| Author |
Message |
Abe Zettek
|
 Posted: Mon 05 Nov, 2012 10:10 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Jack Savante wrote: | | However if one builds up one's forearms, the hammer grip makes perfect sense on Viking swords as much as on two handers. I firmly believe this is how swords in the western tradition were used, and must point out that the Bayeux pictures being used as defence for handshake grips on cruciform swords all seem to show the sword fully extended! In this position the sword can be mistaken for appearing to be held as though a sabre. |
I think it more likely indicates that gripping a sword was/is a dynamic thing where the grip is changed often - even in the course of a single swing of the blade. When I use a sword, my grip on the hilt is subtly changing quite often from 'handshake' to 'hammer' grip depending on the situation. Some cuts are delivered with the 'hammer' grip, some with the 'handshake', and like others have said, both are viable options. There is no issue of weak forearm strength forcing this to happen, and in 'handshake' there is no weakness in the grip - it is as firm and strong as any other grip. As a result of bio-mechanics, I have found that this form of grasping the sword can give more reach to a blow and certainly more 'life' to the cut as is mentioned in Gripping and using a Viking sword.
Here are a few more examples of period artwork showing the 'handshake' grip being used in Europe throughout history, in chronological order:
Therefore, human bio-mechanics, the first-hand experience of trained WMA practitioners, and period artwork would all indicate that the 'handshake' grip existed in the past - thus answering your original question: No, the 'handshake' grip is not a modern construction.
|
|
  |
 |
Mackenzie Cosens
Location: Vancouver Canada Joined: 08 Aug 2007
Posts: 238
|
| Posted: Mon 05 Nov, 2012 10:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
The earliest evidence I have for putting a finger over the cross is a photograph of a 6th C AD Sassanian Silver plate (Trustees of the British Museum) which shows a king fighting from horse back against lions. The king is clearly shown with his finger over the cross & his hand more or less in a handshake grip as he cuts the head of a lion. pg 40 Rome's Enemies: Parthians & Sassanid Persians by Peter Wilcox ISBN o-85045-688-6.
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Savante
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Nov, 2012 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
I guess we will have to agree to disagree and I will definitely concede that some of the most recent pictures added are more compelling than the Bayeux, which perhaps because of the medium it was created in seems more of a stretch.
I personally find the hammer grip provides for all encounters, but to be fair, I am a brawler not a sword fighter who uses the tip like a fencer.
I think the Sassanian example is a really interesting one because the Sassanian horseman used very beautiful and interesting swords:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...Swords.jpg
http://www.mouginsmusee.com/armoury/migrationperiod/big/7.jpg
I think the Sassanian swords, particularly the ones that had a flair, or peak after the index finger groove, probably lent themselves to pistol / handshake style of grip? Maybe they were just as good when used with a hammer grip?
I was really interested to hear that there is a picture of a Sassanian using his index finger across the guard! Fascinating! Do you have the picture? I'd love to see it.
I almost had the top of my right index finger cut off my hand when I tried fingering the guard once, so I personally would never do it again!
It is interesting to hear other forumite's thoughts on this subject, thanks to all who who have contributed so far and those who will contribute in the future tense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Nov, 2012 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jack Savante wrote: | | I personally find the hammer grip provides for all encounters, but to be fair, I am a brawler not a sword fighter who uses the tip like a fencer. |
Have you ever used a talwar (tulwar)? The disk pommel stops you from using handshake grip - these are very pure hammer-grip swords. The grip encourages draw cuts.
People complain about talwar grips the same way as about Viking grips - too small, hurts wrist, etc. Personally, I never found a talwar to hurt my wrist, and I can't imagine how it would. Very small grips would be too small for my hand, but typical ones are fine. Large ones are roomy. Some people put a finger over the guard, but I haven't played around with that grip.
Anyway, not Viking swords, but the most common readily available non-replica pure hammer-grip sword.
