Posts: 8,310 Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Thu 09 Jun, 2011 5:30 am
| Gregory Alan Singer wrote: |
| I have played with being under armed or unarmed vs sword with some success . my thoughts on it are that you must focus on harmonizing with your opponents movements. do not seek the attack but the opportunity to enter their range and control there sword elbow or hand.people often underestimate soft control they do not see it as an attack so they do not defend against it. getting sticky on the forearm can quickly even up the fight. just like any fight the specific match up of styles can make a huge difference. as a rule i would say if the techniques could defeat you if you had a sword not having one ain't going to help much :D |
I've read something similar that the person armed with the weapon with most reach like a spear is better to wait for the other person with the shorter weapon to try to advance and attack and the reverse for the shorter weapon holder to wait for the attack: I think that is because the one with the longer weapon has the advantage doing nothing and can wait out the other to make the mistake of attacking under this advantage. If the longer reach weapon holder attacks first he may well succeed but is giving the one with the shorter weapon a chance to close the distance and get behind the point.
Now, this is a generality about who should move first " in theory ", in practice one may have to move first for other tactical reasons or on a crowded battlefield one can't stand around patently waiting for the other to make an error !
The unarmed one can just run or walk away if the armed one won't attack first and if the armed one is not just defending and has a reason to want to kill you then moving away may trigger the armed one to attack first ?
The same applies to unarmed versus armed I think i.e. don't rush someone menacing you with a weapon and the opportunity to attack comes from harmonizing one's movement with the opponents movements and any errors they may make when they close the distance. Rushing in just means that a skilled armed opponent will see you coming.
The only exception to this might be when attacked by surprise or cornered one is already in measure and in the danger zone and one has no choices except freezing or charging.
Posts: 120 Location: New Zealand
Fri 10 Jun, 2011 1:00 am
Don't blink!
Gregory Alan Singer wrote
| Quote: |
| my thoughts on it are that you must focus on harmonizing with your opponents movements. do not seek the attack but the opportunity to enter their range and control there sword elbow or hand.people often underestimate soft control they do not see it as an attack so they do not defend against it. |
Well said - the human eye picks up lateral and fast movements much better than smooth movements in the plane moving toward it. Also anyone who does grappling knows that if you move smoothly the brain doesn't treat this as the same threat. A jerky movement sets your opponent's muscles.
However, I still think it boils down to the first mistake. If the swordsman closes to range and launches a well timed attack - themself doing the harmonising - the unarmed defender is presented with a lot of difficulty. My sword instructor also attacks very smoothly and unless I bind excellently (read for unarmed pick perfect time/angle/posture to harmonise) he moves past my bind and hits me on the second move before I can make my second move.
Its about decision time and move - we are assuming the unarmed player can seize the initiative and keep it. I'd accept that against a less skilled foe, that's do-able. otherwise - I repeat, I think you need to be lucky.
cheers
mike
cheers
mike
Posts: 793 Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Fri 10 Jun, 2011 4:43 pm
Apparently "luck" is also a skill if you're Alexander the Great. But even he would need a lot of it to best a decently skilled and fully motivated swordsman barehanded. More than most could ever expect to have probably.
Most disarms we see today of swordsmen by police is done at gunpoint, preferably multiple gunpoint and some distance, or tasering or beanbagging the offender and sorting it out afterward. Or in many cases the guy is just confused more than a real threat and can be talked down to surrender the weapon. That's probably the best ways to do it in the modern age.
I think a decently good way to grapple a swordsman is to jump them from behind unexpectedly. If you're multiple unarmed attackers one or more can circle around for that angle and pounce given the opportunity. But it's still a great deal of risk involved. There's also several japanese sword techniques made specifically to skewer someone trying to grapple, or even manage to grapple you from behind. That shows it was a real concern for japanese swordsmen at least.
Posts: 552 Location: San Jose, CA
Fri 10 Jun, 2011 5:45 pm
| Johan Gemvik wrote: |
Apparently "luck" is also a skill if you're Alexander the Great. But even he would need a lot of it to best a decently skilled and fully motivated swordsman barehanded. More than most could ever expect to have probably.
Most disarms we see today of swordsmen by police is done at gunpoint, preferably multiple gunpoint and some distance, or tasering or beanbagging the offender and sorting it out afterward. Or in many cases the guy is just confused more than a real threat and can be talked down to surrender the weapon. That's probably the best ways to do it in the modern age.
I think a decently good way to grapple a swordsman is to jump them from behind unexpectedly. If you're multiple unarmed attackers one or more can circle around for that angle and pounce given the opportunity. But it's still a great deal of risk involved. There's also several japanese sword techniques made specifically to skewer someone trying to grapple, or even manage to grapple you from behind. That shows it was a real concern for japanese swordsmen at least. |
Side note, and sorry for thread hijack, but in the US Police tend shoot first if they even think you have a knife in your hand and are threatening. Every cop I've talked to all states I've been says that they're trained to not take chances if the opponent is armed with an apparent weapon and refuses to disarm. Haven't talked to any who have confronted sword armed assailants...but I imagine their reactions would be similar if they confronted one.
