Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3387255" data-attributes="member: 4937">No, not really.  Consider the game of Jai alai.No.  You are confusing two different things.  The distance a rock travels is based on its velocity.  The damage done to something is based on the energy imparted to it.  Velocity is only part of the equation.  In the case of the stick vs. the rope, both will achieve the same velocity (more or less), so the rock will go (more or less) the same distance.  But in the case of being hit by the rope or the stick, clearly there is a difference.Well, if you add a flexible point, then that changes things.  But note that this is different than a rope or a stick.  With a flail, the handle counts as much as the flexible part.  Rope or not, you still need a lever.The way a flail works is you get everything moving, and then you stop the handle.  The speed of the striking part then increases because it revolves around the now stopped tip of the handle, picking up speed for much the same reason that an ice skater goes faster when he draws in his arms.  In theory, this generates higher velocity and consequently more momentum.  But stopping that handle such that it flicks the chain part around is actually tough.  If you'll go to youtube and watch some three section staff forms you'll see that mostly they do alot of whirling, which doesn't obtain this advantage.  It looks really fast, but if you go watch a staff form you'll see that a whirling stick is moving just as fast.Not that whirling is useless. Whirling on a flexible hinge actually has a different thing going for it, and that goes back to that moment of inertia, in that you can exert a force for a longer period in this way.  A trebuchet actually uses both mechanisms.  It's lever stops really nicely when it gets to vertical and 'flicks' beautifully.  But the other great thing about the sling is that it allows the weight to spend more time being accelerated than could be done with a rigid lever and the same height of engine.  Plus, a sling is really light weight, and thus doesn't impede the motion. The rest of your analysis gets confused.What's important about a rigid weapon is that you can continue 'pushing' with it after making contact.  This increases the time you spend accelerating the target, and increases the ammount of energy that is imparted to it.  This is why so many sport martial arts teach you to punch like a sissy.  They train you - sometimes deliberately - to retract your punch quickly.  That's the exact opposite of what you want to do.  You want to aim for the back of your opponent's head and push through.  With a flail, the fact that the weight is on a flexible arm means that you can't keep 'pushing' (on the other hand, because you don't keep 'pushing', you don't smash your weapon).  The energy of impact is not as efficiently transferred to the target as it might be.  This, combined with the fact that its hard to generate that theoretical extra velocity with an inherently more clumsy weapon, means that in practice I doubt a flail does alot more damage to something than an equivalent rigid club.I've never used a flail, but I imagine that the technique has alot in common with broadsword.  There is alot of wrist going on and the motion is probably something more like a jab than a swing.</blockquote>

Verification