oda has only ever designed five of these characters, and each of them have had a lot of thought and effort put into their designs. Oda went out of his way to base these characters off of actors who are loved throughout Japan.

And especially Ryokugyu who fulfills such a unique roll among Admirals:
-From his “fasting” subplot which has yet to be explained
-To the fact that he is the most extreme WG/Celestial Dragon simp in the entire manga

This is definitely not a character who Oda just designed out of the blue for no reason. This is a character Oda has real plans for. Oda even described Ryokugyu as being “really cool” before his reveal, this is definitely not some half-assed character Oda came up with without thought or effort.

“Ryokugyu will fight Sanji, not Zoro. Only Zoro opponents can have black blades”

Assumption. There is no law in One Piece that states this. And there is no guarantee Sanji will fight Ryokugyu to begin with. We have entered the realm of ultra speculation territory where you have to accept several layers of assumption to even engage the premise. But okay, I will play along:

What if Zoro achieves a black blade before fighting Kizaru? To me, the Light Sword Vs Black Blade dichotomy works much better than black blade vs black blade, especially since Zoro is already going to fight Mihawk (probably, assumptions are fun).

I have much more to say on Zoro vs Kizaru and Sanji vs Ryokugyu but this thread isn’t about that (please god don’t make this thread about that).

“Not even Roger, Whitebeard, or Shanks achieved black blades, there is no way Ryokugyu did”

I wanted to end this post by addressing this one last argument. I’m not out to make this thread an Admirals vs Yonko or Admirals vs Pirate King thread, but what I am here to say is this:

The assumption that at Admiral cannot achieve something because a Yonko or a Pirate King did not, at the end of the day, it is just that. An assumption. There is no canonical basis to the idea that any character in One Piece cannot achieve something that Roger or whoever did not, regardless of how your mental tier list plays out.

“A black blade does not contribute to Ryokugyu’s fighting style, therefore it makes no sense for him to have a black blade”

Another argument based on several flawed assumptions:

1. We have not seen the full extent of Ryokugyu’s fighting style. To assume that swordsmanship does not contribute to Ryokugyu’s fighting style is a huge jumping of the gun.

2. The sheer fact that Oda drew Aramaki with a sword at all is proof that he is capable of fighting with that sword, or else there is no reason for him to carry one at all. This would literally be the first time in the manga that Oda drew a character carrying a weapon when said character has no ability to use said weapon, and that is far too unbelievable. This would once again be Oda communicating false information to his audience for absolutely no reason.

3. You could make this argument about any character who uses hybrid fighting styles. For example, King’s primary threat level is based on his Lunarian genes, and yet King still carries a sword. King has also eaten a Devil Fruit even though his Devil Fruit, sword, and Lunarian genes do not perfectly compliment one another. To assume a character will only use weapons/other fighting attributes that perfectly compliment one another is another huge assumption, and to assume Ryokugyu’s Devil Fruit powers and swordsmanship will not compliment each other is another huge assumption as well.

“Oda will not give Ryokugyu a black blade because Zoro is his favorite character and this makes Zoro less unique”

I’ve never seen it said that Zoro is Oda’s favorite character lol. But let’s assume that he is:

The idea that Oda would “ruin” his favorite character by giving an Admiral a black blade just shows how supremely disconnected Zoro fans are from what Oda is actually thinking lol. In their minds, Oda does not like Zoro for his indomitable willpower, his dedication to his dream, his devotion to Luffy and the Straw Hats, his badassery, or any of Zoro’s other well-known traits…no, Oda only cares about Zoro because he will one day achieve a black blade. Lol

Let’s assume such an obviously stupid argument were true, and Oda only cares about Zoro for this reason.

It is still an assumption to assume that Oda would not ever give any other character a black blade. What about Mihawk and Ryuma? Does the fact that they achieved black blades ruin Zoro for Oda? I would argue clearly not, or else he would’ve never given either character black blades and would’ve only given Zoro one. Other characters having black blades would apparently ruin Zoro, after all.

