Swordfighting have some universal principles, regardless of the given swords shape. (Indeed some universal principles could perhaps apply on any weapon, yes, perhaps all fighitng?) The principle of having to be in charge of the centre is one thing. If you fight with only one weapon or a two-hand-weapon, this job has to be done while hitting the opponent. Therefore, the principle of controlling the centre is more universal than "you stab" or "you cut" that's not universal principles to sword-art, as some swords don't stab very well (a beheader-sword, or the thingemabobs shown above). I'd say that wether the weapon posted above was wielded alone, in pairs or in combo with another weapon/shield would give more influence on how to successfully wield it in a fight than the excact shape of it. When I say that the shape dictates which principles you can apply, I think I perhaps rather should have said that You cut with a sword or you thrust with a sword shouldn't be "elevated" to "universal principle"-status :hat: The universal principles to fighting is "Timing, distanceing and control of the centre", and when I come to think of it, it's not really anything in a sword that alters theese three, and the only extra "universal principle" that applies to swords(weapons) is "weak and strong of the blade" (allthough it's sort of the same for all wrestlers when they apply arm/leg-bars)
Just a stray question, is there any evidence of those hook swords being used in anything other than ritualised combat between members of kung fu schools? Because if there isn't that might explain why they operate in apparent defiance of general principles, i.e. they are part of an isolated niche. paul
You would have to admit it would be funny to watch though... I guess what I was trying to do was use an evolutionary anaology. Sometimes in situations where the usual predators aren't present, islands in particular, you will end up with a population that is basically the same as the majority of the species, but quite anachronistic - think big tasty flightless birds like the moa. And if biologists were talking about universal characteristics they would do it knowing that there was an exception - but that it didn't really matter per se. So for hook swords the predators would be other more 'normal' swordspeople, who in this case have been somehow removed from the equation. This is possibly an analogy with broader application in the martial arts, now that I think about it a bit... paul
Hi, Folks: I used the last few days to put together what may be a decent contribution to the discussion about “universal” sword practices. Once again, YOU TUBE figures prominently. The first clip is a standard execution of the KENDO KATA. It’s worthwhile to remember that KENDO is an amalgamation of core techniques from 14 Japanese traditions so perhaps the methods seen here can be taken as representative of a valid cross-section of Japanese sword for the purposes of this discussion. I don’t know these gentlemen but I selected a venue that seemed to represent an optimal execution. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWzdIpayeFk"]Kendo Kata - YouTube[/ame] The second clip is a standard execution of the KUMDO KATA. It’s worthwhile to remember that the sport of KUMDO does not represent ALL Korean Sword but was a significant contribution to Korean sword just prior to and during the Japanese Occupation. While some forms of Korean KUMDO have been enhanced, the standard practices very much mirror the Japanese tradition. I think this is probably a good representation of the sport of KUMDO for the purposes of this discussion. I don’t know these gentlemen but again I selected a venue that seemed to represent an optimal execution. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IFkGJnYO_Q"]14회 성남시장기검ë„대회 - Kumdo Bon/Kendo Kata 1-7 - YouTube[/ame] The last clip is a demonstration of Korean GEUM BEOP BON (lit: “sword methods drills”). Though these BON appear very much like the KENDO/KUMDO forms, they are actually a bit closer to what our friends in Unarmed MA might call “one-steps”). Since these are being presented by a 4th Dan and 6th Dan in the Korean KUMDO Association they are being executed after the fashion of KUMDO, which is, using a 2-handed sabre, rather than a single-handed sabre. Once again, I don’t know these gentlemen but I selected a venue that seemed to represent an optimal execution. There are several BON I recognize from the HWA RANG KUMDO Association. There are also others I have not seen before. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTA7Vf1eZAg"]Kumdo Forms - YouTube[/ame] Lastly, over the last couple of threads there have been a lot of references to BON KUK GEUM BEOP (lit: “Native Korean Sword Methods”). These are the single oldest Korean sword methods and are attributed to Korean sword-work going back to at least the 9th Century. Please remember to keep in mind two things as you watch this clip. First is that these methods were all meant to be taught as individual introductions to a particular concept or “methods” to using the sword for a given situation or circumstance, or to teach a particular kind of execution melding body motion and sword movement. The execution of these sword methods as a single integrated flow of movement was not the original intention of this material and is a reflection of the modern use of such forms in modern training. Secondly, this sword work was originally intended for the use of a single-handed sabre and not a two-handed sabre. The use of a 2-handed sabre is a relatively new change in Korean sword and can be said to be a kind of “dividing line” between what one might identify as “old” or “traditional” Korean sword (using a single-handed sabre) and the “new” or “modern” sword which uses the two-handed sabre. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwFvkAL-zFo"]Bon Gook Kum Bop - YouTube[/ame] Lastly, based on these four clips I think there are some things that can be identified as “universal”. a.) Notable by its absence is the theatrical practice of clashing swords together to accomplish “blocking”. While a great deal is made of these large motions in Sport applications, even highly accomplished Sport players find little use for them. IMVVHO I believe that teaching these great sweeping motions may serve some conditioning purpose but have little place in Combat material. Notice that the Japanese KATA, as well as the Korean BON all make use of parries, or the subtle deflection of the partner’s blade to create the opportunity to execute a strike or thrust. b.) Whether Japanese or Korean, all sword clips show a mixture of “walking steps”, “substitution steps” and steps from the centerline. Though the basic intention is to take ownership of the centerline in order to control ones’ partner, absent are any turns, spins, jumps or other moves that might compromise the swordsman’s foundation. I see this consistently enough to regard this as an artifact of Combat rather than Sport applications, though I have yet to see this sort of acrobatics in serious (sport) KENDO/KUMDO sport as well. c.) A last universal aspect that I see in these clips is the use of a particular posture or orientation relative to the nature of the partners attack. In the sport application, the need for uniform judging precludes the use of anything but a Middle Guard position when addressing one’s opponent. This practice is a constant in all sports. However, in Combat, while certain postures are more prevalent than others, it is common for individuals to take a posture which has been found to be most successful in facing a particular weapon or mode of attack. These are a few of the things I see. FWIW. Best Wishes, Bruce
Just a personal thought/observation. I'm new to martial arts but I've started doing sports/competing at a young age. It just seems to me that body mechanics are universal. There is a correct way to use your body and a wrong way (with grey in the middle). Rooting, footwork and proper body alignment are the same or at least very similar. Different styles have different philosophies, approaches and emphasize different things which (together with different environments and people) give us the host of techniques we see.
Agreed.....the only caveat I have come across to that position is in making sure that one is comparing like items. In the Sport of Boxing as well as some MA I have seen people raise the heel of their supporting foot as they turn their hips into a strike, but not so with the classic or traditional execution. Still.... good thoughts. Best Wishes, Bruce
The thing is, I am not all that sure just what the precedent for those interesting sorts of weaponry really is. If you check-out Werner concerning Chinese weaponry (see: Chinese Weapons: E. T. C. Werner: 9789748742670), none of the sorts of exotic stuff comes up as one finds in, say, Kang's book (see: The Spring and Autumn of Chinese Martial Arts - 5000 Years - Prof. Kang Gewu). And along those same lines, if you examine any of the books that are out now about the Terra Cotta Warriors of the tomb of Chin Shi Huang Di you won't find a lot of exotic stuff either. Its all pretty nuts-and-bolts (IE. basic sabres, bows, arrows, crossbows and chariots). If I had to bet on something, I would bet that a lot of those exotic weapons had more to do with people's imaginings about the nature of rather than actual experience. FWIW. Best Wishes, Bruce
Firstly, welcome back, Bruce. Hopefully we can have more of a dialogue this time around.... do feel free to go back to the first page, as I'm still interested in your answers to the questions I posted there. Now, as to this lot, I'm not really sure that there's a broad enough cross-section to call these examples to get "universal" sword practices (and, uh, that's not what's being discussed either... it's the idea of universal principles, such as using the last third of the blade for cutting, not practices....), mainly as two are exactly the same thing, one is a variation of those first two, and there's only one different type of clip. Okay, a couple of things here.... firstly, uh, what? "It's worthwhile to remember that Kendo is an amalgamation of core techniques from 14 Japanese traditions"... uh, no, it isn't. In fact, it's a fairly simplified form of swordsmanship, primarily out of two main lines of Itto Ryu (Hokushin Itto Ryu and Itto Shoden Muto Ryu). Kendo no Kata has kata from these systems, as well as some simplified methods specifically developed for Kendo no Kata. So... no. Next, it can't be taken as representative of anything other than what is taught and found in Kendo, as that's really all it is. Finally, I don't know that this is really an "optimal" execution... it's decent, but hardly fantastic... and the description being given in the voice over is actually inaccurate in a number of cases (mentioning "parries" where there aren't any, and so on). Uh, this is just a couple of Koreans doing Kendo no Kata... it's really not Korean swordsmanship in the