Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2010 20:50:22 GMT
Grayson, the reason that applies so well for modern saber fencing is that fencing sabers DON'T HAVE SHARP EDGES. As far as actually fighting with cutting blades: no, NO and NO.www.thearma.org/essays/edgemyth.htmwww.thearma.org/essays/parry.htmwww.thearma.org/essays/parrying.htmthere are two schools of thought on blocks and both of them are perpetuated by people who really don't know what they are talking about. ......................... Who says both styles of parrying weren't used in equally substantial amounts? Who says that each don't have their own advantages and disadvantages? Who says that a good swordsman doesn't know when to use which? Just saying...... you might have just answered your own question there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2010 21:11:52 GMT
I'm reminded of a plate from Tallhoffer. In it he shows a Messer technique that looks like an edge parry with an upward cut. But rather than an edge parry this is actually a counter attack on the opponents wrist. In the Chinese cannon this is "mincing" and while it looks like parrying with the edge it is not in actuality, but like the plate from Tallhoffer in WMA shows, attacking the wrist of the opposing swordsman. While it may look like Chinese Sword Arts utilizes edge parries in our forms, those form movements generally represent other techniques.
Neither Jian or Dao are modern fencing sabers and neither really equate to them. While I'm certain edge parries were used in last ditch attempts by a swordsman to save his own life in battle, the lack of teaching of them in CSA would only serve to reinforce their lack effectiveness. As stated earlier in this thread, the fact that even unintentional edge to edge contact resulted in damage to the swords being used, means it is highly unlikely that it was ever taught as an effective technique.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2010 0:46:28 GMT
Grayson, the reason that applies so well for modern saber fencing is that fencing sabers DON'T HAVE SHARP EDGES. As far as actually fighting with cutting blades: no, NO and NO.www.thearma.org/essays/edgemyth.htmwww.thearma.org/essays/parry.htmwww.thearma.org/essays/parrying.htmthere are two schools of thought on blocks and both of them are perpetuated by people who really don't know what they are talking about. ......................... Who says both styles of parrying weren't used in equally substantial amounts? Who says that each don't have their own advantages and disadvantages? Who says that a good swordsman doesn't know when to use which? Just saying...... you might have just answered your own question there. Luna, stating no repeatedly and citing 3 articles published by the same controversial person does not make it fact. Clements assert this point again and again, and he has little evidence to base it on. His assertion has bred a very, very large debate in the WMA community, and not everyone (or even most people) believe it. Here are some MA discussion on the issue, I hope you'll find them intriguing. www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17266&highlight=edge+flat+parrywww.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2384&highlight=edge+flat+parry(I particularly like Bill Grady's post, 1 down where he shows how every sidesword manual he's ever seen clearly show edge to edge combat. He also shows quote from MS like Wallerstein. I think he makes a very convincing argument, too.) This is not a black and white debate. Both WERE used extensively and different schools did different things. To say everyone did it one way is ludicrous, assumptive, and, frankly, wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2010 0:58:37 GMT
Also, the reason modern fencers use edge to edge contact has nothing to do with the blade at all. It has to do with the grip of the handle and how it is aligned with the blade. A normal arming sword, with an ovular cross sectioned grip, will ALWAYS block with more strength. Hold a blade in your hand and clench your fist to try to stop the blade from moving. You'll find it significantly easier to move the blade side to side (from one flat to the other) than back and forth (from one edge to another). This all stems from your sword's grip. If the blade and the grip were perpendicular instead of in alignment, the reverse would be true. But it's not.