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
 |
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Nov, 2012 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jack Savante wrote: | | I guess we will have to agree to disagree [. . . ] |
You know, I think medieval swordsmen had to agree to disagree too. If we could resurrect a sufficiently large number medieval swordsmen to give a representative sample with their memories intact (or build a time machine and kidnap them), I'm quite sure that some will prefer the handshake grip, some will prefer the hammer grip, many will find both grips useful, and in all probability they'll bicker and nitpick about the definitions of "hammer" and "handshake" grips much like we do.
Remember that the surviving documentation on medieval martial art schools and traditions probably represent only a minority (though perhaps a large minority) of the methods practiced within the era. Apart from people systematically trained in systems like the I.33, the Liechtenauer tradition, or Iberian esgrima comun, there'd also be experienced but untutored swordsmen who developed their own methods on their own, partially trained people who muddled on by themselves to fill up the gap, and systematic traditions that have left no written records of their existence. I'd be completely shocked if all these people could agree upon the One True Way to hold a sword. Therefore, I find the disagreement and debate perfectly historical and realistic.
Now to chip in with my own personal and subjective viewpoint. Like many other people who have expressed their views here, I've never been able to use a cruciform medieval sword without shifting constantly between "hammer" and "handshake" grips. If I tried to stay in the "hammer" grip all the time my cuts and thrusts feel stiff and unnatural, but if I kept the "handshake" grip all the time I can't execute close-range slices or put my sword at rest in a guard without feeling a certain measure of awkwardness. In fact, with a one-handed sword I find myself most of the time in a position somewhere between the extremes of "hammer" and "handshake" grips, and this is the way I've always held the cylindrical handle of a reasonably massive object (including brooms, mops, toilet brushes, machetes, and--gues what--hammers!) since my childhood. I may even have photographic evidence of four-year-old me swinging a plastic sword in a not-quite-hammer-and-not-quite-handshake grip! Therefore, I believe that deprecating either grip will stunt my abilities as a martial artist, and that it's more important to learn which grip is good for what than to argue about whether one grip is inherently superior to the other. But my viewpoint is not the only valid one (if it's valid at all, that is!) so I have no problems with other people arguing over the issue.
That being said . . .
| Jack Savante wrote: | | When I first began learning how to fight with a sword I had a sword placed in my hand and the first thing I did, like they do in movies, is flourish (spin) it. I did this with finger and thumb like they do in movies. My instructor explained to me that it is very easy to knock a sword out of hand that is clasping a sword with only two digits. He was right. I believe the same principle is at work with the introduction into the collective academic mind of the sword student in respect to the handshake grip. It is a counterproductive configuration borne out of misunderstanding. |
Gripping a sword with only the forefinger and thumb is certainly not the handshake grip. In both the hammer and handshake grips (and all sorts of variation in between), I find that my grip is most secure when I hold the sword lightly but firmly and concentrate the force on the last three fingers (middle, ring, and little) pressing tightly against the thenar and hypothenar eminences (the soft pads at the base of the thumb and the palm) while the thumb and the index finger focuses on maintaining edge alignment and point control. This gave me some difficulties when I started learning to spin a sword in the theatrical manner (which is best done in the thumb-and-forefinger grip) recently, and to this day my best spin is still the reverse-grip spin (with the sword blade downwards like an icepick) where the force is focused on the ring and little fingers.
Last but not least, I'd like to add a few more illustrations showing both the "hammer" and the "handshake" grips in use, often within the same scene.
 Attachment: 115.13 KB
Attachment: 75.41 KB
Attachment: 112.69 KB
[ Download ]
Attachment: 116.57 KB
[ Download ]
Attachment: 114.01 KB
[ Download ]
|
|
|
|
|
P. Frank
|
| Posted: Tue 06 Nov, 2012 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | You know, I think medieval swordsmen had to agree to disagree too. If we could resurrect a sufficiently large number medieval swordsmen to give a representative sample with their memories intact (or build a time machine and kidnap them), I'm quite sure that some will prefer the handshake grip, some will prefer the hammer grip, many will find both grips useful, and in all probability they'll bicker and nitpick about the definitions of "hammer" and "handshake" grips much like we do. |
Nicely put and I completely agree. 