slightest. I mean, it's not even a different interpretation... it's the exact same kata. No difference. Not Korean. And not different from the Kendoka in the last clip. As a result, all this really shows is that Kumdo is nothing other than Kendo renamed for a Korean market. Oh, and again, not really a great performance of it (the Japanese guys were better, mainly in timing, distancing, etc). I'm honestly not sure why you chose this clip.... Actually, it's more like Kenjutsu Kata than "one step" sparring forms, for a range of reasons. But again, this is a couple of guys in Japanese uniforms, with Japanese swords, worn in Japanese fashion, with footwork taken directly out of Kendo (Japanese), following Japanese conventions.... how is this an example of Korean sword? In terms of the idea of them using a "two-handed sabre" rather than a one-handed one, if Korean sword is meant to be one-handed, why is there such a usage of Japanese-styled two-handed blades? Why not just teach the single hand weapon? But, really, this is a form of Japanese sword... just done by a Korean group. On a more personal note with the clip, the lack of focusing the camera on the action makes it hard to see what's actually going on... but what's seen was okay, but lacking in a few aspects to my mind (mainly in awareness and distancing). I know I asked this before, but as the name you give doesn't include the term "Korea/n", or related, and it was a term given in a Chinese manual describing methods that originally came from China to Korean, then returned again, are you sure that "Bon Kuk Geum Beop" ("Native Sword Method") actually refers to something that was natively Korean? And even if it does, the fact that it existed in the 9th Century doesn't mean that the same thing is around now... so what is the connection between this form of sword and what is presented? You've used this term to back up your idea of Korean swordsmanship being a historic and current tradition, but I haven't seen anything that supports the idea that what is done now is part of an ongoing tradition, especially one that goes back 1200 years. With the two things to keep in mind... honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you mean that what you're showing isn't the way it's meant to be done? So this is not the way this is meant to be done, and it's not being performed with the right weapon? If it's meant to be done with a single handed weapon, that does raise a question as to how the thrusts (which rely on two hands) are meant to be done... As said, I'm not sure that two identical forms, one closely related one, and a fourth that isn't the way things are meant to be done, and isn't using the correct weapon is really anything that can be used to find anything "universal" for sword. Maybe some traits that are shared here... but that's not a wide enough sample, really. For example, just taking your first "universal" concept here, there is a lot of "clashing of swords" found in a range of Japanese traditions, for a variety of reasons (although I am unaware of any being for "conditioning"). I'm not sure what you mean here by "substitution steps"... can you clarify? I might add that the ideas of spins and jumps can be applied, but only with good reason. Uh, no, not really. Kendoka are often identified as either Chudan players or Jodan players... most Nito players are often Jodan players, for instance. Additionally, this is a fairly recent development, with particularly pre-WWII Kendoka potentially favouring Waki (side) or Gedan (low level) postures as well. As far as the rest, are you simply saying that people assume postures based on what they need at the time? Isn't that a little simplistic? I've been thinking about the hook-swords, and something struck me... if you look at the handle area, there is a curvy blade that extends down from the handle, as well as the half-mood blade around the handguard... and I realized I've seen that shape before. If you turn it the other way around, and just have that section (in other words, without the primary "blade" that extends and forms the hook), it's identical to the heads of some old Chinese halberds and spears... I'd surmise that it's entirely possible that this weapon is a misinterpretation of older halberd blades, possibly combined with some other weapon (for the hooked blade). Hmm....
Guys, which part of my admonition against retreading the whole "Japanese/Korean swordplay" debate hasn't sunk in? Ninety percent of that last post was all about such-and-such not being Korean, but Japanese. Nothing about being universal, which you'll recall is the actual subject being discussed. Take it down a notch or take it to another thread.
I'm curious whether something is universal or not, I've certainly never seen any art step too far away from the concept, nor any practitioner (in fact I think it's probably universal to more than simply swords, but I'll withhold judgment until I see more feedback). Every time I've gone to a different sword class, whether sport or historical, every guard/defense/posture seems to be focussed around something called the cone of defense. No matter how you might stand (and I noticed it even applied in the kendo videos above) your sword describes a line along a cone. Now I have my own explanation for this (it's simply common sense as it provides maximum cover, and maximum opportunity for attack, in the most efficient manner) but I wondered whether there are any sword arts (or similar) out there where this doesn't apply?