|
|
|
Post by alvin on Feb 23, 2010 1:33:53 GMT
.....This is not a black and white debate. Both WERE used extensively and different schools did different things..... I am certainly no expert, but I have read quite a bit, and done some little study, and can sometimes think. I believe that you are correct here Grayson. Like most things there are and have been different schools over time. Sometimes there are differences because the Masters taught targeting different clients, different types/designs of swords, and with a certain type of use guiding the Master. A scholar training to use a sword with sport in mind will certainly not want to risk damaging his blade. A person training to use his sword as a weapon and survive combat probably may train to use a different method where causing edge damage is secondary....he can be issued a nice shiny new sword after he has survived the battle. Or maybe the differences in parrying could involve differences in the design of a sword. Here is an interesting, to me anyway as I am a confirmed "basket-head", discussion by Chris Thompson of the Cateran Society. He discusses mainly Regimental Highland Broadsword but gives some good reasoning as to why, with basket-hilted swords in particular, there were indeed schools where the use of the edge for parrying was taught. He also has some interesting ideas relating to earlier Highland swords with "standard" crosses. maol.tripod.com/cat1.htmlThis article by Tom Leoni of the Order of the Seven Hearts titled Parrying a full-intent longsword cut with a rapier? Absolutely. also discusses how Leoni was able to parry a larger sword using a technique involving forte on forte, the true edge and the rapier's guard. Leoni states that "this is the parrying technique specifically recommended by Fabris." at least as far as the forte on forte is concerned. Leoni stated that the rapier's edge was apparently undamaged by the longsword. www.salvatorfabris.com/RapierParryingLongsword.shtml
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2010 2:15:47 GMT
Luna, stating no repeatedly and citing 3 articles published by the same controversial person does not make it fact. Clements assert this point again and again, and he has little evidence to base it on. His assertion has bred a very, very large debate in the WMA community, and not everyone (or even most people) believe it. Here are some MA discussion on the issue, I hope you'll find them intriguing. www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=17266&highlight=edge+flat+parrywww.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2384&highlight=edge+flat+parry(I particularly like Bill Grady's post, 1 down where he shows how every sidesword manual he's ever seen clearly show edge to edge combat. He also shows quote from MS like Wallerstein. I think he makes a very convincing argument, too.) This is not a black and white debate. Both WERE used extensively and different schools did different things. To say everyone did it one way is ludicrous, assumptive, and, frankly, wrong. Grayson, I hope you didn't think I was attempting to be confrontational. The "no's" followed by the same number of links were meant to be a little trope to lend emphasis to the content of the articles. I was trying to get across that ALL OF US, yourself and myself included, "really don't know what [we're] talking about." Obviously it's not a black-and-white debate because with whatever precautions you take, when people are fighting with swords, contact of all sorts is gonna happen. I just don't see any substantial evidence that INTENTIONAL parries with the edge were used extensively, considering the massive damage that occurs from even moderate blows when doing this and the lack of such extensive damage on surviving swords. All Bill Grady's post did, besides referring to more saber techniques from recent centuries, is make reference to several moments in English translations of fight manuals where "deflecting with your edge" and similar derivations could be construed as a hard edge-on-edge block, though they could also be read as cutting aside your opponent's blade (on the flat) with your edge, or an entirely different interaction. Bill Grandy himself said of his sources that "Many of the masters do not say anything about your opponent's blade." That can't really be read as evidence for preferential treatment of edge-to-edge blocks. You say the strength of a block with the edge all has to do with the grip of the handle and the way it is aligned with the blade, but for one, I doubt someone would want the firmest blocking surface possible when parrying such that your blade takes in all of the energy of a strike rather than deflecting most of it off, and I'm also quite sure that you are not bound to holding the grip in the same alignment for every movement you make. Nothing you've said so far seems to back up your apparent need to call everyone else wrong. In jest, I made statements of attesting to the "wrongness" of your statements in my earlier post, but I was hoping readers would pick up on the silliness of such conduct when I quoted you at the end of the post. It seems you have not. I for one, wasn't there when han jians or medieval swords were fought with, so I sure can't be positive as to how they were used. I'm not going to pin down the absolute truth of the matter or make a certain argument "Fact" as you say, especially not here on a forum on the internet. I think it's interesting to discuss different aspects of the debate, but I don't for a minute engage in such discussions as this one garrett was kind enough to start with the intention of "winning" or proving that I'm right above all else. I come to this forum to enjoy my stay and treat others with respect and a friendly attitude. I should hope you feel the same way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2010 2:20:43 GMT
Yes all styles have parries with the edge, but do they say parry "edge to edge"? That's quite a difference.