I have to say I really wouldn't know why we would have to make a definite choice of either one grip most of the time. I can understand picking one over the other when your source specifically tells you to, as it is the case in later sources I read, but when it is not really documented I would leave it to practicability and preference. I have seen both manners of gripping in use often enough to say they both work well enough and all in all, we haven't really changed that much anatomically over time. So the fencers of the past could have used either grip to their advantage as I am fairly sure they did.
I for my part constantly switch between hammer and handshake when fencing with my basket hilt. As many have said it before, only using the hammer grip feels a little limiting, while the handshake grip doesn't feel all too good when parrying most of the times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew P. Adams
|
| Posted: Wed 07 Nov, 2012 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
... So regardless of anyone's personal preference I think we can say with some certainty that no, the handshake grip is not a modern invention.
"We do not rise to the level of our expectations. We fall to the level of our training" Archilochus, Greek Soldier, Poet, c. 650 BC
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Blaydoe
Location: Maryland Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Posts: 72
|
| Posted: Wed 07 Nov, 2012 2:57 pm Post subject: Comparison question |
|
|
For those who are knowledgeable in both WMA and Japanese sword technique, is there not a similarity to the "hand-shake" grip with the traditional Japanese sword grip? The grasp is tightest with the ring and pinky fingers. Maybe I am missing something important here but it seems to me that It seems to at least superficially resemble a hand-shake grip.
Honest question, not trying to stir things up and happy to learn why this might be wrong.
An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nat Lamb
|
| Posted: Wed 07 Nov, 2012 10:24 pm Post subject: Re: Comparison question |
|
|
| Marc Blaydoe wrote: | For those who are knowledgeable in both WMA and Japanese sword technique, is there not a similarity to the "hand-shake" grip with the traditional Japanese sword grip? The grasp is tightest with the ring and pinky fingers. Maybe I am missing something important here but it seems to me that It seems to at least superficially resemble a hand-shake grip.
Honest question, not trying to stir things up and happy to learn why this might be wrong. |
I am at the other end from "knowledgeable" but from what I remember of "Book of Five Rings" (translation into english, not Japanese, so salt according to taste) Musashi specifically said the grip should be tightest with the index finger, slightly less with middle, and loose with pinky (pretty sure he didn't use that term  ). Obviously only one practitioner, but some folks seem to regard him as a bit of an authority...
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Brandt
Location: Virginia Joined: 11 May 2010
Posts: 36
|
| Posted: Thu 08 Nov, 2012 4:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Timo Nieminen wrote: |
| Robert Brandt wrote: | | In any given 2-4 hour day of fighting, I will have my sword knocked from my hand 2 or 3 times. Almost always delivering or recovering a strike. And almost always when using some form of loosened grip. But to retain a hammer grip all of the time would be to dramatically reduce my offensive capability and to use any non-hammer grip exclusively in an open melee would be an invitation to being disarmed. |
In the typical 2-4 hour day of fighting, how many times are you "killed"? How many times do you "kill"? How important are the 2-3 disarms in comparison?.) |
I may have given an incorrect impression of the frequency with which I lose a sword in combat. What I was describing is what I call scrimmage type battles. These combats are reset, by my "death" or the end of the battle 25-100 times in a few hours. Whether losing the grip on your sword 2 times in 100 engagements is critical or not is a matter of whether it happened the first time or the 50th in a real battle. Being prepared for the possibility also dramtically reduces the likely disaster. You can survive a battle without a sword.
| Timo Nieminen wrote: |
| Robert Brandt wrote: | | I do find some restrictive viking hilt types difficult or uncomfortable to fight with in this fashion. Whether those designs are indicative of an alternate fighting style or just an esthetic convention, I can't say. |
What, in particular is difficult or uncomfortable? The hammer-grip part, the handshake-grip part, or changing from one to another? Some Viking grips look very much like pure hammer-grip grips, so I wouldn't be surprising if trying to handshake-grip them doesn't work very well. (Swords with pure hammer-grip grips were still used into the 19th century, so it certainly works.) |
The shape of the pommels can interfere with all of these aspects. Even in a hammer grip one's wrist doesn't stay perfectly perpendicular to the grip and some pommel types can dig into the wrist any time the grip angle increases. Turning the grip in your hand to facilitate more wrapping type shots can also be inhibited by these grips. On a longer grip or one with an unobstrusive pommel, transitioning grips is a pretty natural movement. On a very short grip with a broad sharp pommel protruding into the space your wrist or hand wants to occupy, it takes a more deliberate action to transition. All in all I can't identify any reason a (for instance) round pommel isn't functionally superior to a type H and though I wouldn't rule out a mechanical rationale for the later, I'm inclined to call the sharp edged viking pommels aesthetically derived rather than functionally evolved.
| Ben Coomer wrote: |
But you aren't supposed to be blocking full on with your sword anyway. Voiding, deflection, attacking before and after, all of these things are well documented in the manuals. And all of these tend to work much better with a handshake or thumbgrip, since you have better range of motion. Even in a press where your swordsmanship may not matter as much, you'll be depending on a shield or armor and not your blade as much to defend yourself. Complaining that a grip is sub-optimal for something you should be avoiding doing anyway is a bit odd. |
Sword fights, like all fights, are very dynamic activities. You WILL need to turn a strike into a desperate block, or vice versa. It is also my experience that the better the fighter, the MORE that person uses his weapon to block and redirect his opponent's weapons, shield, or body. It is however not usually planned or trained actions that result is the loss of the sword. It is the impartation of force in an unexpected and/or unprepared for direction or degree that causes the loss of the sword. Obviously, the more controlled the circumsatnces, one opponent, predefined dueling conventions, etc., the less chance an unexpected situation might deprive you of your sword and the more one is incentivised to enhance his grip to increase offensive options.
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
You know, I think medieval swordsmen had to agree to disagree too. If we could resurrect a sufficiently large number medieval swordsmen to give a representative sample with their memories intact (or build a time machine and kidnap them), I'm quite sure that some will prefer the handshake grip, some will prefer the hammer grip, many will find both grips useful, and in all probability they'll bicker and nitpick about the definitions of "hammer" and "handshake" grips much like we do. |
Just so.
| Mathew P. Adams wrote: | | ... So regardless of anyone's personal preference I think we can say with some certainty that no, the handshake grip is not a modern invention. |
Absolutely. But the occasionally espoused position that using a hammer grip with a viking sword is "wrong" may be a modern invention.
History was certainly far more complex, varied, and intriguing than the blanket of generalities that we so often lay over our handful of surviving data points.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Graham Shearlaw
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Nov, 2012 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
just a quick note but the hammer grip is a bit easier to draw or paint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timo Nieminen
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Nov, 2012 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Robert Brandt wrote: | | All in all I can't identify any reason a (for instance) round pommel isn't functionally superior to a type H and though I wouldn't rule out a mechanical rationale for the later, I'm inclined to call the sharp edged viking pommels aesthetically derived rather than functionally evolved. |
How sharp edged are original pommels (not worrying about modern repro pommels, which don't say so much about original pommels)?
All of my repro Vikings (i.e., all of my Vikings, since I have no originals) are either relatively long gripped, have roundish pommels, or both, so I don't have any that are hammer-uncomfortable.
I don't doubt that aesthetics influenced the design, but I'd be surprised by anti-functional aesthetics being common. If somebody says that a type of sword that was used traditionally (often, but not necessarily always, or even mostly) with hammer-grip is uncomfortable with hammer-grip, I wonder whether it's a bad repro or if the user is trying to do something with the sword that one wouldn't do with a hammer-gripped sword.
Maybe "uncomfortable" is a bad choice of word. There are original swords that, IMO, are awkward things to swing around, which some might call "uncomfortable" (but I would call unwieldy or difficult). Some people talk about a particular grip style on some particular sword as "painful", but I think that requiring "painful" would be too far in the other direction. Something in between the minimum "uncomfortable" and "painful".
"In addition to being efficient, all pole arms were quite nice to look at." - Cherney Berg, A hideous history of weapons, Collier 1963.
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Savante
|
| Posted: Fri 09 Nov, 2012 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I understand the handshake grip lobby group is multitudinous, and while I am respectful of other people's opinions, it is my opinion that the evidence specifically for a handshake grip is terse and flimsy, while hammer grips are continuously and repeatedly depicted in contemporary medieval imagery. This is excluding the Magyar school of fighting of course, and aforementioned examples.
I personally believe the argument that the handshake grip is more comfortable is an academically invalid one. My reasoning is that to the Medieval mind, there was not an expectation of comfort anywhere near as high as what we moderns desire. Soldiers didn't just have to carry their shield from their cars to the fairground the reenactment was taking place in, they would have to lug it many miles! In the case of Romans perhaps from one side of the Empire to the other. Swords were not kept on walls or in cases, then carried a short 20ft to the backyard to chop at pool noodles, they would be carried long distances. I don't need to go on, suffice to say there were no cars or helicopters to transport people back then and horse riding is not a particularly comfortable way to travel either. So why would a medieval expect comfort from his sword? He wouldn't. He would expect it to be dependable and to lock firmly onto his closed fist.
But I have made my point I, and so have many others, though I still firmly believe the strongest case is made by AVAILABLE EVIDENCE. Get me a picture of a so called handshake grip that doesn't show a warrior with a fully extended arm (using a cruciform hilt without fingering the guard), because as far as I can tell there aren't any.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aleksei Sosnovski
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Nov, 2012 2:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jack, you are free to have your own opinion, but it looks like you are so stuck to is that you will ignore all but the strongest evidence. You seem to have totally ignored what others were saying about the ease of transition between hammer and handshake grip. One doesn't need to ALWAYS hold his sword with a handshake grip. For example if I start a blow in a hammer grip and then transition to handshake grip when the arm is almost fully extended you would never get "a picture of a so called handshake grip that doesn't show a warrior with a fully extended arm" despite that I actually do use handshake grip. Another thing is that most medieval paintings are far from being realistic and more often than not were painted by people who were not warriors. So it's no wonder that one person would see hammer grips everywhere and another would see handshake grips on same painting. So far the only painting that in my opinion shows an unmstakably handshake grip and is realistic enough is this one from Tallhofer:
You should also keep in mind that a lot of different grips were used such as with one's thumb on the flat of the blade. I would not say that such simple thing as handshake grip is a modern invention while much weirder grips existed. Also don't forget about dedicated thrusting swords that, just as rapiers, almost require you to use a handshake grip to be effective. Such swords certainly existed in pre-viking and viking times and during late medieval period as well.
Your statement about medieval people not caring about comfort is also IMO entirely wrong. These very people wrote about swords singing in hand, how could somebody say something like this about a weapon that hurts you every time you hold it?! Your statement about horse riding is nothing but ridiculous. Did you ever do some serious horse riding? Once you are accustomed to it it actually becomes pretty comfortable. About as comfortable as riding an old noisy car. And definitely much more comfortable than walking on foot. And much faster than riding in a cart.
Some sword grips might be less comfortable than we would expect, but one should not forget that he is not the intended owner of that sword and most likely he uses it not as the expected owner would. For example these swords were never designed for cutting pool noodles or swinging them around for hours during training and reenactment events. They were weapons of war, used relatively seldom (after all a spear was used much more often). They were also a symbol of status so some comfort could sometimes be sacrificed for fashion/looks.
|
|
 |
|
P. Frank
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Nov, 2012 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jack Savante wrote: | | I personally believe the argument that the handshake grip is more comfortable is an academically invalid one. My reasoning is that to the Medieval mind, there was not an expectation of comfort anywhere near as high as what we moderns desire. Soldiers didn't just have to carry their shield from their cars to the fairground the reenactment was taking place in, they would have to lug it many miles! In the case of Romans perhaps from one side of the Empire to the other. Swords were not kept on walls or in cases, then carried a short 20ft to the backyard to chop at pool noodles, they would be carried long distances. I don't need to go on, suffice to say there were no cars or helicopters to transport people back then and horse riding is not a particularly comfortable way to travel either. So why would a medieval expect comfort from his sword? He wouldn't. He would expect it to be dependable and to lock firmly onto his closed fist. |
Jack, I respect your opinion, but I fear I cannot quite follow you. First of all I have to agree with Aleksei that horse riding is rather comfortable once one is used to it and secondly wouldn't the fact that the sword was carried for long stretches of time rather mean that the bearers would have tried to make this act as comfortable as possible? As I said before, we haven't changed that much over time, most humans try to avoid pain and hardship, so I really wouldn't know why comfort should have played any lesser role back then. From what I've seen of household Items, furniture or clothes people strove for comfort as much then as they do now. You having mentioned them, the romans went to quite some length to get their houses and baths nice and warm for example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Colt Reeves
|
| Posted: Sat 10 Nov, 2012 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To give a modern example, there is a big drive to have comfortable military weapons and equipment. A badly shaped stock that makes for an uncomfortable cheek weld is not something to laugh off as unimportant and neither is an awkward sword hilt. The last thing a modern soldier or a medieval warrior needs in a critical situation is an annoying piece of equipment that distracts from the fight. You want the killing to be as easy as possible. This isn't a game show, this is war.
On the other hand, if the unpleasant factor aids in effectiveness then the soldier/warrior will have to adapt. So I also have to admit that I do not see the handshake grip being more comfortable to be a good reason for using the grip. The real advantages to me would be the greater extension it allows, the greater angles it allows, etc. Obviously actual fighters found it useful to use both techniques as per historical artwork.
I see this as a risk-benefit thing. The handshake may be easier to disrupt, but it also allows for greater flexibility in attack.
Disclaimer: I am no expert in these matters. This post was manufactured on equipment used to process peanuts and tree nuts. Ask doctor before use if you have high blood pressure or are on anti-depressants.
"Tears are for the craven, prayers are for the clown.
Halters for the silly neck that cannot keep a crown.
As my loss is grievous, so my hope is small.
For Iron, Cold Iron, must be master of men all..."
-Cold Iron, Rudyard Kipling
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Tue 13 Nov, 2012 5:45 am Post subject: Re: Comparison question |
|
|
| Nat Lamb wrote: | | Marc Blaydoe wrote: | For those who are knowledgeable in both WMA and Japanese sword technique, is there not a similarity to the "hand-shake" grip with the traditional Japanese sword grip? The grasp is tightest with the ring and pinky fingers. Maybe I am missing something important here but it seems to me that It seems to at least superficially resemble a hand-shake grip.
Honest question, not trying to stir things up and happy to learn why this might be wrong. |
I am at the other end from "knowledgeable" but from what I remember of "Book of Five Rings" (translation into english, not Japanese, so salt according to taste) Musashi specifically said the grip should be tightest with the index finger, slightly less with middle, and loose with pinky (pretty sure he didn't use that term ). Obviously only one practitioner, but some folks seem to regard him as a bit of an authority... |
No, it's the exact opposite. Let me quote from a couple of translations floating on the Web.
| Quote: | Grip the long sword with a rather floating feeling in your thumb and forefinger, with the middle finger neither tight nor slack, and with the last two fingers tight. It is bad to have play in your hands.
When you take up a sword, you must feel intent on cutting the enemy. As you cut an enemy you must not change your grip, and your hands must not "cower". When you dash the enemy's sword aside, or ward it off, or force it down, you must slightly change the feeling in your thumb and forefinger. Above all, you must be intent on cutting the enemy in the way you grip the sword.
The grip for combat and for sword-testing is the same. There is no such thing as a "man-cutting grip".
Generally, I dislike fixedness in both long swords and hands. Fixedness means a dead hand. Pliability is a living hand. You must bear this in mind. |
| Quote: | | A sword is to be held in the following manner: the middle, fourth and little fingers should grip the hilt vigorously while the thumb and index finger should be lightly placed on the hilt. There are two types of swords and hands - live ones and dead ones. If the hands grips the sword too firmly when taking the stance or parrying, then it is too difficult to take the offensive. These are what I call "dead" hands. On the other hand, if one grips the sword in a relaxed manner, he can continually take the offensive. These are "live" hands. One must not cross one's wrists nor bend one's elbows too much or too little. Muscles on the upper side of the arm should be relaxed, those on the lower taut. |
And of course the lavishly illustrated HROARR article:
http://www.hroarr.com/how-do-you-grip-a-sword/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Tue 13 Nov, 2012 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jack Savante wrote: | | Get me a picture of a so called handshake grip that doesn't show a warrior with a fully extended arm (using a cruciform hilt without fingering the guard), because as far as I can tell there aren't any. |
Isn't that missing the point a bit? The handshake grip is adopted for greater reach and flexibility in motion. Without a fully extended arm the extra reach of the handshake grip is a bit redundant, and besides full extension also allows a sword in a handshake grip to receive an incoming blow on the strong of the blade (somewhere near the guard). If your entire fighting method consists of close-range slices and pommel-bashes with bent arms, there's no need for the handshake grip at all--although you'd probably suffer against an opponent who knows how to keep his range.
Now this brings up a set of questions I forgot to bring up: where did you learn the hammer-grip-only method? In what group? Who is your instructor and what's his prior martial arts background? What is your prior background, for that matter? What era and style of fighting are you trying to reconstruct? Out of what sources? And under what free-play/sparring rules?
All these things matter because they can greatly affect the style we end up using. For example, in the Star Wars lightsabre group I occasionally hang out with, I find that I use a hammerlike grip much more often than a handshake-like one since the large, round cross-section of the heavy hilt and the negligible presence of the polycarbonate "blade" don't allow me to align the blade properly for the kinds of defences I'd normally resort to with a more handshake-like grip (which work best on a heavier sword with more blade presence and a more flattened (oval, elliptical, or faceted) cross-section on the grip). In my experience, sparring rules that ban head/face targets also favour the hammer grip since the most natural defences with the handshake grip tend to end with the blade going for the opponent's head or the point sticking into his face. Last but not least, in cutting exercises I also find a hammer-like grip to be better for powering through a cut with very short and very light blades, while with longer and heavier swords I can rely more on the momentum of the blade to do much of the job on its own after I've accelerated it with a "throw" into an extended handshake-like grip.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nat Lamb
|
| Posted: Tue 13 Nov, 2012 1:13 pm Post subject: Re: Comparison question |
|
|
| Quote: | Grip the long sword with a rather floating feeling in your thumb and forefinger, with the middle finger neither tight nor slack, and with the last two fingers tight. It is bad to have play in your hands.
|
Lafayette, that is the passage I remembered, how embarrasing that I remembered it backwards 
Cheers for clearing that up, should teach me not to refer to things I haven't read for 15 years without re-checking the actual text.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Blaydoe
Location: Maryland Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Posts: 72
|
| Posted: Tue 13 Nov, 2012 2:49 pm Post subject: Re: Comparison question |
|
|
| Nat Lamb wrote: | | Quote: | Grip the long sword with a rather floating feeling in your thumb and forefinger, with the middle finger neither tight nor slack, and with the last two fingers tight. It is bad to have play in your hands.
|
Lafayette, that is the passage I remembered, how embarrasing that I remembered it backwards
Cheers for clearing that up, should teach me not to refer to things I haven't read for 15 years without re-checking the actual text. |
But it still begs the question, is this an adequate description of a "handshake" grip? If not, why not? If so, does it not argue that a "handshake" grip can still be a strong grip, especially if the Japanese seem to use it almost exclusively? It is certainly not a "hammer" grip at any rate, so this is at least an argument of some sort that the hammer grip is the "best" or only way to hold a sword. Yes? No?
An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic