Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2007 3:25:20 GMT
i remember reading an interview with one of the gracies... the brazilian jujitsu gracies. he said he was in a fight with a few guys and took one of them to the ground.. he was then pummeled by the other two guys. the moral of the story? try not to fall down in a fight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2007 4:16:03 GMT
That is one of the reason's I'm very impressed with the gracies. They openly admit that their style is not the best in the world. You see a lot of those vain jerks going around saying they're better than everyone else and their style is best etc etc.
The gracies were honest and mature about their style. They were upfront with the fact that while it is an amazing system on the ground, one on one, that it has it's drawbacks(useless against multiple attackers et al), just like any other style of fighting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2007 4:42:56 GMT
I spent the afternoon making a new rattan sword. I wanted this one to be ultra light and fast. I had ordered a thin rattan right at the legal limit of 1.25 inch diameter. The rattan sword came in at 2 lbs 9 oz after I added the basket hilt, thrusting tip and taped it up. Total length is 33 inches, blade 25". I put on my armor and did some pell work. Feels good. I was able to make up for the lost weight with extra speed delivering good blows. The balance is 2 inches below the hilt so it allows me to turn the sword easily for moulinets and wraps.
I had borrowed a lighter aluminum basket hilt from some one some one to see if it would work. The weight difference was about 5 oz but it shifted the balance a more forward to about 4 inches down the hilt. The basket was a bit small for my demi-gauntlets so I went with my steel basket hilt making the sword 2 lbs 9 oz and POB 2 inches below the hilt.
In part the motivation came from Trueswordsman who said he was using a 2 lb sword. I don't know how he got the weight so low and still legal. He'll have to fill me in. I spoke with a few other guys who told me that they can't hit hard enough with light swords and get good hits that people will accept. I seemed to be hitting hard enough on the pell today, I'll see how the next practice goes. I'll still keep my other 3 lb'er handy. The 3 lb'er is what I am using in the pictures above. It is about 5 inches longer and POB is about 4 inches down the hilt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2007 6:13:15 GMT
2 lbs 9 oz for a sword 33'' overall? That's pretty heavy actually for a sword so small. That's actually a very very small sword, come to think of it... especially for big guy like you...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2007 6:23:47 GMT
Yeah, its an experiment. I have another short sword of 33 inches total that weighs in at 2 lbs 15 oz that was working well enough. I am able to strike from my eyebrow line with no warning. The blade is thicker on that one. I wanted to expand upon this technique with a lighter sword.
Much of the weight is in the steel basket hilt which weighs almost 1.5 lbs. That is why I was considering an aluminum hilt, but I did not like the resulting balance. The swords may be coming in a little heavy for their length but also remember I have no need for full gauntlet or mailed gloves because of the basket hilt.
I find my facethrust to be extremely accurate with the shorter sword. The is a definite correlation between shortness and accuracy that I have noticed. For snaps, wraps and moulents, I wanted to try out the super light one and see if I can be faster and hit just as hard. On the pell it seems to work, but the real test will be next Wed practice. I will see if my opponents accept my hits as good.
I typically go to practice with 3 swords of different sizes and weights. I have one that is 43 inches total and weighs 3.75 lbs. That .75 lb weight comes mostly from the washers I use as a pommol to balance that long sword at about 2 inches below the hilt. It definitely has a range advantage, but I also have been finding that firing my shots from a longer range means they take a split second longer to land. My opponents have a better chance to track it and block. With the shorter sword close in, I am finding that the shot spends less time in the air and is harder for opponents to see and block. Also with the shorter lighter sword, there is less wind up and body torquing, so that gives less warning to my opponent. I have been developing a technique where I hold the sword just over my eyebrow and fire from there. It takes a lot of instant power to land a good blow from there, but there is no warning.
I am finding that my competition is determining how I must fight them. As I improve, I am finding my tastes are changing too. I still see some very good fighters using long blade heavy swords too, so perhaps at some point I will come full circle.
I am also considering making new body armor for my torso. With the shield, I am finding I rarely get hit there. So I may do away with some of the overlap and padding. I will still use this heavy armor for melee and non-shield fighting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2007 14:45:53 GMT
I used the thin rattan and with two layers of duct tape is right at the edge of legal. I then use an aluminum basket hilt.
Though the sword is light the balance point is 5 inches off the hilt. This gives it speed and momentum to make up for the lack of club like power found in a heavier sword. I have been using it for about 3 months.
I also need to say that I have fought both north and south and the speed here in the south is far faster than in the north. I think it is due to lighter armor, which has developed due to the heat.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on May 25, 2007 16:33:12 GMT
Several. Please read the melees thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2007 21:37:18 GMT
I mean real fights, not group play-fighting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2007 22:40:17 GMT
... back in the old water polo days when their team didn't like our team and decided to let us know after the game was over... I'm getting the image of a bunch of guys in swim caps and goggles in a street brawl ;D I agree, though, keeping on your feet is the key. I once had my buddy fighting along side me throw a guy into the back of my legs, just as a punch came in...the punch missed, but the next couple kicks didn't!