Posts: 1,084 Location: Finland
Sat 11 Jun, 2011 10:50 am
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
| With a gladius or short sword a fast draw is easier and may explain the popularity of daggers in Europe even if armed with a sword at close quarters, caught by surprise, go for your dagger first, maybe ? ( Gladius also worn on the right for a right handed draw when in formation using a shield. Can't do that with a longer blade ). |
There are differing opinions on that. :)
Posts: 8,310 Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Sat 11 Jun, 2011 11:56 am
| Mikko Kuusirati wrote: |
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | With a gladius or short sword a fast draw is easier and may explain the popularity of daggers in Europe even if armed with a sword at close quarters, caught by surprise, go for your dagger first, maybe ? ( Gladius also worn on the right for a right handed draw when in formation using a shield. Can't do that with a longer blade ). |
There are differing opinions on that. :) |
Oh, if you look at earlier posts ( by Zach Luna ) you will see that this Video was also brought up and partially rebutted, to summarize my earlier comment on this video: I tried it out with a 40" bladed one hander and with a 33" bladed one hander. With the 40" blade it doesn't work for me, with the 33" blade it does work. for me. ( people taller with longer arms should be able to make it work with longer swords than I can ).
If you notice on the Video what he calls a long sword is a medium length one hander wit a blade I estimate has a 28" to 30 " blade.
I don't dispute that for many one handers drawn with the right hand a sword on one's right side is optimum as stated in the video: By the way I've seen many Clips by the same guy and he usually does show a great deal of common sense although I might disagree with him occasionally I usually agree with him. :D :cool:
Posts: 793 Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Sat 11 Jun, 2011 5:00 pm
| Bryce Felperin wrote: |
| Side note, and sorry for thread hijack, but in the US Police tend shoot first if they even think you have a knife in your hand and are threatening. Every cop I've talked to all states I've been says that they're trained to not take chances if the opponent is armed with an apparent weapon and refuses to disarm. Haven't talked to any who have confronted sword armed assailants...but I imagine their reactions would be similar if they confronted one. |
And rightly so of course. Blades of all kinds, even cheap kitchenware breadcutters are so much deadlier than most people ever reaslise until you got it stuck in your gut or have a life threatening deep cut.
But there are still plenty of videos on youtube showing unusually brave police officers going the extra mile and putting their lives on the line to disarm sword weilding nutjobs with little or no harm to them. Calls I probably would not make in that situation, but at least a number of such instances have been taped and put on the web. In fact, though I'm sure they do have to shoot some sword-maniacs at times, well deservedly and/or tragic as it may be, I haven't been able to find one so far. Perhaps due to youtube policies.
Posts: 793 Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Sat 11 Jun, 2011 5:25 pm
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
If you notice on the Video what he calls a long sword is a medium length one hander wit a blade I estimate has a 28" to 30 " blade. |
Precisely. A 28" rebated broad bladed sword emulates a 34-38" sharp one in everything but the tip lenght which has to be sacrificed for the rest of the dynamics to be a decent emulation of a sharp blade but with a thick safely rounded edge.
When I try it with my tinker viking bladed sword I can do it but put myself at risk of peircing my side as I have to elongate my arm in an unnatural super extended way it wants to snap back from. You could get stuck in the motion, and if one got charged into doing that it could be bad. Doable certainly, but also possible to fail at in a critical situation.
I'm in no way saying that it can'ty be done, just that one should try it with a proper sharp also for comparison.
I too liked the video, lots of good fun and certainly a subject worthy of discussion.
Posts: 14 Location: Tokyo
Tue 14 Jun, 2011 10:30 am
| A.V. Dolan wrote: |
| Well, even when fighting normally (i.e. against other folks with swords) you don't want to make big wild swings or wind up. |
| Timo Nieminen wrote: |
Yes, in general, unless it's a well rehearsed feint luring them in. ;) |
But of course. :D
Posts: 1,084 Location: Finland
Wed 15 Jun, 2011 6:28 am
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
| Oh, if you look at earlier posts ( by Zach Luna ) you will see that this Video was also brought up and partially rebutted, to summarize my earlier comment on this video: I tried it out with a 40" bladed one hander and with a 33" bladed one hander. With the 40" blade it doesn't work for me, with the 33" blade it does work. for me. ( people taller with longer arms should be able to make it work with longer swords than I can ). |
Oh, right. Well. In my defense, I'm kind of an idiot. :D
But yeah, obviously the exact measurements depend on your size and build.
| Quote: |
| If you notice on the Video what he calls a long sword is a medium length one hander wit a blade I estimate has a 28" to 30 " blade. |
I took it he means it's a "long sword", a sword that is relatively long compared to swords that are shorter - like a spatha compared to a gladius - not necessarily a "longsword".
Posts: 8,310 Location: Montreal,Quebec,Canada
Wed 15 Jun, 2011 9:03 pm
| Mikko Kuusirati wrote: |
I took it he means it's a "long sword", a sword that is relatively long compared to swords that are shorter - like a spatha compared to a gladius - not necessarily a "longsword". |
Yes that what I also think he meant by longsword as compared to a shortsword like a gladius, I was just looking for the limits at which his theory breaks down for me at least. ;) :lol: :cool:
Like I said, I generally agree with what he had to say but I think he was generalizing too much to make his point and he would probably agree that very very long swords wouldn't work with this draw.
Posts: 1,084 Location: Finland
Sat 18 Jun, 2011 2:07 am
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
| Mikko Kuusirati wrote: |
I took it he means it's a "long sword", a sword that is relatively long compared to swords that are shorter - like a spatha compared to a gladius - not necessarily a "longsword". |
Yes that what I also think he meant by longsword as compared to a shortsword like a gladius, I was just looking for the limits at which his theory breaks down for me at least. ;) :lol: :cool:
Like I said, I generally agree with what he had to say but I think he was generalizing too much to make his point and he would probably agree that very very long swords wouldn't work with this draw. |
Yeah, naturally. But then, very very long swords don't really work for drawing from the left hip, either, which is why they were carried in the hand, the saddle or the supply wagons. :)
You
cannot post new topics in this forum
You
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