Edge to Flat Cuts Video -- myArmoury.com

Travis Canaday · Posted: Fri 08 Jun, 2007 6:44 pm Post subject:

Randall,

Jason G. Smith · Posted: Fri 08 Jun, 2007 7:23 pm Post subject:

Jason G. Smith · Posted: Fri 08 Jun, 2007 7:32 pm Post subject:

Bill Grandy · myArmoury Team

Joel Whitmore · Posted: Fri 08 Jun, 2007 7:55 pm Post subject: Mythical proportions

This discussion is reaching the level of internet mythology that only "Do Balrogs Have wings?" debates achieved!

Joel

Jason G. Smith · Posted: Fri 08 Jun, 2007 8:12 pm Post subject: Re: Mythical proportions

Jason G. Smith · Posted: Fri 08 Jun, 2007 8:14 pm Post subject:

Randall Pleasant · Posted: Fri 08 Jun, 2007 9:52 pm Post subject:

Risto Rautiainen · Posted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 3:22 am Post subject:

Travis Canaday · Posted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 4:34 am Post subject:

Vincent Le Chevalier · Posted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 4:49 am Post subject:

There is a point of view that I feel is not discussed that often in these discussions, that is the one of the attacker.

Please mentally prefix each of my sentences below by "In my humble opinion" as I'm obviously no expert in longsword Wink

(and for some strange reason it seems those debates essentially happen among longsword enthusiasts).

Let's say I'm the attacker. I'm launching a strike. From here there are several possibilities depending on the quality of my strike and the level of my opponent:

1) If my strike is telegraphed, false time, or my opponent has a superior mastery of the art than me, no hard contact will likely happen. He will either void my strike or stifle it and counter in the same motion, or even counter before my attack is fully launched.

If there is blade contact, it will happen at an angle, with weapons glancing on each other. Flat on edge, edge on flat, or even edge on edge but with such a narrow angle or low relative speed that the damage is not a concern.

In other words in this case the nature of the blade contact is not determined by a concern from either fighter to preserve his edge, but rather results from the dynamics of the action. I have the impression that many here agree about that.

2) If my strike is really good, or my opponent was not focused, or he is an absolute beginner, he will likely attempt a hard static block to save his life. It will be my weak against his strong normally, because that's the most natural outcome (or he has missed a counter on my arm, but in that case I'd think my strike would actually go through his parry). This is good from my attacker's perspective, because I keep the initiative. He is restricted to acting in two times if he goes for the static block. That is why Thibault for example advises against this move (he is a rapier master but I think the idea translates well to any weapon). From what I heard it was clearly not the prefered way, but it can happen.

Of course there will be hard blade impact (at least that is what my opponent expects), and two sub-cases:

a) He blocks with the edge. Depending on the strike and on his position, this could be the most obvious way. Anyhow it is the strongest way to block (not that anything else is impossible, but it will be weaker or more difficult to perform). And from my attacker's perspective, it bothers me to no end. I'm going to strike full force, edge on, my weak on his strong, and there will not be that much give in the impact. So, even if I think that he is a fool for parrying this way, I'm actually risking more than him. Maybe he will damage his sword, but surely he will damage mine, in its most fragile spot (and Viggiani was quoted in the previous discussion as saying just that).

I have little hope of striking through his sword in this position. The thing I think I would do is actually pulling my strike to lessen the impact, from which I have little to gain. But at least I won't break my sword. And then we are in a bind. He has regained a bit of initiative in the process.

b) He blocks with his flat. I'm then nearly sure there will be no damage done to my sword. I have nothing to gain by pulling my strike. So I land it full force on his flat (that could actually damage his sword a bit). He has to be a bit more tensed to withstand that. Maybe his sword will start to vibrate, maybe mine will bounce back, because of the flexibility of the swords. He loses part of his "sentiment du fer" (I'm sure there is a German name for that as well Wink

). His reaction has meant nothing for me, in the sense that there was no danger neither for me nor for my sword at any time, so that I never need to react or adjust my moves.

We end up at the bind, but I'm maybe in a more favorable position than in the previous case, because I have my edge against his flat. I could be wrong about that, but it seems that this is generally preferable (as was cited in the previous discussion the masters specifically said so when using the flat to bind gave an advantage).

To conclude, it would make some sense to me if the reasoning behind edge parries was: "I'm not going to hurt him, so I might as well threaten his sword as much as I can, and end up in a more even position."

I don't know if any master ever taught that. It is an idea I had during my practice in kenjutsu, because the school I study depicts a good deal of edge to edge contact (some are disguised counters, but some are really difficult to perform that way...). I don't think anyone believes that hard edge on edge impact would not damage the swords, but maybe we should not overlook the reaction that the attacker can have when faced with such a block. After all, ideally all strikes should be controlled, in order not to leave gaping openings in case of a miss, so isn't it possible to stop the strike before contact?

And I for one see some value in these discussions (as long as they remain civil, of course), because they are a place where both sides give their opinion, so that normally the overall view is less biased than it would be in an article from either side. Even if the proponents from both side will never jump ship, it's interesting for those like me who do not have a ship in the first place Happy

Regards,

Craig Peters · Posted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 5:21 am Post subject:

Vincent,

That's an interesting perspective from which to look at this discussion. The problem is that I'm not sure how much ecological validity it has. If you're fencing against someone who is skilled, they're going to be striking in such a way that even if you block or parry the cut, their strong is going to be against your weak, in which case you really haven't protected yourself all that well, because the attacker still holds the initiative and now is in a good position in the bind.

The other thing is that even if the flat deflections appear more difficult to do at first, they're actually not with a little bit of practice, and as you can see in the videos, they leave one in an excellent position to regain the initiative and cause harm to one's foe. Thus, the rather small amount of effort it takes to learn to ward off blows in this manner would be more than worth it for the benefit of the end position you're left in, not to mention the fact that you don't damage your sword. As I mentioned in the other thread, damaging your edges can potentially impede your ability to cause harm to your foe and protect yourself.

I don't think a single master taught the philosophy that you describe here. The masters were all about ensuring that you were protected and that it was your enemy that got hurt- it's part of the philosophy necessary to being a master, really- and thus techniques with this philosophy in mind are not really worth teaching or practicing because of their extremely limited usefulness, and the likliness you'll be killed.

Risto Rautiainen · Posted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 5:29 am Post subject:

Excellent post Vincent!

Randall Pleasant · Posted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 6:44 am Post subject:

Risto

Thanks for joining these friendly discussions.

Lancelot Chan · Industry Professional

Just to add some information to the discussion Vincent brought up with. While I've never received full force striking with my flat, thus not sure about if my sword's flat could take it or not, striking at the opponent's flat with my edge will absolutely blunt the immediate area of contact of my blade. So I wouldn't consider striking at someone's flat wouldn't damage my sword. At least it won't slice anymore. Even a winding move after the bind would blunt the area of the edge that contacted the opponent's blade. As a result, I've found that a sharp sword's edge is pretty fragile. Any contact with the opponent's sword would turn it blunt in no time.

Greg Coffman · Posted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 10:07 am Post subject:

Mr. Chan, not knowing the swords you are working with, it sounds like your swords have either too thin, too keen, or too soft an edge.

Edge to edge contact is not the same as edge to edge parries. ARMA doesn't like edge to edge parries but we have never said that there won't be edge to edge parries.

With blade damage, some is to be expected. With normal usage nicks and scratches are normal. However, much more serious edge damage can result from hard edge to edge parries which then cannot be grinded out easily or without substantial reshaping of the blade. That is what I have been taught.

Travis Canaday · Posted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 11:49 am Post subject:

Christian Henry Tobler · Posted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 12:14 pm Post subject:

Jason G. Smith · Posted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 12:56 pm Post subject:

Craig Peters · Posted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 1:43 pm Post subject:

It seems to me that nearly everyone here is not arguing about the martial efficacy of the techniques demonstrated in the videos. It's fairly obvious that what was demonstrated there worked at speed, with force and intensity. This is why I don't understand how people can automatically rule out techniques with obvious martial efficacy because "Well that's not MY interpretation of what the manuals say, so therefore it can't be right". Such an attitude is not a very good way to evaluate techniques, nor is it particularly conducive to one's own growth in historic European martial arts. Remember, what we're talking about here is an interpretation. There's lots of different interpretations out there, so our only real way to evaluate them and compare them against each other is based on their martial efficacy, and if the text can be interpreted to support a particular execution of the technique.

So the least that you can do, therefore, is at least try out the techniques. Give them a whirl, and see how they work for you. If you're having trouble getting them to work, have another look at the video to see how the ARMA guys are doing it; there's no shame in checking to see how they're performing it. You might find that they work well and that its worth reconsidering your interpretation of the source text. The same goes for the video interpretation of the Zornhaw as well.

If you're not even willing to try the techniques, it makes me wonder if this is really about which interpretation is the closest to what the text says, or whether it's about the fact that you don't want to admit that someone else might have a better interpretation than your own.