Frankly I'm not a big fan of what Roland does on sharp swords.
He is explicitely doing it with as little safety equipment as possible, in order to induce fear in the participants. He argues that it gets closer to a real fight this way, which is wrong, because the fear here is that of accident. No one is intent on wounding the partner...
Because he is not mad, he is doing it quite slowly and softly in order to remain relatively safe. With the lack of passive safety he has to dial down the intensity so much that the forces and timings involved are completely different from what they would be in a confrontation, and from what is described in the sources (including sources that explicitly train for sharp sword use).
He then draws conclusions from this practice (the now somewhat famous stickiness of sharps), which are very much usupported by the sources, where this supposedly essential property is not even alluded to. Even in the sources that mention training with sharps as opposed to blunts. And I've seen many people, who have no sharp swords, sometimes even no metal swords, blindly trusting this. My own take is that at high speed and force, a sharp sword does not behave vastly differently from a blunt sword (which also gets nicked, therefore sticks all the same, except no one noticed because it is not enough to stop a blade). The difference lies more in the flexibility than in the bite of the edges.
Sparring with sharps could be done much safer. A mask does not impair your mobility or your sight so much. Having a sharp point does not change the mechanics; swords used could be ground to a round point, therefore vastly diminishing the seriousness of any accidental thrust. Wearing a layer of penetration resistant cloth all over, or at least over the vital parts, would also lower the risk of any accidental slice very much, and does not change mobility at all. Even normal fencing gear is tough to cut when you try! If I ever get to test the details of edge behaviour these are the conditions I want to use.
I'm not even sure sparring with sharp is so informative, as opposed to drilling. Mechanically you are more limited. The psychological aspect, while challenging, is different from what you would experience while fighting. If the difference between sparring and drilling is that you have to adapt to unplanned actions or reactions, this does not change whether the swords are sharp or not.
Regards,
I don't think the rewards for sharp sparring outweigh the dangers. Maybe for drills where you and your partner are absolutely sure you have control (ie neither of you hit a pell at combat power more than once in a thousand) and even then at half speed if you really need to know the differences. If you really needed to maybe you could jury rig a mook jong or something to hold a blade at middle guard and play at that and be really careful even then. It'd be an embarrassing injury to have impaled yourself on a stationary blade.
But, in this case I think we can accept that safety limitations get in the way of "real" sword sparring. Heck, even training is an approximation to the real thing for safety's sake. And that's okay. Martial arts has been producing good fighters for a long time with safe training. Just be sure you have sharps for solo drills and practice cutting, particularly with the different cuts you would perform and not just oberhaus, and try your hardest to put those feelings into your blunts. You'll become a decent swordsperson and not have to risk life, limb, and partner to do so.
But, in this case I think we can accept that safety limitations get in the way of "real" sword sparring. Heck, even training is an approximation to the real thing for safety's sake. And that's okay. Martial arts has been producing good fighters for a long time with safe training. Just be sure you have sharps for solo drills and practice cutting, particularly with the different cuts you would perform and not just oberhaus, and try your hardest to put those feelings into your blunts. You'll become a decent swordsperson and not have to risk life, limb, and partner to do so.
Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: |
Frankly I'm not a big fan of what Roland does on sharp swords.
He is explicitely doing it with as little safety equipment as possible, in order to induce fear in the participants. He argues that it gets closer to a real fight this way, which is wrong, because the fear here is that of accident. No one is intent on wounding the partner... Because he is not mad, he is doing it quite slowly and softly in order to remain relatively safe. With the lack of passive safety he has to dial down the intensity so much that the forces and timings involved are completely different from what they would be in a confrontation, and from what is described in the sources (including sources that explicitly train for sharp sword use). He then draws conclusions from this practice (the now somewhat famous stickiness of sharps), which are very much usupported by the sources, where this supposedly essential property is not even alluded to. Even in the sources that mention training with sharps as opposed to blunts. And I've seen many people, who have no sharp swords, sometimes even no metal swords, blindly trusting this. My own take is that at high speed and force, a sharp sword does not behave vastly differently from a blunt sword (which also gets nicked, therefore sticks all the same, except no one noticed because it is not enough to stop a blade). The difference lies more in the flexibility than in the bite of the edges. Sparring with sharps could be done much safer. A mask does not impair your mobility or your sight so much. Having a sharp point does not change the mechanics; swords used could be ground to a round point, therefore vastly diminishing the seriousness of any accidental thrust. Wearing a layer of penetration resistant cloth all over, or at least over the vital parts, would also lower the risk of any accidental slice very much, and does not change mobility at all. Even normal fencing gear is tough to cut when you try! If I ever get to test the details of edge behaviour these are the conditions I want to use. I'm not even sure sparring with sharp is so informative, as opposed to drilling. Mechanically you are more limited. The psychological aspect, while challenging, is different from what you would experience while fighting. If the difference between sparring and drilling is that you have to adapt to unplanned actions or reactions, this does not change whether the swords are sharp or not. Regards, |
I have done a lot of sparring and tests with sharps and I can tell you that they do not behave like blunts, even at high speed and strength, on the contrary the effect of the bind is harder with intensity, the blades sink deep into each other and the only way to unbind is to bend or crack the swords edge.
I also noticed that very hard blades put against each other do not bind, but rather "shatter" at edge contact and "bounce"( for lack of better words), perhaps why Japanese swordsmanship relies more on parries and deflections rather than binds.
I will relate how i spare with sharps but do not advocate that anybody do it, nor will i be responsible for what fate will bestow those who try ;).
I sharpen the two swords at very low grit, so that there cutting capacity on strike is far diminished, but the planes of the edges perfectly meet, in order to bind.
The point is by far the most dangerous part of a sharp, so i literally snap them off, and regrind them to a very broad rounded tip, which is perfectly safe.
Full protective gear all over, i don't use metal protections, cloth is far sufficient to keep you safe from cuts at this grit.
The swords you decided to modify like this should not be very stiff, and the upper third of the blade should not be sharpened being the thinnest and fastest moving part of the sword it can even at low grit cut, so better safe than sorry.
I keep the two lower thirds of the blade sharp, for binding and striking.
We spare at medium intensity, and after a "heated" round, we will remind each other to calm down and return to medium intensity.( it is paramount that both predetermine what force and speed to use and apply and stick to it!)
So far 0 injuries or accidents. Thrusts are not dangerous, cuts do not penetrate the gambesons, then again we knew it would be this way as we tested before hand and neither of us could cut with a low grit edge threw the material other than if we hit with the tip ( hence why we do not sharpen it ).
Also i almost forgot, no draw cuts.
Hello Hector,
Well your practice seems to be considerably more reasonable than Roland's! That's cool :)
Ah OK. But isn't this causing considerable damage to the swords? I was operating under the assumption that blade contact would occur at an angle most of the time, not causing too deep nicks. In this case the bind is fairly sticky at low force, but as soon as you're pushing with enough force along the edge the swords start to slide. At least this is what I have observed in my own experiments - no sparring at all, just testing stuff with my Milanese rapier in one hand and the dagger in the other :)
Regards,
Well your practice seems to be considerably more reasonable than Roland's! That's cool :)
Quote: |
I have done a lot of sparring and tests with sharps and I can tell you that they do not behave like blunts, even at high speed and strength, on the contrary the effect of the bind is harder with intensity, the blades sink deep into each other and the only way to unbind is to bend or crack the swords edge. |
Ah OK. But isn't this causing considerable damage to the swords? I was operating under the assumption that blade contact would occur at an angle most of the time, not causing too deep nicks. In this case the bind is fairly sticky at low force, but as soon as you're pushing with enough force along the edge the swords start to slide. At least this is what I have observed in my own experiments - no sparring at all, just testing stuff with my Milanese rapier in one hand and the dagger in the other :)
Regards,
Hector A. wrote: | ||
I have done a lot of sparring and tests with sharps and I can tell you that they do not behave like blunts, even at high speed and strength, on the contrary the effect of the bind is harder with intensity, the blades sink deep into each other and the only way to unbind is to bend or crack the swords edge. I also noticed that very hard blades put against each other do not bind, but rather "shatter" at edge contact and "bounce"( for lack of better words), perhaps why Japanese swordsmanship relies more on parries and deflections rather than binds. I will relate how i spare with sharps but do not advocate that anybody do it, nor will i be responsible for what fate will bestow those who try ;). I sharpen the two swords at very low grit, so that there cutting capacity on strike is far diminished, but the planes of the edges perfectly meet, in order to bind. The point is by far the most dangerous part of a sharp, so i literally snap them off, and regrind them to a very broad rounded tip, which is perfectly safe. Full protective gear all over, i don't use metal protections, cloth is far sufficient to keep you safe from cuts at this grit. The swords you decided to modify like this should not be very stiff, and the upper third of the blade should not be sharpened being the thinnest and fastest moving part of the sword it can even at low grit cut, so better safe than sorry. I keep the two lower thirds of the blade sharp, for binding and striking. We spare at medium intensity, and after a "heated" round, we will remind each other to calm down and return to medium intensity.( it is paramount that both predetermine what force and speed to use and apply and stick to it!) So far 0 injuries or accidents. Thrusts are not dangerous, cuts do not penetrate the gambesons, then again we knew it would be this way as we tested before hand and neither of us could cut with a low grit edge threw the material other than if we hit with the tip ( hence why we do not sharpen it ). Also i almost forgot, no draw cuts. |