“Mihawk’s bounty is 3.6 billion. If Kuzan does not have a bounty similar to 3.6 billion, this is confirmation that Ryokugyu doesn’t have a black blade, since the Government would give Kuzan a comparable bounty to Mihawk if Ryokugyu had a black blade”



Okay. So let’s go point by point because this is wrong on several levels.

1. Mihawk’s bounty is because he is the WSS. To act like his bounty is solely based on his black blade is just wrong.

2. Let’s assume Kuzan has a 2 billion berry bounty. Would Kuzan’s lower bounty that Mihawk be solely due to the fact that Mihawk has a black blade and Kuzan doesn’t? Probably not.

3. What on earth does Kuzan’s bounty have to do with Ryokugyu’s black blade?

4. It has never been stated that if someone has a bounty below x number, that means they can’t have a black blade. It’s also never been stated that the Government will automatically assign someone a specific minimum bounty if they have a black blade.

“The Marines described Mihawk as having stronger swordsmanship than Shanks. This means Shanks is the second strongest swordsman in the One Piece world, and thus Ryokugyu cannot have a black blade because his swordsmanship is weaker than Shanks’ swordsmanship”

This argument is an extension of the “Ryokugyu is not a swordsman” argument I posted above, and there are several hardcore assumptions built into this argument that have never been proven.

1. Most glaringly, the assumption that because the Marines stated that Mihawk is stronger than Shanks, that this means Shanks is the second strongest swordsman. No. Mihawk is well known for his duels with Shanks, they are world-famous events, whereas as far as we know, Mihawk has never fought Aramaki. This line of dialogue is simply a callback to previously existing story events that we know of: that Shanks and Mihawk once regularly fought, and Mihawk surpassed him.

2. Once again, we have the assumption that achieving a black blade is directly proportional to how much of a swordsman someone is, which has never been stated. As stated previously, the two components of forging a black blade are CoA and Time, nothing else. There are swordsman in the world of One Piece (Shanks, Roger, and Rayleigh for example) who do not focus on CoA but rather CoC, which I’ve already discussed above.

3. What’s weird is that the same person presenting this argument also believes that both Roger and Shanks are stronger than Mihawk, so I would like to point out that this argument is not being presented earnestly or in good faith (like most arguments here) and is just a desperate attempt to prove an agenda. “Aramaki can’t be stronger than Shanks because Shanks doesn’t have a black blade, therefore Aramaki doesn’t have a black blade”…but this user already believes non-black blade users are stronger than Mihawk anyway, lol.

.

.

.

Phew! If you read this entire thread, I sincerely thank you even if you still disagree with me. These are all of the arguments I can think of for the time being but I’m sure more will arise, and I will edit this post when I see those arguments should they be this flawed.

At the end of the day, I think it is clear that Oda intends for us to see Aramaki as the black blade Admiral. I am 99.9% convinced and I rarely say that when dealing with a sporadic mangaka like Oda. But let me know what you think :)

@SakazOuki @Owl Ki @Vanlax @comrade @Sentinel @Playa4321 @Veku @Plex @ConquistadoR @God Buggy @The White Crane @Kurozumi Wiwi @Chrono @MarineHQ @King7 @kurwa @Extravlad @AkainuTheGrimReaper @Gehrman @Peroroncino @ShishioIsBack @HA001 @Light D Lamperouge @Zenos7 @Warchief Sanji D Goat @Mr. Anderson @VersusPhD @Fleet Leader Fenaker @Trueprodigy @silverfire @Den_Den_Mushi
 
Last edited:
#5
> Mihawk got introduced , black blade was mentioned and got introduced along side him

> Ryuma got introduced, black blade was mentioned and got introduced along side him

> GB got introduced who has an eventual black blade, Nah never got mentioned and introduced

Zoro saw Mihawk , talked about black blades

Zoro saw Ryuma , talked about black blades

Zoro saw GB in action against Momo, never talked about that eventual black blade

Yeah Wait until it got confirmed
 

Fleet Admiral Lee Hung

Conqueror of the Stars
#10
Why u want him to have Black Sword?
Do u believe Swordsmanship is better than Top Logia? lol
I think he has both to be clear.

