Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2009 2:42:20 GMT
I have used sword reviews to decide which sword to buy. They are a wealth of information and useful. But I find them too subjective. So I have come up with a few simple ideas on how to improve on the sword reviews for discussion.
Firstly, I asked myself what are the qualities that an ancient warrior wanted in their sword?
Here is my list: 1)Cutting or chopping ability 2)Thrusting or penetrating ability 3)fastness 4)Reach 5)toughness ie it needs to flex without breaking 6)hardness ie ability to keep a sharp edge
Thus sword reviews should contain comments on these points.
Of course, the warrior wanted everything, if possible. But choosing a sword involves a trade off. A sword that is good in one item will be bad in one or more of the other items on my list.
Lets take a look at item 1. A sword's cutting ability depends on sharpness of course. But it also depends on the moment of the sword. This is the distance of the centre of gravity x weight of sword. The larger the moment, the better the cutter it is.
Of course, the larger the moment, the more clumsy the weapon. An axe is an excellent chopper because its centre of gravity is far out on the pole but its a slow weapon.
How do we measure the centre of gravity? Currently all reviewers measure it as the distance from the cross piece. But that is not accurate for measuring the moment.
I propose we measure it from the centre of the hilt where the palm of the hand holds the sword. Soon a data base of say a hundred swords could be collected giving the moments of each sword. Then the reviewer can say the moment of the sword is above average or below average. The larger the moment, the better the cutter the sword is.
A sword with above average moment would be below average in terms of speed. The better the cutter, the slower the sword.
Thrusting ability - This should be assessed by testing its ability in penetrating a standard resistance. I propose a simple test that anyone can do. Keep the sword in a vertical position with the tip pointing to the sky. Then drop a 1 lb piece of raw meat on it from a standard height of say 6 inches from the sword tip and measure the penetration. This would tell us its thrusting ability.
I believe shorter swords are better at thrusting than longer swords for the simple reason that longer swords tend to flex more. That is why the Roman sword is better for thrusting than for cutting.
Of course, reach will suffer as a result. We can easily compile a sample of say one hundred swords and find the average length. The swords can then be classified as above average in reach, average or below average in reach.
Anyway, I hope my suggestions would spark ideas on how to improve on the reviews.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2009 2:59:28 GMT
They are all subjective... can't review a sword without a swordsman.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2009 3:03:46 GMT
They are all subjective... can't review a sword without a swordsman. I am trying to find a way to do reviews without the swordsman. Let the swords stand on their own merit and not on the skill of the swordsman. Otherwise, the review is just one man's opinion. When I read them, I had to seperate opinion from the hard facts. The hard facts I receive are useful but the opinion is not.
|
|
|
Post by kidcasanova on Sept 21, 2009 3:15:03 GMT
They are all subjective... can't review a sword without a swordsman. Indeed. Our current reviews (most of the ones from the VIP reviewers and such) contain a lot of the points you've made mention of, Swordfighter. But even if they mentioned it exactly as you say, it would still be subjective. What they think is fast, you may consider slow, what cuts well to them may not be ideal to you. A shorter swordsman may comment on a sword having great reach, but it may be too small for someone of greater height, etc. I don't think we could ever come to an objective conclusion on how to rate a sword, aside from laying out bare statistics. "Sword can be swung X miles per hour by someone in X shape. Sword thrusts X inches into X target at X speed" stuff like that. And that doesn't tell you anything about how a sword feels. The best way I've found is to gauge the relative knowledge/experience of the person doing the review and substantiate it from there. I trust the opinions of many of our reviewers (VIP and regular) and a few of them have similar tastes as I do, so that helps. But in the end, the reviews are only there to help you make the plunge yourself, not to tell you everything there is to know about a specific sword. My .02 cents. *Shrug*
|
|
|
Post by Brendan Olszowy on Sept 21, 2009 3:20:05 GMT
I don't think it's possible unless someone set up a laboritory for the scientific testing, with fancy machinery which applies controlled tests to each piece indentically? I look forward to the reviews.
If not I think Paul's destructive testing is about the best we can hope for in terms of finding the capability limit of a sample sword. All tested by the same guy, and without concern for preserving the sword further than a personal safety aspect. Good luck asking Joeaverageoutofpocket to go find the critical limits of his new sword.
As for setting benchmarks, every sword variant in existance was designed how it was for a reason. Each is engineered how it is to achieve a goal, and can't be compared to a sword with a different goal.
Look at shootermikes collection. All these dozens of AT's milled to specification. To an untrained eye they all look like the same sword maybe, but he collects them to learn how each tiny variant affects each similar type of blade. They're all engineered slightly different for a reason.
|
|
|
Post by shadowhowler on Sept 21, 2009 4:49:24 GMT
Kid and Brenno already covered it pretty well... I don't think there is a way to remove subjectivity from sword reviews. Thats why more reviews of the same sword are useful... to get more pespectives. If a review dosn't ansywer all your questions, then ask some. Thats about as good as it gets tho.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2009 5:23:17 GMT
There is a way to do...but the math proposed is too simple. Just because a sword can generate more momentum doesn´t mean that it will be slower then a sword that generates less momentum. The distribution of mass is an important part of how fast a sword moves. Yes you can objectively break down a sword into numbers...but you would need a team of scientists to generate those numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Sept 21, 2009 5:33:27 GMT
Swordfighter, you speak (ok, write) as though you are well read on the subject of moment I'm curious as to where you get your information from. how did you arrive at these conclusions? they sound reasonable enough, and they also sound very familiar which makes me wonder if you are coming to us from another forum. that would be fine (please don't take this wrong) I mean the more folks we lure here from elsewhere the more informed people we have. I'm just asking about your back ground so I can try to better understand your point of view. some of your tests still sound rather subjective to me I'm afraid. for instance the meat-drop. what kind of meat? a one pound bit of cheap beef roast may be riddled with fat or tendon changing the resistance the meat will give the sword while a one pound cut of very lean and uniform meat like a Filet Mignon or NY Strip may be entirely different not to mention if some one uses pork or chicken that's going to totally change the density of the target. if you want a standard target for thrusting you need something man made so it is consistant no matter who uses it. things that come to mind are: a certain grade of styrofoam, ballistics gel, a block of balsa wood, a two liter soda bottle filled with water (hey we already use this most of the time), etc. now we run into the problem of most of these targets offering too little resistance to be really meaningful and yet we need to devise a way to take the person out of the test. this isn't easy. it isn't simple. even a test so simple as dropping meat 6 inches onto the point can get buggered up if the meat isn't dropped straight on the point or if the dropper accidentally adds a little downward force or perhaps let's it drag a bit on his hands so it falls a bit more slowly etc.
I'm not saying we shouldn't improve our methods, nor am I saying you've had bad ides, what I'm saying is we need to take a deeper look at each of these things if we really want to change them but I'm not convinced we need to change them.
I think if we take the person out of the review testing and if we take all subjectivity out of the review I think we are going to take something very important to our reviews and testing out of them that we want in there: THE FUN.
A big part of what we enjoy about swords is how they feel in the hand and how much fun they are to swing around (or how much fun they aren't in some cases) this is a subjective thing that I think pretty much every one wants to know about the sword but no one can tell us about it with numbers and hard data. we need to hear the person's impressions and we need to see that person using the sword and see their honest reactions to it. this is why the cutting video is so very important to the review. there have been many reviews I've seen where I watched the guy struggling to make the sword swing or stop and I could just tell he wasn't having a lot of fun and that was what I really wanted to know.
I'm all for tightening things up when they need it but there's a point when things become too tight and then, well then we cannot breathe.
what I would ask of you swordfighter is to help us find a happy middle ground. something that works for you. I would like to see a sword review from you. one that you think addresses some (or any) of the issues you would like to tighten up because we can sit at our respective computers all day long typing in words that we think say what we want but in the end a demonstration is worth a thousand explainations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2009 6:58:47 GMT
Well, even if we go dropping peices of meat and figuring out mass multiplied by velocity and throw some leverage in there for the fulcrum position (your hand) and the lever (the sword), do a bit o' math to figure out it's science, there are variables that wouldn't be the same.
Sharpness for one. I don't know of any way we could standardize sharpness unless every blade that was tested was ground to a blunt and then 300 strokes of the accusharp with 1 pound of pressure applied to said sharpener to give the swords the "same" edge.
We could also argue that even the same cut of meat, depending on temperature, barometric pressure, fat content of the individual cut of meat, ect ect, could effect the outcome of an experiment.
*So what I'm trying to say is...*
I'll take the opinion of any guy that has more experience, in any field, then I do. Everyone has formed their opinion on things, more or less, for solid reasons. "I like sword X because I chopped thru a cinder block and then turned around and cut thru a triple rolled mat." would be a pretty good opinion.
Also-
When people talk about points of balance, they only use the guard as a reference, they could easily use the tip as a reference. But the reason everyone uses the guard is that it's alot easier to imaging "3 inches from guard" as opposed to "19 inches from tip". The latter you'd have to add in an extra step of "Ok, the blade is 22 3/4 inches, so that would be..." which inevitably would have a person going back to figure the distance from guard anyway.
Also I'm not trying to rag on the OP but:
"I propose we measure it from the centre of the hilt where the palm of the hand holds the sword." -swordfighter
There are different types of grips. Not only do grips differ from person to person, but an individual could have 2-3 different types of grips that they use on the same sword, just depending on what they are doing with it.
That is why I think they use the "front guard" measurement. It's because it is non subjective.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2009 7:33:20 GMT
I forgot to include what I was originally going to write after reading the first post and it is different then my previous. Sorry for the double post but I didn't want every post I make to be a novella. What I think the reviewers need to do is have a set number of information they should include with every review. For the most part this is done, but I've read enough reviews where some aspects weren't include. For example: Steel type: Overall length: Blade length: Hilt length: Blade thickness: (at guard and at tip) Crossguard length: POB: COP: Weight: (am I forgetting anything?) A test that I would like to see added would be a good indication of how "whippy" a blade is. To give some sort of stat a person would need: -A vice of sort -1 pound weight -A clothes pin and a bit of string -Yard stick (and maybe a t square if they couldn't eyeball it.) The test would look something like this: (Edit: Pretend the top image does not have the weight on it Just to see how stiff the sword is. Usually guys will lean on the swords or grab them and bow them. It shows a good temper, but I'm not sure how much force is being applied to the swords. Also as a "springing back to true" test the same system could be used sans the weight and just flex the blade X inches (or use a bigger weight... like, 20 lbs?) and tell us it will go back to true. I also love it when I'm able to see the tang of a sword. Makes me extremely comfortable with a decision to buy it. Of course, the peened tangs aren't easily photographed, so we might have to skip tho's or contact the manufacturer. But I digress. I've seen some reviewers that answered all of these in some fashion and then there are some that didn't have some of these basic "stats" I think if we standardized a set of questions that we as a community would like answered about the sword, it might make reviewing the swords easier.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2009 14:32:22 GMT
I understand the OP's desire for a truly objective review method and think, if such a thing were possible, that would be great.
But for reasons outlined above (I think Kid summed it up nicely) it is not possible. Good, bad, better, worse are all subjective viewpoints. What I consider a good sword, someone of Tom's experience might consider bleh. There are more to swords than numbers and stats.
I think that anything to do with a review of anything (movies, cars, cameras, swords, TVs, etc) is going to be subjective.
For my 2 reviews I alway stressed my experience level and comparisions I use because I do think it is important to understand the review you must know something of the reviewer. Even then, what "clicks" with one person might not click with another. There is no way to reduce that to numbers.
Reviews are guidelines not rules. The reader must still decide what is best for them.
There are some reviews on the main page that I disagree with and would not buy those swords. Does that mean they are wrong? No way. It just means I have a different opinion. Someone else might totally agree with those reviews.
|
|
|
Post by brotherbanzai on Sept 21, 2009 15:47:59 GMT
It's a great idea, but unfortunately not very feasible. Even comparing the moment of different swords doesn't tell us much of any use unless all the various swords all have the weight distributed in the same way. Two different swords can have the same moment and handle completely differently because the weight is distributed in different ways.
Flexibility is good, but only to a point. Measuring how far a blade will flex doesn't tell us anything about how good it is, it only tells us about the blade's geometry. Where the sword flexes is also important. How much it should flex will differ based on the swords purpose.
A longer type XVa is going to have much more thrust penetration than a shorter Roman sword. The wound will be far deeper but not as wide. So which one is the "better" thruster? Depends on what the individual person wants out of their sword.
I usually measure POB from the end of the grip since the cross guard shape varies from sword to sword and might cause misleading POB numbers. If you have a two handed sword you wouldn't be gripping it in the center of the grip anyway.
I don't mean to rain on your parade because I do think it's a good idea to have some standardization in the reviews, it's just going to be very difficult/impossible to accomplish, especially when many reviews come from people new to swords who might not know what they are really looking for. At least you can still get an overall view of what a sword might be like from the review.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2009 16:36:34 GMT
Agree with and solidify the statements about what is right for one may not be / feel right to another. Even with the formal set-up in reviews concerning the stats of a sword.....they will vary also from sword to sword.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2009 17:44:23 GMT
Kid and Brenno already covered it pretty well... I don't think there is a way to remove subjectivity from sword reviews. Thats why more reviews of the same sword are useful... to get more pespectives. If a review dosn't ansywer all your questions, then ask some. Thats about as good as it gets tho. I agree. To facilitate this, perhaps review points should be given for ALL sword reviews. AFAIK now review points are only given for the FIRST review of a particular sword. More opinions means a wider range of opinions. For example one reviewer may think a sword is "whippy" and another may not. They may base this on different methods of testing, or just how it feels to them. Maybe they swing slightly differently, or used different types of targets. If you think this may result in too many review points going out then lower the points given on reviews. I don't think it should matter who does the review first. The second review may be the best ever given!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2009 18:32:18 GMT
Objectivity is a myth.
M.
|
|
|
Post by YlliwCir on Sept 21, 2009 20:14:19 GMT
Agreed, especially when humans are involved.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2009 20:33:47 GMT
I don´t believe that. Everything can eventually be broken down objectively...however that process is way Way WAY more complicated then most people think. That being said, I don´t think working to be objective in reviews is a bad thing...I just don´t think numbers are the way to do it because of the complexity of it. The best way to get more objective review is to make a more objective reviewers.
|
|
|
Post by kidcasanova on Sept 21, 2009 21:32:37 GMT
I won't get into the validity of Objectivity. Because I'd be here for hours and I'd get all hot and bothered. Needless to say, I think "objectivity is a myth" is a rash and unsubstantiated claim. But I still agree that we have enough objectivity in our reviews as is. The videos help tremendously.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2009 21:54:31 GMT
"fastness"?
|
|
|
Post by kidcasanova on Sept 21, 2009 22:04:10 GMT
It's the noun form of the adjective "fast." Odd as it sounds, it is a word.
|
|