Read the Seven Hearts article again. It says contact was at an acute 20 degree angle. An oblique angle which I've tried desparately to make my point about. In addition, all the illustrations in manuscripts appear to be oblique contact as well not full on edge on edge. All those messer technqiues would come out cleaner and more efficient using off angle displacements.
I've come to the believe that historical swordsmanship with all these off angle edge parries can only be done with a proper edge geometry. Otherwise, they indeed become edge to edge parries.
Lunaman...it's not my intention to win. I've put forth a hypothesis which I thought would encourage a healthy brainstorming session. Apparently I've come off as a horse's behind?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2010 2:31:41 GMT
No, not remotely, garrett! My post was a response to the two that Grayson directed at me----I think you brought up a fantastic point for interesting debate. This: I've come to the believe that historical swordsmanship with all these off angle edge parries can only be done with a proper edge geometry. Otherwise, they indeed become edge to edge parries. is a brilliant idea and I think it would put to bed a lot of the controversy around the edge contact debate. It ties up a lot of loose ends and it makes heaps of sense to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2010 3:52:40 GMT
I'm reminded of a plate from Tallhoffer. In it he shows a Messer technique that looks like an edge parry with an upward cut. But rather than an edge parry this is actually a counter attack on the opponents wrist. In the Chinese cannon this is "mincing" and while it looks like parrying with the edge it is not in actuality, but like the plate from Tallhoffer in WMA shows, attacking the wrist of the opposing swordsman. While it may look like Chinese Sword Arts utilizes edge parries in our forms, those form movements generally represent other techniques. Neither Jian or Dao are modern fencing sabers and neither really equate to them. While I'm certain edge parries were used in last ditch attempts by a swordsman to save his own life in battle, the lack of teaching of them in CSA would only serve to reinforce their lack effectiveness. As stated earlier in this thread, the fact that even unintentional edge to edge contact resulted in damage to the swords being used, means it is highly unlikely that it was ever taught as an effective technique. At first you were like this: But then this happened: Now you're like this: M.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2010 5:06:29 GMT
Luna, I think you fail to see the magnitude of this (very old) debate. This is a question that has been brought up countless times and literally NO ONE has been able to bring definitive proof that one style was preffered over another. You did not read the links I sent you carefully enough. I think it is perhaps a bit arrogant of you to think that you've solved an age old debate (similar to knights vs. samurai) that is fundamentally unsolvable.
That said, I don't really care. I already know enough from my own research to let me draw my own conclusions.
I'm officially withdrawing from this debate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2010 5:08:45 GMT
I'm officially withdrawing from this debate. Sounds good to me. Wish you had read what I said more carefully, as you clearly misunderstood me. You seem like a smart guy, hope to get along with you better soon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2010 5:11:37 GMT
I'm officially withdrawing from this debate. Sounds good to me. Wish you had read what I said more carefully. You seem like a smart guy, hope to get along with you better soon. Please don't misunderstand, I hold no ill will against you. I'm just not really in the mood to convince. For good will, you may find this interesting, regardless of whether or not you agree: maol.tripod.com/cat1.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2010 5:12:59 GMT
Thanks for the link! Interesting stuff, for sure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2010 18:03:13 GMT
I'm with Luna here, edge "blocks" never happened on purpose. No sword survives a full edge block, it's not only damaged afterwards it's simply broken (not on two pieces) and not in fighting shape. I train German longsword with Arno Eckhardt and Wolfgang Abart in Germany and we fight after a school of using only the blade flats to parry. It works very well. Besides, there's no static block in sword fighting anyway, just a parrying movement that lets the opponetnt's blade slide along your one blade during parrying and you attack in the same fluid movement. Blocks just don't exist in medieval sword fighting, period. Of course, in a life to death fight everything can happen but never on purpose would you block with an edge.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2010 18:17:41 GMT
