Hi Folks: Had an intersting experience that started me thinking about the swords I have at home. As some of you may know I follow KMA and have ranking in Hapkido and GUEM BEOP. As I pursued my sword training I adopted a belief that spending money for a sound weapon was worth it and that if at all possible I wanted to use a genuine antique over a modern reproduction. As a result I have a few swords which are "collectors items" and I use these when I feel the need to train with a real sword. The reason for all the background is that I recently was in an Asian gift shop looking for some incense and a set of prayer beads. When I went to the counter to pay, behind the counter was a floor-to-ceiling display of these "el cheapo" swords with garish colors and lots of gilt. I don't give this garbage a second glance. Then an item off to oneside caught my eye and I asked the clerk if I could look at the repro Chinese DAO on display. It was a dead ringer for the CHING Dyn piece I had at home. The difference was that as I drew the sword from its sheath I could tell that it was easily twice the weight of my own CHING piece. I've been scratching my head ever since. Here's a few questions that come to my mind. a.) As a sword practitioner, how do I know what the authentic weight of a given sword architect might be? b.) I wonder if its worth training with a heavier-- or lighter--- steel sword. c.) I have a WW II Japanese KATANA that I use to practice cutting with when I am studying a technique that might put my own weapon at risk. I wonder if it would be worthwhile to pick-up the repro as a stand-in so I don't have to put my antique at risk....but for the weight issue? Anyhow.... I was wondering if anyone else has found substantial differences in the weight of what are suppose to be the same sort of weapon and how did you address this? Thoughts? Best Wishes, Bruce
HM, to A, I'd say library and internet. Allso community. As a re-enactor of WMA, I have tons of sources, not from esoteric MA-cults, but from archaeologists. We have found some 2000 swords in Norway from bronze-age to WW1, and adding european sources, several other thousands. Sword-typology is pretty accurate. I can usually only cast one glance on a sword-replica and see if it's a blade I can use for training or not. We divide swords into three categories; "Wallhangers", blunts and sharps. The blunts can vary greatly, from the overweight clubs used in full-contact sparring as in sport like "battle of the nations" practiced in eastern europe, to the federschwert's that I mentioned above. B: German longsword-training in late medieval/early renissanse used training-swords that were lighter, called Federschwert. They were lighter in order to make them flex more, so one could train thrusting safely. It's a trade-of, how importent is it to train thrusting full speed on a resisting opponent vs. the disadvantage of training with a sword that is too light? You have to train all aspects of your swordplay as close to the real thing as possible, a heavier sword can build muscle, but I have never seen any evidence of heavier swords used in european training. I have (as mentioned above) evidence of lighter swords. C: I wouldn't hesitate. I have a sharp longsword that I never use for sparring, but I use that one for test-cutting (and light contatc drilling). It have completely different characteristics. Perhaps I am more lucky, as there is evidence of quite a lot of different european longswords regarding length, weight, balance, blade profile, etc, etc, so it's not that unrealistic for me to train with weapons with different characteristics. My longest blade is a blunt Zweihänder, 1m70cm long. I have two longswords, 1 vikingsword, 1 messer(sort of german medieval cutlass) and 1 medieval doubble-edged sword.
There is no such thing. There are loads of examples of very light historic weapons and some that are little more than sharp crobars. Train with the weapon dynamics you like most. I used to train with a heavier weapon until I designed my own. I never train with the old heavier sword now. It ruins technique too much. If you want strength go down the gym and pump some iron. You'll get far better gains than a heavier sword. Get a repo stand-in but don't buy off the shelf as they tend to suck. There are plenty of modern swordsmiths who will build you a good repo with the exact weight and blade dynamics you want for a reasonable price. The Bear.
Thanks, Guys.... you touched on exactly what I was looking for: folks with experience who can speak intelligently about the relationship between sword mnass and performance. In Asian sword I get pretty particular about whose wares I look at. Usually I am looking for someone who does validation cutting or various targets and target material. I have also found an inverse relationship between how much advertising there is and the quality of the item. The more advertising; the lower quality---overall. BTW: In practice and re-enactment are there limits as to size and weight? I'm thinking that there must be some sort of parameters, right? I know that in Japanese KENDO and Korean KUMDO size and weight of the bamboo swords is very specific to the sex and age of the participant. BTW #2: In like manner, it would seem to me (IMHO) that certain historical European sword architectures would have advantages as might certain fighting methods. For instance, in Korean sword methods, a two-knife (K. KAL) method might have an advantage over a single-handed sabre. Do you folks run into this in European activities? Best Wishes, Bruce
No it depends on the group you are training with. My group tend to use semi-sharps because the blade dynamics are almost the same as a sharp. There is no standardization though. You tend to design a sword that suits your fighting style. I don't know the two-knife method you are talking about. If you describe it then I could give you my best guess. The Bear.
WMA have branched out in several styles and sports. In Norway, most re-enactors don't pretend to do WMA at all, but prefere a sport-system that goes light-contact, high speed with blunt edge and only protection on the hands. Over the years, the ideal blade for this sport have "evolved" away from "realistic" characteristics, as balance point and general lightness is over-emphasized compared to how we believe "real" swordfighting would look like. In Eastern europe, they have evolved some sort of "Submission-fencing" (like UFC with swords), and over there, the heavier weapons, the heavier the blows, and the more likely the opposition will tap out. Then you have the feder-schwerten the metal-blunt that tries to retain "original" blades, semi-sharps, as Polar Bear talks about, and finally really sharp blades. If you go to actual samples of -say a longsword, it varies greatly on blade-profile, length, grip-length, etc, etc. So it's allmost impossible to talk about a standard. You could go to a museum, ask permission to pick up a blade, have a blademaker come with you, let him take all relevant meassures, then have him make a replica as close to the original as possible, but that is not done very often IMO. The most normal thing is that blademakers makes replicas of general shape, but adapt weight and balance to fit the use for the blade.
Example of nordic light-contact-sport-fencing-system "Huscarl"(no thrust/horisontal blows at head, otherwize all of body allowed to hit): [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVU2lCZ6Ybs&playnext=1&list=PLD2DDA9F0678B4A04&feature=results_video"]Huscarl Training - YouTube[/ame] By comparison, exsample of eastern european full-contact-sport-fencing-system(don't know what they call it "Podenkyj", or somthing like that): [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mZvfaN3Fw0&feature=related"]Танго 5х5 Санкт Петербург 2010 Tango of war - YouTube[/ame] You see how the two sports emphasizes different qualities in the blades
And here is some tournament work in Asian Fencing. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4ad8nUAaz4"]TCSL 2011 National Tournament - Finals - YouTube[/ame] Best Wishes, Bruce
Heres another [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcurmW2VefU&feature=related"]Full Contact Chinese Sword Tournament | Netherlands May 2011 - YouTube[/ame] Best Wishes, Bruce
They've still got a long way to go but it's nice to see them starting to walk down the road. Would be more than happy to fight them. The Bear.
Yeah.....its a bit like watching people in KARATE or TKD do letter-perfect technique and then watching them spar like a couple of schoolboys on a recess playground. Best Wishes, Bruce
That second video was great Bruce! I like how they let it move into empty handed weapon defence after someone lost their blade. Considering that most of the time it looks like both combatants would die I wonder how much better they are than a martial artist without weapons experience.
Well....this brings up a theme that I have been banging on for a little while. The most recent case was raising a question about weapons and MMA. I approached my Korean sword teacher about the idea of S-D secondary to losing one's weapon. At the time I was speaking of the sporting (KUMDO/KENDO) venue. Apparently the idea of grappling is very much idiosyncratic to a school or teacher. And while it DOES happen in Sport it is generally frowned-upon unless the outcome is something really spectacular (IE Fuill Shoulder Throw; Spin-Kick to the Head). The typical sporting event doesn't want to see two guys rolling around on the floor like school kids. Let me also flip this over so I can vent another bit that rubs me raw. When I have been to seminars and classes, I am there to Fence. Fencing is tricky at best and learning how to parry, thrust and divert takes years just like learning MT Hand. What I find is that there are a lot of guys who will charge me, parry my weapon out of their way and start wrestling. Really ticks me off and I have had more than one temptation to roll my blade back to the centerline and jam it somewhere disrespectful and let the consequences fall as they might. I just know that had we been using steel swords I don't imagine a person would be THAT cavalier (no pun) about charging me. Thoughts? Best Wishes, Bruce
Take off the armour. Then when they charge and you hit them it has real stopping power. That's how I solved the unrealistic suicidual attacks. Plus it really teaches you how to defend. The Bear.
A sport is a sport. You have to define what you're doing. If you "pretend" that you're fighting in armor, the fight will look very different from if you "pretend" that you fight without armor. Fiore di Liberi (as well as the germans) have two very different styles of fencing, depending on wether you wear full plate armor(with padding under) or not. The germans calls the unarmed "Blossfechten", and the other "Harnishfechten". Fiore defines it as "long-play" and "close-play". Harnishfechten/close-play uses the sword allmost like a pole-dagger (using loads of half-swording techniques and wrestling + punches and hooks with crossguard and pommel) Blossfechten/long-play see much less wrestling. The fiore manual shows some close-play allso without armor, but it would IMO be a misunderstanding to asume that Fiore wrestles a lot allso without armor, as he only shows special finishing-moves, and leaves out the basic fencing in the manual. (That's why many prefere the german system, as it describes the bloss-system more detailed that fiore does. I've met italians (+my former teacher Colin Richards) that IMO have some interresting interpretations of Fiore-long-play. The problem with the eastern "battle of the nations-style" sport-system IMO is that it shows blossfechten in harness The reacent years see some pins and takedowns, but their system forbids thrusting, and that leaves that system somewhat wanting if it's realism you seek in your sport. Here is "our" attempt at a sport-system that tries to be realistic. We who participate don't either have armor properly adjusted, the proper skill-level or the proper stamina to make it look good, but IMO it's a fair first attempt; this is a video from our first tournament with our rules, called "harnichfechten": [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZyI2mf3si8"]Halvsverding og påleøks - Hadeland folkemuseum - YouTube[/ame]
The only problem with armoured sparring is that it renders the weapons useless so it becomes a strength match. For obvious reasons you can't use anti-armour weaponry. The Bear.
Yep, you either use submission, like the easterners (something I don't think work that well, apart from the experience of getting hit full contact, which probably is a worthwile experience if you're interrested in how it was to fight in armor in the middle ages), or you have to have some points. In our system, you win when you reach 10 points, and you get 1 point for any swing that lands, 3 points for any Armor-defeating impliment that lands in weak-armor areas, like armpits, groin, throat, backside of knee, etc. Still strength is important, but it was important back in the days as well. Nobody can convince me that a 50kg person in full armor could win with one blow with a warhammer against a person on 100kg in full armor, so you have to be strong to win. BTW: The one with most experience, and who won the tournament, won by using technique, sidestepping and aiming, he didn't use brute strength, even if he could.
