Source
r/OnePiece•
Caligula

Debunking the popular theory about Fujitora that was recently posted.

So this thread was recently posted and seemed to be met with a lot of praise. Which was pretty confusing to me as its just one huge speculation after another. So I'm gonna point out the errors and assumptions that abound in this theory because it bothers me.

  1. First off he claims Fujitora and the 7th are supposed to based off these rival samurais Miyamoto Musashi and Sasaki Kojiro but then in like the next sentence he admits Fuji is based on Zatoichi a completely unrelated third samurai.

  2. Next he claims that they are both from Wano with no proof besides Fuji looks like a samurai and that would be cool.

  3. Then there this whole paragraph "The 7th Shichibukai is a traveling rogue samurai who would do ANYTHING to enhance his cutting power and find a sword worthy of his skills. He is a sword hunter who uses underhanded or "cowardly" tactics to get what he wants. He has no qualms with slaying his enemies even if its woman or children. He pretty much has no shame or honor. He became a pirate because he would attack anyone even marines. The 7th Shichibukai also has a DF that involves cutting and just like Miyamoto, is undefeated." Complete speculation based on the assumption that Fuji and the 7th are those two rival samurai even though he claims not to know which is which and Fuji isn't based on either.

  4. This is followed by another entire paragraph of speculation about how Fuji got his scar from the 7th. This time its not even based on faulty assumptions it just simple conjured out of thin air.

  5. Now we get to the part that is somewhat plausible "The Rogue Samurai is Silver and old Zephyr is Gray but like with Issho, the rogue samurai used his DF power to catch Z off guard and cut off his arm and slaughtered. The rogue samurai left victorious." The canonicity of both Film Z and Strong World are suspect but not entirely debunked so I'll give him that point the 7th is the person that cut off Z's arm. Though there was no mention of him being a samurai.

  6. The next outragous claim that this guy makes is that his wandering samurai was the person who kuina trying to take Wado Ichimonji but Koshiro stoped him. Zoro's bumbling sword teacher stopped a warlord that fights on par with an Admiral....right. Again no evidence is given for why this is a fact.

To wrap this up here are the rest of the claims he makes without evidence.

7.The 7th also killed Tashigi's mother for a sword.

  1. Something about Tashigi and Kuina being sisters.

  2. Tashigi will try to fight the 7th lose and cry, Zoro will come save her.

  3. Zoro will learn she is Kuina's sister and beat the bad guy.

  4. Also the 7th has a DF that cuts even though he is a swordsmen for some reason.

tl;dr Its all speculation based on the assumption that Fuji and the 7th are based on the two rival samurai Miyamoto Musashi and Sasaki Kojiro. A few sentences later he admits Fuji is based on Zatoichi but proceeds to write fanfic anyway.

Posted Apr 11, 2015, 7:51 PM UTC

016
jaydoubleyoutee•

Agreed, a majority of One Piece theories read like bad fanfiction.

13
FuttBuckTroll•

Yes, the theory is highly speculative. But you're not really debunking the theory as much as showing that there is no hard evidence supporting or contradicting it one way or another. People (myself included) like the theory because it offers an interesting and plausible way to tie together some events/characters that Oda hasn't fully fleshed out yet. It may or may not pan out to be true, but there's no harm in supporting such a theory. Moreover, it's written decently well, which allows for some meaningful discussion and people to form their own tangent ideas at least.

7
jimmythexpldr•

Dude, it's a theory. Obviously none of it is confirmed. It's speculation on a couple sentences of text. Chances are half of it is bullshit and Oda has other ideas, but this is one of the far more plausible theorys I've read.

It would seem you've come here to complain that a theory is only theoretical.

3
Kevinovoxo•

Obviously it's not confirmed, but when posing a theory (and this is something that many people don't get), you want to try and make educated guesses based off solid information, try to make factually based connections based off certain instances and information given, as well as finding straight-up facts that can contribute to your theory. And after doing this you're still only speaking theoretically, but the difference now is that with every piece of evidence you add to a theory, it's becomes less of a theory and more of a fact. And I think OP's problem lies within the fact, that this reads more as a fan fiction (like many theories do) than an actual theory. And might I just add that I don't agree or disagree with this theory or most theories in general, I try and stay neutral. I actually enjoy reading theories like this because a lot of them tend to have interesting views about future possibilities.

2
Opjunkie•

Don't forget this wonderful little gem:

However, like the meaning of her sword Shigure implies, her tears with call forth a cold -blooded demon

Which is completely false information when Shigure actually means "Rain in Late Autumn" How he got to "Shigure implies her tears with call forth a cold -blooded demon" I will never understand.