Honestly, Ap, I have no idea why this subject is so very difficult to discuss. I have been over both of the previous threads and reread my own posts a number of times. As far as I can tell my posts are clear, concise and informative. In the case of my opening post from yesterday I wrote, and rewrote that post to make sure it stated clearly and concisely WHAT I was contributing and WHY I thought it was germane. Now....lets do this. Would you and Frodocious both read my post? If you find it uninformative, obscure, obtuse, provocative or otherwise toxic or non-productive I will recuse myself from the discussion. Fair enough? Best Wishes, Bruce
Bruce, I think the issue may be that it's somewhat off-topic in this thread. Maybe it needs a new home?
Without speaking for the other mods, that might constitute a continued retreading of the old topic--the very thing that ap has just cautioned against. Better to keep this thread on topic: the universality of sword principles. Lilbunnyrabbit has provided an opportunity above with his own question, as an example. In short, let's remain on topic, all.
Parts of it may well have been germane, Bruce. You'll note that I specifically mentioned "the last post." You'll further note that YOU didn't write that post. I was cautioning against this thread going the same route as the others. Early indications are that it may. As long as people are discussing, primarily, universal sword concepts, all is well.
I guess I am just not seeing something that other people are. IIRC this particular thread is about identifying Universal bits concerning swordwork. Now....do I have THAT much correct? If I am correct in saying that this thread is about identifying some universal bits regarding swordwork, what I did was take two or three practices and present with a bit of characterization as an intro to possibly using these related and un-related practices as a kind of lab for identifying said universalities. Since these practices are different and similar it might be interesting to discuss these, right? Now I am going to stop right here. What part of what I just wrote is at odds with anybody or anything on this forum? Best Wishes, Bruce
Bunny...pull-lease read my post with the clips in it. I would absolutely LOVE to discuss exactly what you are asking. Questions like this are exactly why I come here to this forum. Swordwork is not as mystical or magical as some folks would have you believe. There are some very universal bits and it would be great to discuss them. Korean sword, for instance is a great place to examine various strategies, tactics, methods and biomechanics. The reason for this is that the Koreans never got bogged-down sword worship, a warrior class, magic weapons and the like such as you find in, say, some Nordic traditions. As far as the Korean traditions are concerned the sword was just one more tool in a soldiers' kit and it is possible to discuss how it can be used with a lot of theatre. Want to give it a go? Best Wishes, Bruce
This is more a question directed at people who might have some HEMA experience, or maybe some unusual Chinese martial arts practices under their belt.... So far most of what has been talked about deals with using a sword on its' own, and that the nature of this lends toward a bunch of commonalities - fair enough. What happens when you add a shield? It just strikes me that there is a considerable diversity in terms of how shields are constructed, and that given the primarily military use of swords talking about one without at least thinking about the other might be missing something. It might also be where some breakdown in the similarities between western and eastern sword practices emerge? paul
Well.....its not quite as simple as all of that....or maybe it is.... a.) In an encounter the fundamental goal is to dominate the Centerline. The person who owns the Centerline owns his opponent. b.) There are two ways to dominating the Centerline. One can crash-in from the Outside using a host of battering techniques or-- One can manipulate to the Inside using any number of manipulations such as thrusts and parries. If you have forever to train your army then, by all means, use the latter approach. Just remember that the Inside approach takes considerable skill and most conscripts won't have that and probably won't live to develop it. c.) Any form of swordsmanship around the World is going to be reduced to these simple facts. If you get a chance, read Amberger ("The Secret History of the Sword: Adventures in Ancient Martial Arts";J Christopher Amberger ),; he says it better than I do. As a result of the three points I mentioned above the resulting weapon of choice is embodied in the Cavalry Sabre invented by George S Patton (yes THAT Patton) at the turn of the 19th Century. Now I have said all of that to make this simple point about the shield. Shields are used where the amount of mass heaped upon the defender by the attacker and where individual mobility is not on the table. The single best use of shields is in interlocking formations such as used by the Greek and Roman Armies. Maybe what you might consider is the use of a buckler; just a thought. Best Wishes, Bruce
Hi Bruce, indeed. Although I think the use of a shield would be more complex than you are alluding to. I haven't had the chance to check, but I can remember reading about people sharpening the metal edges of shields for example to use as a combination smash and slice device (I suppose...). I also think that the diversity of designs - square, round, triangular, and sizes - such as the buckler would tremendously impact on the sorts of cuts and thrusts, and even footwork that you could perform? paul