I'm reminded of a plate from Tallhoffer. In it he shows a Messer technique that looks like an edge parry with an upward cut. But rather than an edge parry this is actually a counter attack on the opponents wrist. In the Chinese cannon this is "mincing" and while it looks like parrying with the edge it is not in actuality, but like the plate from Tallhoffer in WMA shows, attacking the wrist of the opposing swordsman. While it may look like Chinese Sword Arts utilizes edge parries in our forms, those form movements generally represent other techniques. Neither Jian or Dao are modern fencing sabers and neither really equate to them. While I'm certain edge parries were used in last ditch attempts by a swordsman to save his own life in battle, the lack of teaching of them in CSA would only serve to reinforce their lack effectiveness. As stated earlier in this thread, the fact that even unintentional edge to edge contact resulted in damage to the swords being used, means it is highly unlikely that it was ever taught as an effective technique. At first you were like this: But then this happened: Now you're like this: M. Those were the plates I was thinking of. Thank You. Anyway, going back to the realms of Jianfa and Daofa. Garrett brings up a very good point about edge geometry. His experiments with Gundoggy do show us, that proper edge geometry of the blades being used is what allows what may appear to be an edge parry to actually use the flat of the blade. It is also interesting that others have mentioned lack of static blocks in WMA, as that would be something Euro swordsmanship would have in common with CSA. (We are in the Chinese swords section) In CSA we seek to avoid static blocks and instead use "deflections" where we seek to use minimum force to turn aside the opponents blade so that it travels out of harms way under it's own momentum and we can counter attack in either the same movement or a fluid second movement. Using the edge of our own blades to provide a static "block" runs counter to what many of us are trying to achieve.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 23, 2010 19:33:35 GMT
Liam has an outstanding point about deflection... it is more of redirection of the opponents energy. in the 54 jian fa form, i believe he uses the 32 form, you utilize the hand movements of taijiquan, and the sword is only an extension of your hand and your qi is applied though the sword. even if you are only performing a move in pure defense and trying not to harm your opponent, you still parry the same without following through to a strike or cut. when you use your opponents energy against him, you conserve your own. thus tiring your opponent. in a gentlemanly sword art, your purpose is not to kill your opponent (last resort only), but to defeat him to a point that he withdraws. i was taught that it is this way in fencing as well.
as for combat on a battle field, it would seem anything goes. and anything could happen. some swords are made with a false edge near the hand guard, some have a leading area before a ricasso, this would be handy for what you might believe to be an edge block but it is not an edge. i think it is called a forte on a rapier. the bottom line is, if you are blocking with the cutting edge of your sword, your sword will eventually break. it would be like scoring a piece of plexiglass so you can snap it by hand. for those of you who prefer a DH katana, just imagine after enough blows to your edge, how it would eventually go through your hamon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2010 3:47:51 GMT
Just a few points of clarification.
1. The experiments were with deflections and in half speed!!! No blocking occurred.
2. It may be an artifact of the thrust technique used. In the system we practiced, upper thrusts are with blade held with flat aligned horizonatally with the ground. Therefore the parrying blade was essentially meeting an edge. With rotation small edge/edge nicks were almost inevitable.
3. In looking at Clamshell profiles, the curved profile reduced the range of angles that edge/edge contact occured. This was Garrett's observation when he played with some clamshells
4. A perfectly flat parry of the horizontal edge resulting in cuts to softer spine of a differentially treated blade.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2010 10:22:21 GMT
So after testing a Huanuo Royal Peony sanmai against a Jin-shi standard production sword, the Jin-shi gained a few new nicks about 0.5mm deep and the Huanuo suffered a few nicks about 0.5 to 1.0 mm deep and about 1-2 mm long. Once again the nicks looked like gouges/cuts. So now I know I own an expensive sword with an edge LESS tough than a much less expensive sword. The Huanuo has a flat diamond, the Jinshi has a slightly contoured edge profile and is made of 1095 steel. I have to admit when I first read about Jin-shi on this forum I was very skeptical. Multiple parrying tests and lots of nicks later, I'm convinced!!! Now I have to commission a Jin shi sword with a historical clamshell profile to match my antiques. Combined with modern steel it may be tougher than the antiques. Now I have to get back to polishing out the nicks on my Sanmai sword. doggone it gundoggy, i have to start saving up for a custom jian now. i want a lion head. the one i have from jin-shi is the production jian.
|
|