what sort of hand protection to you guys use? because I've watched threads off Matt easton's group showing how thick bullky nonperiod hand protection encourages people in his group to be reckless in protecting their hands and because Roland groups doesn't use those he was able to offer insight on why some single handed swords had guard leathers. Also. wouldn't sharpening the lower to thirds and using those train your students to use the most mechanically inefficent part of a sword to cut with? And the cutting thing test reminded me of stuff I read on Mensur. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_fencing From what I've read on there, the practicioners of Academic fencing wear a ton of chainmail in order to prevent themselves from killing each other. It's probably not practical for your entire squad to require them to be clad in mail becuase of the expense of mail which isn't butted crap. But for cuts, even full force cut, they work wonders. https://www.youtube.com/user/ThegnThrand https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6MwO73W-dg Also, that sort of protection protects well enough from lacreration (heavy blood loss,loss of limbs is the main worry of doing anything with sharps) but doesn't protect against impact force, so you wouldn't be losing limbs getting hit but if your technique is off, your going to suffer heavy welts or broken bones which could be fixed easier then and now. Also,out of curiousity, what are the gambeson's made out of which make them cut resitant?
Philip Dyer wrote: |
what sort of hand protection to you guys use? because I've watched threads off Matt easton's group showing how thick bullky nonperiod hand protection encourages people in his group to be reckless in protecting their hands and because Roland groups doesn't use those he was able to offer insight on why some single handed swords had guard leathers. Also. wouldn't sharpening the lower to thirds and using those train your students to use the most mechanically inefficent part of a sword to cut with? And the cutting thing test reminded me of stuff I read on Mensur. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_fencing From what I've read on there, the practicioners of Academic fencing wear a ton of chainmail in order to prevent themselves from killing each other. It's probably not practical for your entire squad to require them to be clad in mail becuase of the expense of mail which isn't butted crap. But for cuts, even full force cut, they work wonders. https://www.youtube.com/user/ThegnThrand https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6MwO73W-dg Also, that sort of protection protects well enough from lacreration (heavy blood loss,loss of limbs is the main worry of doing anything with sharps) but doesn't protect against impact force, so you wouldn't be losing limbs getting hit but if your technique is off, your going to suffer heavy welts or broken bones which could be fixed easier then and now. Also,out of curiousity, what are the gambeson's made out of which make them cut resitant? |
Strong linen will happily turn a dull to sharp edge like that which Hector described. A decent number of layers will turn most sharp edges as well, unless your form is good and your strike is delivered with commitment. Gambesons are pretty good protection.
As for most of the rest of your questions, I get the sense you missed why they're using sharp edges. It's for the behaviour in the bind - and most binds happen higher up on the weapon. If you get into a typical oberhau vs zornhau bind using swords like those described, they'll behave as sharp weapons, but on doubling or thrusting it won't pose a serious risk to your partner.
T. Kew wrote: | ||
Strong linen will happily turn a dull to sharp edge like that which Hector described. A decent number of layers will turn most sharp edges as well, unless your form is good and your strike is delivered with commitment. Gambesons are pretty good protection. As for most of the rest of your questions, I get the sense you missed why they're using sharp edges. It's for the behaviour in the bind - and most binds happen higher up on the weapon. If you get into a typical oberhau vs zornhau bind using swords like those described, they'll behave as sharp weapons, but on doubling or thrusting it won't pose a serious risk to your partner. |
.......? what is considered lower and higher? Because when I read lower 2/3s of the sword, I'm assuming sharpened sharp near the strong, next to the guard, to the middle
Philip Dyer wrote: |
.......? what is considered lower and higher? Because when I read lower 2/3s of the sword, I'm assuming sharpened sharp near the strong, next to the guard, to the middle |
Sharp from the strong to roughly the centre of percussion, and then blunt from there.
Most binds and so forth happen in the area from the COP towards the hilt anyway (which is 'higher', if you use the normal approach of considering the pommel at the top and the tip at the bottom, but I see Hector has described them in reverse).
Thanks Johannes for posting the links I meant to post in the first place. I really have to get off this damn tablet when posting here and use a proper PC.
Vincent I believe Roland is trying to emphasize what happens when you reach the bind in a less powerful manner, which can happen, for example after catching a thrust with your blade. Also can you give examples of those manuals that deal with training with sharps and what they say about them?
Hector how sharp is sharp enough for you? And what is too blunt? Something like the Albion squire line swords. Or more like the butterknife sharp option on their next gen swords?
Perhaps we need to reconsider the triangulation in HEMA:
Sharps for cutting and solo drills.
Semi sharps for paired drills at low intensity.
Blunts for paired drills at high intensity
Feders for sparring.
;)
Now if you excuse me I am going to sell a few organs to finance this new approach in resurrecting the ancient arts.
:)
Vincent I believe Roland is trying to emphasize what happens when you reach the bind in a less powerful manner, which can happen, for example after catching a thrust with your blade. Also can you give examples of those manuals that deal with training with sharps and what they say about them?
Hector how sharp is sharp enough for you? And what is too blunt? Something like the Albion squire line swords. Or more like the butterknife sharp option on their next gen swords?
Perhaps we need to reconsider the triangulation in HEMA:
Sharps for cutting and solo drills.
Semi sharps for paired drills at low intensity.
Blunts for paired drills at high intensity
Feders for sparring.
;)
Now if you excuse me I am going to sell a few organs to finance this new approach in resurrecting the ancient arts.
:)
Rim Andries wrote: |
Thanks Johannes for posting the links I meant to post in the first place. I really have to get off this damn tablet when posting here and use a proper PC.
Vincent I believe Roland is trying to emphasize what happens when you reach the bind in a less powerful manner, which can happen, for example after catching a thrust with your blade. Also can you give examples of those manuals that deal with training with sharps and what they say about them? Hector how sharp is sharp enough for you? And what is too blunt? Something like the Albion squire line swords. Or more like the butterknife sharp option on their next gen swords? Perhaps we need to reconsider the triangulation in HEMA: Sharps for cutting and solo drills. Semi sharps for paired drills at low intensity. Blunts for paired drills at high intensity Feders for sparring. ;) Now if you excuse me I am going to sell a few organs to finance this new approach in resurrecting the ancient arts. :) |
That wouldn't be a triangle anymore, now there are four corners. With that set up, it would be a Hema box :P
[/quote]That wouldn't be a triangle anymore, now there are four corners. With that set up, it would be a Hema box :P[/quote]
That is what I meant by reconsidering it.
Hema box.... boxing...... hmm I don't know. Especially scince HEMA is also a big warehouse here in the Netherlands. They have boxes too...
How about tesseract? Way cooler... or better: messeract!!
Now all we need to do is train in four dimensions....
...
Yeah, HEMA box is good... ;)
That is what I meant by reconsidering it.
Hema box.... boxing...... hmm I don't know. Especially scince HEMA is also a big warehouse here in the Netherlands. They have boxes too...
How about tesseract? Way cooler... or better: messeract!!
Now all we need to do is train in four dimensions....
...
Yeah, HEMA box is good... ;)
Rim Andries wrote: |
Vincent I believe Roland is trying to emphasize what happens when you reach the bind in a less powerful manner, which can happen, for example after catching a thrust with your blade. |
Sure, it is not a rare case. But even then, nothing prevents you from using force in the ensuing bind, and you'd probably do if you were determined to wound.
Quote: |
Also can you give examples of those manuals that deal with training with sharps and what they say about them? |
The tradition that is most explicit as regards blunts and sharps is the Bolognese school. There is even a disagreement among masters!
Early advice from Manciolino (1531):
Quote: |
I now wish to show how wrong those are who insist that good swordsmanship can never proceed from practice with blunted weapons, but only from training with sharp swords. […] It is far preferable to learn to strike with bated blades then with sharp ones; and it would not be fair to arm untrained students with sharp swords or with other weapons that can inflict injury for the purpose of training new students to defend themselves. |
Manciolino, like other masters in that lineage, describes techniques for the spada da filo (sharp) and spada da giocco (blunt). Not once does he point out any mechanical difference in the behaviour of sword on sword. He advises a slightly different tactical approach due to the danger and seriousness of the situation. For example he advocates staying in low guards which he deems safer, in particular for the legs.
Then in Viggiani (1575):
Quote: |
ROD: [...] take up your sword, Conte.
CON: How so, my sword? Isn't it better to take one meant for practice? ROD: Not now, because with those practice weapons it is not possible to acquire valor or prowess of the heart, nor ever to learn a perfect schermo. CON: I believe the former, but the latter I doubt. What is the reason, Rodomonte, that it is not possible to learn (so you say) a perfect schermo with that sort of weapon? Can't you deliver the same blows with that, as with one which is edged? ROD: I would not say now that you cannot do all those ways of striking, of warding, and of guards, with those weapons, and equally with these, but you will do them imperfectly with those, and most perfectly with these edged ones, because if (for example) you ward a thrust put to you by the enemy, beating aside his sword with a mandritto, so that that thrust did not face your breast, while playing with spade da marra, it will suffice you to beat it only a little, indeed, for you to learn the schermo; but if they were spade da filo, you would drive that mandritto with all of your strength in order to push well aside the enemy's thrust. Behold that this would be a perfect blow, done with wisdom, and with promptness, unleashed with more length, and thrown with more force, that it would have been with those other arms. How will you fare, Conte, if you take perfect arms in your hand, and not stand with all your spirit, and with all your intent judgment? |
As you can see the argument is that while blunt vs. sharp does not change the mechanics, they alter the intent, and that you will commit a lot more to your actions facing and using sharps. Which is more or less directly the opposite of what happens modern use, for the good reason that we all want to remain safe :)
Later on, while the rapier masters are silent on the issue if I remember correctly, they are still interesting to look at. There is little doubt that their techniques were applicable to sharp swords (this is the height of dueling after all). If you look at Thibault for example, there is the assumption that swords will go through heads and cut the calves. Fabris advises not to parry cuts with the cape because the sword could cut through it and wound. They do not worry about the blades sticking upon contact and Thibault at least includes a lot of sliding of blade on blade...
Regards,
I've practiced with a sharp sword before - doing basic guards, in my yard, all alone, with NO ONE even in visual range. Doing so with others is asking for disaster. I must echo the other posters, here. It is a seriously bad idea. True, a real sharp sword does handle differently from a synthetic sword, which is the point of me practicing with a real sword, but that's where it ends. I'd rather walk away from practice in one piece than in pieces. Use a synthetic sword for blade to blade contact.
To reply to some of the things that have been asked and said above:
Vincent: Yes training like this ravages the swords in very little time, we have the nicks that have to be removed between sessions ( we make no effort at conserving material by heating the area and hammering it, that would take to much time, so we just grind them off ), and then there's the fact we are sharpening at a low grit to keep the edge from being a danger to our protections, so material is ground off faster.
Philip: we use these gloves [ Linked Image ]
Yes they restrict perfect movement with the sword, but then again what could restrict use even more is the lose of a finger, these have held up beautifully to strikes from our modified swords, cuts are not very deep.
We have always paid attention to keeping our hands out of arms way and using the cross guard correctly, so strikes to the hands inevitably happen every session, but not as frequently as i have seen happen in certain groups.
Our gambesons are tightly woven linen.
Rim Andries: Albion butter knife "sharp" is a 1mm thick edge, that wont cut or bind at all. The way we do it, is a 40 degree total edge angle, sharpened at 80-120 grit.
I know the swords are ready to bind when they are capable of cutting paper at those grits.
I wont say if that's sharp or not, im done debating or explaining sword sharpness on these forums.
Vincent: Yes training like this ravages the swords in very little time, we have the nicks that have to be removed between sessions ( we make no effort at conserving material by heating the area and hammering it, that would take to much time, so we just grind them off ), and then there's the fact we are sharpening at a low grit to keep the edge from being a danger to our protections, so material is ground off faster.
Philip: we use these gloves [ Linked Image ]
Yes they restrict perfect movement with the sword, but then again what could restrict use even more is the lose of a finger, these have held up beautifully to strikes from our modified swords, cuts are not very deep.
We have always paid attention to keeping our hands out of arms way and using the cross guard correctly, so strikes to the hands inevitably happen every session, but not as frequently as i have seen happen in certain groups.
Our gambesons are tightly woven linen.
Rim Andries: Albion butter knife "sharp" is a 1mm thick edge, that wont cut or bind at all. The way we do it, is a 40 degree total edge angle, sharpened at 80-120 grit.
I know the swords are ready to bind when they are capable of cutting paper at those grits.
I wont say if that's sharp or not, im done debating or explaining sword sharpness on these forums.
Hector A. wrote: |
To reply to some of the things that have been asked and said above:
Vincent: Yes training like this ravages the swords in very little time, we have the nicks that have to be removed between sessions ( we make no effort at conserving material by heating the area and hammering it, that would take to much time, so we just grind them off ), and then there's the fact we are sharpening at a low grit to keep the edge from being a danger to our protections, so material is ground off faster. Philip: we use these gloves [ Linked Image ] Yes they restrict perfect movement with the sword, but then again what could restrict use even more is the lose of a finger, these have held up beautifully to strikes from our modified swords, cuts are not very deep. We have always paid attention to keeping our hands out of arms way and using the cross guard correctly, so strikes to the hands inevitably happen every session, but not as frequently as i have seen happen in certain groups. Our gambesons are tightly woven linen. Rim Andries: Albion butter knife "sharp" is a 1mm thick edge, that wont cut or bind at all. The way we do it, is a 40 degree total edge angle, sharpened at 80-120 grit. I know the swords are ready to bind when they are capable of cutting paper at those grits. I wont say if that's sharp or not, im done debating or explaining sword sharpness on these forums. |
Seems like really cool good gloves and it awesome your students are able resist temptation to not game sparring because of it's protectiveness, but I think that the idea than if you didn't use rigid protection you would lose fingers, if that was the case, chainmail mittens and gloves wouldn't have been invented. I obvious understand and agree with not wanting to risk having your finger bones being crushed to pieces but I was just pointing that you don't necessarily need rigid protection to prevent fingers of being lobbed off. Also, your groups gambesons are awesome! :D
Robert, do you mean steel wasters by synthetics? Or nylon waster?
I personally feel nylon is best suited for beginners, people with a small budget, or paired drills that require a bit more caution for whatever reason. Other than that I think steel is the way to go.
Hector, it is okay you do not want to discuss sharpness anymore. It is not a clear cut case after all ;). You have answered my question. Thanks for doing so.
I personally feel nylon is best suited for beginners, people with a small budget, or paired drills that require a bit more caution for whatever reason. Other than that I think steel is the way to go.
Hector, it is okay you do not want to discuss sharpness anymore. It is not a clear cut case after all ;). You have answered my question. Thanks for doing so.
I was thinking of something like a Rawlings synthetic or similar. Its what we use in HEMA training, and while it does handle somewhat differently than my real swords, the worst that can happen is you'll get a bruise.
Robert Morgan wrote: |
I was thinking of something like a Rawlings synthetic or similar. Its what we use in HEMA training, and while it does handle somewhat differently than my real swords, the worst that can happen is you'll get a bruise. |
This is dangerously untrue.
A Rawlings synthetic is certainly capable of breaking fingers, seriously injuring throats, or putting out eyes. I'd be very unsurprised if it could deliver concussions as well. Safety gear is still required if you want to strike with commitment with one.
One of the most major issues with synthetics for safety is people who say things like "oh, it can only really cause a bruise", and then don't wear suitable protective gear or exercise necessary control. That way lies broken hands.
There are also a lot of weapon simulators with various levels of inherent danger between "sharp sword" and "synthetic". Feder type steel trainers, especially lighter ones, are only minimally more dangerous than synthetics in the abstract, behave a lot better, and invoke more appropriate respect in the fencers (so they'll use proper equipment or be significantly more aware of the need for control.
Of our group we use wood and steel, pretty much we started with wood until we could afford steel. In training and even sparring there is not need to go 'hard out' as that causes unnecessary injuries.
Anyway I'm for practice with sharps and I really enjoy Roland's work.
Any tool you use, you must be aware of it.
Anyway I'm for practice with sharps and I really enjoy Roland's work.
Any tool you use, you must be aware of it.
Quote: |
This is dangerously untrue.
A Rawlings synthetic is certainly capable of breaking fingers, seriously injuring throats, or putting out eyes. I'd be very unsurprised if it could deliver concussions as well. Safety gear is still required if you want to strike with commitment with one. |
The thread was about using sharpened blades in training. I responded that a synthetic was safer than a sharpened steel blade. That is generally true. I never said that one should train without safety gear. Indeed, one would be foolish to not use safety gear. However, if you are then the worst that can happen with a synthetic trainer is probably a bruise. The right hand protection will defend against breaking finger bones, head gear will protect against eye slashes, etc. Nowhere did I say not to use safety gear. I think if you'll go back and reread my post, you'll see that I didn't say anything about safety gear, yay or nay. I think its sort of assumed that safety gear is a must.
Page 4 of 5
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum