The light (typically foam noodles and the the like) and medium targets (husked fruits/gourds and some mats) most people report using are basic (and usually cheap) cloth and flesh simulators. I feel they are targets more suitable for determining cutting effectiveness (only) than tires and plywood.
This paragraph of yours says a lot about the issues we face in this regard:
Quote: |
Here Gus Trim launched two swords several times each into a piece of plywood, and reported the depth of the cut for each swing. Not a ton of data, but the results were consistent enough (and presumably his swings were consistent enough) to convince me that one sword was the better cutter for that medium. |
First, assumptions have to be made about the consistency of swings. And that review told you what a better cutter was "for that medium." What does cutting that medium say about historical performance? I have yet to see plywood armour in a museum. :)
If you want to use tests like that and wanted to balance out a testing routine, you could use a very hard material (tires, plywood, 2 x 4's, etc.) for durability testing, flesh simulators for cutting ability and some other medium for thrusting tests. However, don't expect that these tests will give you a full picture of whether a sword's performance is historic, just whether it passes somewhat arbitrary tests.
One thing to keep in mind is that reviewers are offering their services to the community, free of charge. We use the materials we are comfortable with and can afford. For myArmoury, we never state that our reviews are absolute. There is subjectivity to it and variability in the materials used. It's a side effect of the inherent difficulties in testing items whose intended use (battles and duels with life, death usually on the line) isn't common any more as well as using volunteers with differing experiences, standards, budgets, access to materials, etc.
I understand the desire for standardization, and that would work great if there were a paid group doing the testing, like Consumer Reports does for consumer products in the US. If people want to pay me a good salary and expenses to be a full-time sword-tester, I'm for hire. :)
In an ideal world, all reviewers would test age-of-mail swords against the best and most correct riveted mail available. They'd use real meat and bone. They'd use proper plate armour with realistic shapes and variations in thickness/heat treat for thrusting tests with age-of-plate swords. All of this media would be used in conjunction with proper quilted or padded supporting garments. They'd all have the same amount of experience and the exact same cutting swing all the time. Etc., etc.
Does anyone see that happening? :)