And it’s not about “wanting” him to have one lol, it’s that he most clearly has one and the arguments against him having one are shockingly awful.

All of the arguments to me against him having a black blade, do you remember that chapter where Oda drew Gangster Gastino sitting with Capone but never confirmed it was Caesar until the next chapter? To me, everyone saying Ryokugyu doesn’t have a black blade are just like the people who said Gastino was not Caesar when he obviously was (as was immediately proven next chapter).

The whole point of his black blade not being explicitly confirmed is that this is how badass he is, he achieved a black blade but didn’t even care, it was an afterthought to him. Lol
 
#11
I think he has both to be clear.

And it’s not about “wanting” him to have one lol, it’s that he most clearly has one and the arguments against him having one are shockingly awful.

All of the arguments to me against him having a black blade, do you remember that chapter where Oda drew Gangster Gastino sitting with Capone but never confirmed it was Caesar until the next chapter? To me, everyone saying Ryokugyu doesn’t have a black blade are just like the people who said Gastino was not Caesar when he obviously was (as was immediately proven next chapter).

The whole point of his black blade not being explicitly confirmed is that this is how badass he is, he achieved a black blade but didn’t even care, it was an afterthought to him. Lol
How does he use both? If his Swordsmanship is inferior to his DF then why use it?
 
#18
when king was introduced everyone accepted that he's a swordsman even tho i didn't the arc went one for 150 chapters and not once he used his sword but no one questioned that if he was a swordsman or not i was on the opinion that he wasn't i was half right he didn't call himself one and didn't abide by a sword style but he still used it

so why is it that when a character shows up with sword hes not considered a swordsman now?

i think him showing up with a sword wihout its sheathe means oda is hinting/hyping it up, if he he wasn't a swordsman why would he show up with a sword and if it wasn't a black blade why is it black and specifically unsheathed

it just seems like the fandom nitpick and choose who they want to be a swordsman and who they want to have a blackblade, i think a huge part of it has to do with that zorofans see that greenbull wasn't the greatest admiral to see and consider kizaru stronger so they argue that aramki is neither a blackblade user nor a swordsman so they can push for kizaru vs zoro

the other part is that people think greenbull is a scrub and don't think a character who they consider sub bar to achieve a level of of haki

i think the og admirals focused on their devil fruits but the new admirals while they have weaker fruits they depend on a form of haki, Fujitora on observation and aramaki on armament
 
#19
when king was introduced everyone accepted that he's a swordsman even tho i didn't the arc went one for 150 chapters and not once he used his sword but no one questioned that if he was a swordsman or not i was on the opinion that he wasn't i was half right he didn't call himself one and didn't abide by a sword style but he still used it

so why is it that when a character shows up with sword hes not considered a swordsman now?

i think him showing up with a sword wihout its sheathe means oda is hinting/hyping it up, if he he wasn't a swordsman why would he show up with a sword and if it wasn't a black blade why is it black and specifically unsheathed

it just seems like the fandom nitpick and choose who they want to be a swordsman and who they want to have a blackblade, i think a huge part of it has to do with that zorofans see that greenbull wasn't the greatest admiral to see and consider kizaru stronger so they argue that aramki is neither a blackblade user nor a swordsman so they can push for kizaru vs zoro

the other part is that people think greenbull is a scrub and don't think a character who they consider sub bar to achieve a level of of haki

i think the og admirals focused on their devil fruits but the new admirals while they have weaker fruits they depend on a form of haki, Fujitora on observation and aramaki on armament
Both are weaker than Mihawk
 
Top