And to be honest I just skimmed through because right from the start I could tell it was a half-cocked theory, but I'm sure there's more shoddy info he's throwing out to bend the facts to his theory.

3
ShareHappyness•

I actually think it would be super awesomely cool if Kuina and Tashigi were long lost twins separated at birth.

2
AcquireKarma•

Maybe it's just me, but I see the theories here as stories. It doesn't have to be accurate, just entertaining.

Also, you make a lot of great points about the lack of evidence, but I don't see any evidence against the theory, if that makes sense. There's not much of a reason to believe this is how it will turn out, but there's also no reason to think it isn't.

2
Opjunkie•

Maybe it's just me, but I see the theories here as stories.

So to you theories = fan fiction.

But in reality theories are logical ideas that attempt to explain things based on factual evidence. The author of the 7th shichibukai "theory" that the OP is referencing is twisting facts to support his fanfic instead of adjusting his theory to fit the facts. That's what makes his "theory" inherently wrong.

One example being:

However, like the meaning of her sword Shigure implies, her tears will call forth a cold -blooded demon. And the name of that demon is Roronoa Zoro.

When in reality "Shigure" means "Rain in Late Autumn"
And the author is using the ignorance of his audience to disguise his fanfic as theory.
When someone skews facts it isn't a theory.

1
AcquireKarma•

the·o·ry THēərē
noun
a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.
"Darwin's theory of evolution" -a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based. "a theory of education" -an idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action. "my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanaged"

So technically, none of these are theories under any definition but the third, and under that definiton, there's no definite differece between weak and strong evidence. (So, it actually is a theory, facts or not)

It seems that I misworded my original comment. Here's the message I was trying to convey:
If people are having fun, pulling this "it doesn't count as a theory" stuff makes you look like a complete jerk

I'm sure you aren't a jerk, so why not just hide the post and let the people who like it have their fun?

0
[deleted]•

[deleted]

1
Ximoquim•

So why's this in a separate thread instead of in that one?

1
CaligulaOP•

Cause I figured it was long enough for its own post and also I'm pretty salty.

7
ShishouMatt•

Speculation = Theory

0
Doomspeaker•

You forgot that there's not a slight mention that the 7th is the same person as the pirate cutting off Z's arm. I never found any source for that.

0
AcquireKarma•

It was mentioned in Film Z, where the characters are cannon but the story isn't. That basically means that it's confirmed that the new 7th cut off Z's arm.

1
Doomspeaker•

Yes but that was x years in the past. When we went to the current timeline, there once already were 7 Shichibukai, so the newest one joining after the timeskip isn't automatically No. 7.

Someone mentioned that Volume 1000 says that the new person is indeed the same as Zephyr's arm cutter, but he isn't there because he's been shichibukai ever since but instead got re-contracted. I wish there was any translation of Volume 1000 out there so I could read that again.

1
thescheff12•

I'll try to give a retort to some of your points.

  1. I think what he meant there is that their characteristics will be based on Miyamoto and Sasaki, while his appearance is based mostly on the character Zatochi. There is no way of knowing exactly what Miyamoto and Sasaki look like because they lived so long ago and any depiction of them is bound to change over time.

  2. I agree that this is probably wrong, but they could easily still be rivals even if they are not from the same place. (See Shanks and Mihawk)

  3. I'm not entirely sure which part of the paragraph you find most egregious. If it's the last sentence then I agree that his/her devil fruit is probably not a cutting one, but at the same time it is not a stretch to say that he is undefeated as he could have come away with a win or a draw in all of his fights.

  4. I wouldn't say this is conjured out of thin air. The fact of the matter is that Fujitora is an incredibly strong person with a scar on his face and a sword that as of right now is completely nameless. It is not too ridiculous of a theory to say that the way that he got the scar on his face was from a swordsman that took subsequently took his prized sword.

  5. As you said there is no definitive answer to this point.

  6. Honestly we don't know enough about Zoro's teacher to say that he couldn't fight at an admiral's level. We really only see him in a couple of chapters. To give some speculation that you claim is lacking: Zoro's master has a top sword, he (like Zeff) could be a former Grand Line level figure, and when the revolutionaries are seen at the island when Zoro was a kid it is possible that they were there trying to recruit Zoro's teacher. Again this is speculation, but it is not out of the realm of possibility that Zoro's teacher could stand a chance against the guy or possibly gave him a fake sword to make him leave.

  7. I agree that all of the Kuina and Tashigi stuff is wrong (except maybe the part about Tashigi going after the guy and losing). And again I agree with the cutting DF being wrong.

That said, it is a flawed theory, but I think the community likes it because the OP put some thought into it and I wouldn't be surprised if some of this theory turns out right in some way or another.

-1