Yeah they are different because they don't function like a long bladed weapon. A Wakizashi works like a knife. All short swords have knife mechanics rather than sword mechanic even if they are called a sword. The name is irrelevant it the properties of the weapon. Hooks swords again change mechanics because of it additional properties. Names and mechanics are not related. Weapon dynamics and body mechanics are. The Bear.
That's my point though. The weapon design is sufficiently different to change the body mechanics involved ignoring the baat jaam do the hook swords are still swords. And you missed or ignored my other examples.
You're mistaken about the Dao, I was just being polite. I've actually trained in Dao in Tai chi and the cut mechanics are with them from the hips. The Bear.
okay well one I'd say no it's not, not entirely. I've compared notes with quite a few people on the similarities and the way the katana is used is a lot more from the hips compared to the dao. you have to drive through with the body more whereas the doa can be swung from the hips but can rely less on structure and more on momentum. It's swung more from the edge of the body compared to the katana. And again you ignored my point about the hook swords which is the most glaring example of all that though there are certain similarities in using pretty much any weapon the changes in sword design create a change in body mechanics and tactics used.
? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are there any clips of the movement "driving through"?
Any video of a proper two handed cut with one. It's the difference in mechanics between a two handed sword where you have leverage with both hands and your goal with any large cut is cleaving your opponent in half and a sword which though powered by the hips can be driven on continuing momentum and moved in a far different way by a single arm.
No I mean I'm not sure what you mean by the words "driving through". It could mean so many things to different people. Do you mean putting weight behind it? Do you mean cutting "past" the target? Do you mean slicing? What about cutting one-handed with a katana?
Sorry i edited.. and one handed is different and not often used. I'm talking general mechanics of the sword's use. And by driving through I mean that you create a continually reinforced structure needed to cleave through an opponent.
I totally agree with Polar Bear that Koyo was a great source for sword-principles. If people like to read old threads, and if they may excuse my rather rash way of writing some years ago, people might find this thread useful (it's IMO the best thread on MAP): http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85926 (The thread starts getting very good after page 4)
Ok, stay cool let's keep this one chilled and fun. A hook sword doesn't act like a sword because it's a dogs dinner of a weapon. It's like how many functions can we cram into one weapon. As a result yes it doesn't work like a sword. I again wouldn't class it as a sword despite it's name. The Bear.
I'm not sure that the blades themselves are universal. Some blades are optimalized for cutting, others thrusting, some are well balanced, others are tip-heavy. The shape, balance and metal quality of the blade itself is one of the factors that dictates what principles will be in the forefront of a given art; I might go so far as to suggest that different blade-design is the only thing that makes sword-arts beeing different at all. One example is how some of the winding done in european longsword or messer where the aim is to lock the opponents blade are impossible to do with a katana/viking-sword, as they don't have a guard. An "universal" thingie with any blade is "the weak" and "the strong" of the blade (leveridge), that where on the blade the contact with the enemy is made dictates how the blade (and you) can act. I believe this would be the same regardless of the blade itself.
Yeah complete agree mate. The stylistic variations are down the cultural practices and design choices of the weapon. The however don't change the underlying principles. The Bear.
This is basically the point that I was trying to make while also showing that there are exceptions to it also.
They don't change the underlying principles, no, but IMO they dictate which "universal" principles are available to you, and that shapes the different styles. Stick-fighting don't have a sharp, pointy point, and thus, many of thrust-related attacks (like winding) are less relevant for a stick-fighter than for a rapier-fighter.
Yep, agreed. And, for the record, my questions for Bruce were all ones that I am genuinely interested in the answers for. Hopefully when he returns, he will answer them, and it won't devolve into anything like the last couple. Well, you're already identifying exceptions within your own statements there... for the record. Additionally, although the use of hips is fairly standard, the way they are used can be different from one system to another. Then you get to the usage of the hands... in Japanese systems, the right hand provides the guiding of the blade, whereas the left hand (by pushing or pulling) provides the power, so that's a universal there... except for the Sekiguchi Ryu, of course, who use the right hand for their power. Hmm... maybe not so universal, then... Ha, yeah, I get where you're coming from as well. As I said, I do both. Firstly, I look the similarities, as that gives me a position to start from, as well as a reference point. It enables me to see whether or not a system/approach "matches" with the way sword methods work... however, I don't class that as even being close to understanding or researching about specific systems. That doesn't start until the differences are looked at. I mean, to take it back to the use of hips, and the way that impacts on footwork, we can look to a couple of Japanese systems to see how that comes through. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYbMqZN4kMU"]兵法二天一æµã€€å²©è¦‹åˆ©ç”·çŽ„å‹ - YouTube[/ame] Hyoho Niten Ichi Ryu [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOXtnd3-7Dw"]Soburen 2012 - Yakumaru Jigen Ryu (part 1) - YouTube[/ame] Yakumaru Jigen Ryu [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlfb5Maq2I8"]Budojo - Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto-ryu - Part I | 天真æ£ä¼é¦™å–神é“æµ - YouTube[/ame] Tenshinsho Den Katori Shinto Ryu I chose the Katori and Niten clips because they show the respective head instructors (Otake Shihan and Iwami Soke respectively) giving instruction in the methods, which can make it a bit easier to see the way the mechanics work. To my eyes, the Jigen Ryu have a vastly different method of using their hips, as well as their footwork (we could also look to systems such as Maniwa-Nen Ryu, or Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage Ryu for even more differentiated footwork), with the Jigen Ryu being completely on their toes/balls of their feet, with the feet angled forward, where as Katori have their rear foot angled away to allow the hips to turn as they cut, and Niten being somewhere inbetween, depending on the method being used at the time So there we have three Japanese systems, all using the same, or a very similar weapon, and each have different grips, usage of hips, footwork, and more. Although, they do all keep to many of the ideas presented (which part of the blade is used to cut with, proper extension without over extending when cutting, refined action, direct tactics and movements, etc), I really don't think there are that many universal "do's"... most of the universal's, really, are "don't's"... could be something to look to in this thread. Hmm, being familiar with the kodachi methods of some half dozen Ryu-ha, as well as a range of modern and traditional knife methods, I'd completely disagree with this. A Japanese short sword is used far more like a one-handed sword, than as a knife. There's quite a distinction in usage between the two, actually. There is no example of Kodachi/Shoto/Wakizashi usage that I've dealt with that is closer to knife work, when I think about it.... it's all short sword. The properties of a kodachi are not those of a knife.
Well, we can't agree on everything Chris. Come the zombie apocalypse we can put those differences to the test but I guess in the meantime we'll just have to live with the painful situation that somebody out there in the world disagrees with us. The Bear.
Actually, I'm curious here, Bear. What makes you think that kodachi uses knife methods, rather than being closer to sword? What kodachi methods are you familiar with? And how do you differentiate between the sword and knife methods? Honestly, I don't think it's a matter of disagreement, or different opinions, I think it's more a case of the fact that kodachi really is more like sword usage than knife usage. But I'm curious as to why you think differently.
It's the speed and weight of the weapon. Once you're fighting with a light and short enough blade you move into quick, short, close in fighting. A short sword or as we call it a grosse messer (big knife) is at that point. For me it's not fencing any more. You don't cut like a sword you slash like a knife because fighting at the closer range means that you can't use *"time of the foot" because it's too slow. *a term coined by George Silver in the Paradoxes of Defense. There are three timings. Time of the hand (fast), time of the body (medium) and time of the foot (slowest). The Bear.