[Michael Edelson]

Hi all,

This is our latest cutting vid. It shows combination cuts, double and triple. These cuts, some of which are performed on the same section of mat before it hits the ground, are designed to improve timing, focus, aim, balance and more.

I hope you enjoy it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4ucqArlmpk

[Mark T]

Hi Michael,

Nice stuff!

Some of the other test-cutting I've seen on tatami-omote by HEMA practitioners seems to have a lot of 'muscling' through cuts, over-swings, and so on ... I'm curious about whether, what, and how much you draw on your previous JSA tameshigiri experience when applying it to test-cutting with Western swords?

Cheers,

Mark

[Michael Edelson]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Michael Edelson]

Thanks Jean, that's basically right.

Cutting is one aspect of training...learning to use your sword for the purpose it was intended. Combined with drills (solo and paired) and free fencing, you get a complete package. Ideally, you should move the same way in all three, so that when you free fence or do drills, each of your strikes is an effective cut (or thrust, or slice) that would actually damage the opponent. When you cut, your strikes are controlled, centered and focused just like they should be in drills and free fencing, and so on. It's a harmony of three elements that combine to form the whole of the art.

The cuts in this particular video have a very specific purpsoe. Here I'm not simulating approaching a target. These cuts mostly work on speed, timing, aim and focus, as well as not overcommitting. If you overcommit to one cut, you're not getting another one out in time. That sword may be light for a longsword, but it's still a 3.25lb piece of steel that wants to keep going in the same direction.

If these cuts were to be given a tactical application...looking at the last cut (the tripple), I cut into alber and miss, inviting you to try to nachrisen. You come in with your hands leading and I lop off your right arm. But you still have your sword, so I lop off your left arm. Then I notice that your stumps are uneven, and that bothers me, so I cut your right stump with the short edge to make it even with your left. There, all better.

[Joshua R]

Very nice, very smooth. It looked quite effortless!

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Sam Barris]

[Douglas S]

I notice that, in cutting, you turn your sword, as if you only have one edge to work with. Would it not be faster and easier in some cases to cut with the back edge instead?

[Michael Edelson]

[Bill Grandy]

In addition to what Mike said, a good fencer needs to be able to use both edges depending on circumstance. There are some instances where the long edge makes much more sense (it allows you to close the line in a way that the short edge doesn't, it allows you to press against the underside of the opponent's arms to force them away, etc).

[Greg Mele]

I agree with Bill - you need both edges. But according to Western fencing theory, returning back up with the false edge is *of necessity* faster. Returning back up the same line is a single, perfect time, or tempo whereas turning the hands over to return the cut is an imperfect time, because it requires two discreet, linked actions - turning the hands over, and then cutting, so that the sword moves through a longer arc.

That doesn't mean that Mike's observation is wrong that has seen people who can turn their hands over and cut twice as fast as he can. What it means is that relative to any one person, returning up the same line with the false edge is faster than it will be for that same swordsman to turn his hands over and cut.

Now again, that's not Greg talking, that's four centuries of dudes using two-edged swords. However, note that those same swordsmen made a point of using true edge cuts from below, as well. Which do you use, when? Well, it depends!

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Agreed with most of the above.

The true edge follow-on from below is slower, and it has less range, but it closes the line effectively. The false edge cut is [a little] faster, has greater extension, but must rely more on clearing aside the attack from the outside, as it doesn't close the line well.

We find both in German sources: the canonical Unterhau, done with the true edge, and the streichen, or 'slashings', with the false edge.

However, the short edge blow isn't inherently weaker. In fact it's incredibly powerful; the key is to lever the pommel down while lifting the leading hand up as you cut. But more to the point, if you use it as prescribed (at least in German texts) - to sweep aside an attack from the outside, then riposte down to his head/arms/etc. - you're playing off his momentum anyway. That's a place where a cutting exercise *can't* tell you how to use the system correctly, because this blow isn't primarily used for cutting in the first place, but for deflection; it's the downward, follow-on blow that does the real damage.

Cheers,

Christian

[Michael Edelson]

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi Mike,

I can cut with it, but you're right that the mechanics are a bit different. I'd liken them to 'hooking' through the target, which is different than how, say, an Oberhau cuts. If you don't train it that way, you train out the proper mechanics for deflecting.

And you do need to be able to cut, or at least deliver a percussively sound stroke (likely targets are the arms/hands, which needn't be cut through or off to be de-activated), even though that's not the primary application, because if you're opponent refuses to strike, you're going to have to hit him.

Conversely, the left long edge Unterhau is probably the tactically weakest blow of the four simple strokes (the Oberhau and Unterhau from both sides), because it's so shortened. Unterhaue have significantly less range to begin with, and on the left, the blow is delivered with the leading hand attached to the trailing foot. That's not important once you're playing at close measure (which you do in the video), but it's a significant weakness at the onset of the fight.

But I don't advise developing radically different mechanics for 'striking' and 'cutting' because:

1. There's no evidence that cutting through layers of fabric is important in this application - it's unarmoured fighting and thick jacks and the like are armour. In fact, jacks are regarded by period writers as "sword proof", so training to cut through them is counter-productive. Fight book illustrations don't tend (if ever) to show amputations or decapitations through clothing; it's instead against bare skin - at the wrists or neck.
2. You're unlikely to call up differing bits of 'muscle memory' on the fly that require differing mechanics, particularly when the situation is fluid, as it is in any fight. What began as "he's not moving, so I'll cut him" may need to turn, on the fly, into "he's now attacking, I have to deflect his sword".
3. If you slash up forcefully, you just don't need to even cut into the arm or hands; it's a bad day for them in any case. Any number of serio-comic episodes with wasters, or even padded swords, attests this.

The word used for a blow struck with the sword's edge is "Hau". That word doesn't mean 'cut'; instead the closest English word is the one it shares a common origin with: 'hew'. Alas, 'hew' is not a noun in English. But in any case, the word implies a chopping action, not a slicing one; there's a percussive element implied in the word itself. This is all the more evident when we're told to use 'hauen' with poleaxes, or even simple wooden staves, elsewhere in the tradition.

Cheers,

Christian

[Cory Winslow]

Hey Guys,

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Ah, interesting Cory. But note that this isn't used to describe the act itself, but rather the result. I don't think one would say "you need a better hew to fell that tree."

It's certainly nothing used by modern speakers, so the translation ends up being rather wonky, and in this case, due to the expanded meaning of the word for non-edged weapons, incomplete.

Cheers,

CHT

[Cory Winslow]

Good point, but I think that you could take it either way.

"Destruction" can be defined as "the act of destroying", so if we plug that definition into the definition of "hew" above, we get "the act of destroying by cutting down".

In any case, I agree that its a bit strange sounding to modern speakers, and still doesn't completely fit all of the uses found for "hau". Its just something to consider.

-Cory

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Yeah, I see your point Cory. That makes sense.

To the main point...we read of someone being "hewn down" in a battle. The implication here is they were 'cut down' or 'felled', as a tree is hewn or felled. They needn't have been "cut in half". Rather the meaning is simply that the blow felled them.

That's really what I'm driving at.

Cheers, and good catch!

Christian

[Michael Edelson]