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on May 25, 2007 22:51:08 GMT
consider for a moment your definition of play fighting. I'm sure none of your waterpolo matches/brawls resemble a battlefield anymore than my controlled "play-fighting" does. And considering I have far more experience with multi-man melees (upwards of 20 people at the same time with weapons) I'd prefer if you wouldn't look down on it as "playing." Sorry to come off harsh. Now back on topic here: Adam, if you were tripped in a fight and fell to your knees what is the most likely ocurse of action for you? Would you tell your opponent: "OK, I fell, let me up please we'll try again." Or maybe something like "OK you win, don't kill me."? Sadly, I don't think you'll get any mercy unless you're wearing a a nice shiny gold coronet around your helm (all hail king adam ;D?). FIghting from the knees or lower have several advantages that one wouldn't think of. For when, when falling, you have more than ample opportunity to thrust under the shield or gouge his legs (depending on armour) or if he's in full plate, trip him as well. And then consider the armour you are wearing. Are you really going to be naked? I can understand your point of view if you wore no armor whatsoever, but given just a suit of platemail your fight-is-over-if-you-so-much-as-touch-the-ground theory holds no water. Dude, you've had a mean childhood ;D. Again, this goes to the armour vs. no armor concept. If you'd been wearing armour in your brawl...a strange sight indeed!...those kiicks probably wouldn't have done much to you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2007 23:01:00 GMT
I think that, although it is violent and physical, in an "organised" melee, peole don't really want to hurt you, and usually (hopefully) stop when you're "dead".
On the other hand, I was once in a street fight where a dude had his back broken, have seen people get curbed, stabbed, all kinds of evil sh#@, in a street fight, even with no weapons, people are mad enough to hurt someone, and usually are wanting to severely hurt someone for something they did.
This may not apply to stupid bar fights, either, because those guys are usually just drunk, and can't remember why they were even fighting when it's over....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2007 23:03:02 GMT
but yeah, back to the topic...
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on May 25, 2007 23:05:28 GMT
You're point that you're making leads to the long argument of how to breach the gap between controlled safe combat and real deadly battle. My solution that has wroked very well is to put your mind in the idea that it IS real battle and you don't come back to fight again if you die.
|
|
|
Post by chakobsa on May 25, 2007 23:27:56 GMT
Rammstein you don't come across as being harsh, patronizing yes, but not harsh. Given the direction that this thread has taken I would say that your "experience" of "multi-man melees" is largely irrelevant. You weren't facing foes that meant you and your pals real harm, were you? You come across as a know it all kid who has a smart answer for everything, I'm sure that you don't mean to, but that's how it comes across.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on May 25, 2007 23:42:48 GMT
Of course not. But I don't think water polo brawls constitute true harm either. And when it comes down to it, niether of us had a 40 inch piece of steel in our hands to back up our claims, which is why I was rubbed the wrong way when my melees are referred to as "play-fighting." I'm not saying I have more experience. I'm saying that adam's experience is no more relevant than mine is.
That may be the case, but having an answer for everything is a matter of your perception. I don't know everything. BUt I know what I know, and I'll say what I know. When it comes down to it, fights dont end when a person happens to touch the ground. Look at any historical evidence and you'll see this is the case. Point over, enough of me doing this honor defedning junk because frankly I'm getting tired of it as I'm sure you all are too. Sandman already pmed me once about this and I'm attempting to let sleeping dogs lie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2007 23:49:26 GMT
I don't know Rammstein... how much blood or how many broken bones have resulted as a result of your 20 man melees with (fake) weapons? I wasn't trying to say I was in 'water polo brawls' so much as actual melee fights. Such incidents were more akin to a dozen guys fighting against a dozen other guys because they have a grudge against one another and that grudge happens to have stemmed from a water-polo game. Water Polo itself has little to do with it... i only mentioned water polo as the necessary background to how the incidents occurred.
Anyway, my point: Fighting from the ground IS possible. Just not preferrable... ever. In a multi-man melee situation, anything you can do after being knocked down you could do better on your feet. Being on the ground makes a person MUCH more vulnerable than being on your feet. It is safer and more effective(drastically so) to fight from your feet.
I dare anyone to argue with that.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on May 26, 2007 0:02:41 GMT
Agreed, not preferable, but possible. Obviously I'd like to fight on my feet. And I've gotten quite a number of bruises, twisted ankles, raw hands, bloody knuckles, and blisters - and I'm still recovering from a wrist sprain from a year ago in a melee when my wrist struck a shield rather than of my sword...I still won the fight though ;D here's the picture I was thinking of by the way:
|
|
|
Post by chakobsa on May 26, 2007 0:35:36 GMT
Rammstein, nobody is saying that a fight is over if you touch the ground, only that you are at an extreme disadvantage. It's rather telling that you seem to have decided that it's "point over". Are you throwing your toys out of the pram 'cause some guys have dared to disagree with you instead of indulging your baseless arrogance? Got to go as I'm away for the week so please don't take my lack of any reply as rudeness.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on May 26, 2007 0:41:16 GMT
I don;t mind people disagreeing with me. I think my "baseless arrogance" as you put it is based on my frustration trying to get my point across on keyboard...I'm sure you know what I mean Have fun mate, no offense held obviously, so hope you have a great time where ever your off to
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2007 0:47:19 GMT
I used the thin rattan and with two layers of duct tape is right at the edge of legal. I then use an aluminum basket hilt. Though the sword is light the balance point is 5 inches off the hilt. This gives it speed and momentum to make up for the lack of club like power found in a heavier sword. I have been using it for about 3 months. I also need to say that I have fought both north and south and the speed here in the south is far faster than in the north. I think it is due to lighter armor, which has developed due to the heat. How long is your 2 lb rattan sword Jason? On the issue of fighting from your knees. It is possible that you might simply trip over a body or weapons in battle and have to fight you way off the ground. If you are in full armor it may not be the easiest thing to spring up. If you have an enemy directly in front of you after you just tripped, it might be better to fight him from the ground rather then try to get up and expose yourself in the process.
|
|