A real two-bladed sword!

Drifter Bob said:
It seemed to be chrome plated in parts or maybe covered in foil, and has serrations or wave-bladed features which look decorative to me, and frankly the blades on both ends looked like flimsy sheet metal. That is all I meant. It did not have the appearance of a functional halberd, like say, this one....

DB

I don't know if you can talk about a weapon's effectiveness when I give you a picture of a modern mass produced version made for training and you give me a historical photo.
The original kwan dao was supposed to weigh between 100-200 pounds. I've heard more recent historical versions were closer to 40 pounds.

From my own research, the original kwan dao was deigned to be used by cavalry. They would hold it at head height while riding, hence the wide blade and high weight to help deal with the impact. The spike at the other end was designed to poke at foot soldiers.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

olethros said:
I don't know if you can talk about a weapon's effectiveness when I give you a picture of a modern mass produced version made for training and you give me a historical photo.
The original kwan dao was supposed to weigh between 100-200 pounds. I've heard more recent historical versions were closer to 40 pounds.

That is absolutely ridiculous. 200 pounds? I'm sorry, but you have utterly lost credibility in my mind. This is the kind of thing which brings out the rude bastard in me. If there were any historical weapons of any kind which weighed 40 pounds I'll eat my shorts. Four pounds is closer to the ballpark.

Get a clue.

DB
 

eyebeams said:
Spear drills are good ways to train trapping range; I'm not aware of any "doctrine" that actually recommends their their use against a spear.

I'm paraphrasing comments made by Chinese fencers from a fencing school in Hong Kong. You can argue with them if you like, I'll be glad to provide you with a URL to the thread, you can chime in and set them strait.

As for jian and dao (snip) The basic assumptions about what kind of engagements you get in with these weapons are makedly different to the point where there is little useful basis for comparison. (snip) Rapiers and their successors are civillian weapons.

I'm well aware of the difference between military and civiliian weapons. That doesn't change the fact that a weapon is either useful or useless in a fight, and realistic full contact, full force sparring is the best way to determine that effectiveness, just as Pride / UFC ended a lot of B.S. about various martial arts techniques. A bastard sword is primarily intended for the battlefield, but it will hold up against specialist civilian weapons such as a rapier or even a smallsword, as well as specialist military weapons such as a battle axe or a halberd. To me that is proof that it is an effective weapon.

And someone who can do forms but doesn't spar will lose in an actual encounter, I have seen that happen on the street more times than I can count.

Without an understanding of the context that belongs to each weapon, comparative statements about their effectiveness are meaningless.

I understand the context, that doesn't change the bottom line. Not all weapons are equal. Not all techniques are equal. The most realistic possible sparring is the best way to evauluate one against another.

Uh, most Asian traditions have had full contact regimens for most of their existence, dude.

Few, by no means most, have full force, full contact regimens, "dude", even to this day. Some of the more serious schools did of course even in the past, but by no means all.

And most of these regimens only have a tangential relationship to the ability of an average person to protect themselves. Again, context. Many arts are primarily civil defense systems; others are archaic military systems, and still others are sports.

I agree. Some 'martial arts' are for teaching mamas and yuppies to have an incrementally better chance of avoiding a mugging or a purse snatching. Some are sports. Those intended to be martial arts can either cut the mustard or they cannot.

Full contact events prove that in controlled conditions with the benefit of an athletic development cycle, athletes will kick ass if they have a basic roster of techniques -- or not.
(It's important to note that the fallacy of every art being treated the same works both ways, as the contests between Choi-li Fut and Muay Thai artists proved decades ago. Choi-li Fut is a terrible ring art, but a pretty good civil art.)

I'm not talking about controlled conditions in the ring. To the contrary. I'm talking about sparring in the most realistic and unrestricted manner possible. I despise systems where you have all kinds of restrictions on sparring, like not being able to strike the head or the legs, or where hand -hits don't count. A lot of EMA weapon sparring is like that. There is a certain minimum you have to stick to (stopping after a lethal hit, say) and beyond that, there really shouldn't be any restrictions.

The idea that the ring is the arbiter of street effectiveness for the average person in bunk.

Who said anything about a ring? I've done sparring in any number of environments and conditions, but never in a ring.

Well, if Asian arts get better, then WMAers will be leant more tools to interpret fectbuchs and such. But such broad characterizations of other systems is, for the most part, an expression of ideology, not fact.

I'm all for EMA getting better. I have immense respect for EMA open hand techniques which were always among the best in the world, (despite being over hyped by some folks) and I think they have improved since no-holds barred sparring started, and I agree that WMA and EMA learn from each other. I'm very interested to see what comes out of the revival now taking place.

As for my generalizing, this isn't a martial arts forum... I don't think most people are following even the level of detail we are currently at...


DB
 

olethros said:
I don't know if you can talk about a weapon's effectiveness when I give you a picture of a modern mass produced version made for training and you give me a historical photo.
The original kwan dao was supposed to weigh between 100-200 pounds. I've heard more recent historical versions were closer to 40 pounds.

From my own research, the original kwan dao was deigned to be used by cavalry. They would hold it at head height while riding, hence the wide blade and high weight to help deal with the impact. The spike at the other end was designed to poke at foot soldiers.

I'm sorry, I don't meant to be such a swine, I'm sure you are a nice guy, but you are misinformed on that subject. Go to a hardware store and try to handle a six pound maul. Then try a nine pound maul. Then a fifteen pound maul, if they have one. That should give you an idea how silly the idea of 40 lbs weapons are, let alone 200 lbs. Somebody has been exxagerating to you.


J
 

The trick with mauls is mostly that, at a certain weight, unless you're -seriously- massive, you'll be as slow as heck. 40 pounds, however... might be doable, with from-childhood training, but you'd need a seriously strong shaft to keep it from shattering. I'd take a mace instead, personally. Mind you, my experience is with sledge hammers smacking concrete and rock, so feel free to tear my statement apart.
 

Drifter Bob said:
That is absolutely ridiculous. 200 pounds? I'm sorry, but you have utterly lost credibility in my mind. This is the kind of thing which brings out the rude bastard in me. If there were any historical weapons of any kind which weighed 40 pounds I'll eat my shorts. Four pounds is closer to the ballpark.

Get a clue.

DB

You should put the rude bastard back in. The only person speaking in this thread with any lack of civility is you. I respect that you are very knowledgeable, and I understand that many are not, but this doesn't give you a free license to behave poorly.

Re: Your definition of "martial art" -

You propose one definition of the word, which I daresay most would disagree with. Martial arts have some traceable ancestry to actual combat techniques, but many have gone away from those techniques. Language evolves with its usage. If anything, there should be a new word for styles which attempt to simulate realistic combat, because "martial art" represents something far broader in scope than what you think it should be.
 


Incenjucar said:
The trick with mauls is mostly that, at a certain weight, unless you're -seriously- massive, you'll be as slow as heck. 40 pounds, however... might be doable, with from-childhood training, but you'd need a seriously strong shaft to keep it from shattering. I'd take a mace instead, personally. Mind you, my experience is with sledge hammers smacking concrete and rock, so feel free to tear my statement apart.

Your point is well taken. My assertion is, even a six pound sledge hammer is too heavy to use as a weapon. A nine pound hammer is basically absurd. It doesn't matter how much damage you can do if your opponent can hit you four times before you can strike them, and can easily step out of your way before you do so. Try to imagine facing a spear with a 9 pound maul.

It may interest folks to know that contrary to most fantasy art and nearly every RPG, hammers intended for WAR as opposed to those intended for breaking rocks (or concrete) tended to be much lighter and have much smaller striking heads. In fact a war hamer with a three to five foot haft might have a striking head the size of a regular framing hammer.

Some real war hammers

http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/displayimage.php?album=13&pos=80
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/displayimage.php?album=13&pos=0
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/displayimage.php?album=13&pos=38

this one is the coolest war hammer I ever saw

http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/displayimage.php?album=13&pos=82


The same incidentally applies to axes. War-axes were more narrow and much lighter than those intended for hewing wood.

As for a mace, formidable wepaons as they are, they rarely exceeded 3 or 4 pounds in weight at the very most, with the exception of some very ancient ceremonial maces (often made of stone) which were essentially scepters. Most maces used in Europe in medieval or Renaissance times were in fact flanged. Partially to lighten them, and also to make a harder, thinner striking surface to break bones.

Some real maces

http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/displayimage.php?album=13&pos=2
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/displayimage.php?album=13&pos=19
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/displayimage.php?album=13&pos=66

this one looks a bit like saurons mace in LOTR the movie
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/displayimage.php?album=13&pos=64


DB
 
Last edited:

aurance said:
Re: Your definition of "martial art" -

You propose one definition of the word, which I daresay most would disagree with. Martial arts have some traceable ancestry to actual combat techniques, but many have gone away from those techniques. Language evolves with its usage. If anything, there should be a new word for styles which attempt to simulate realistic combat, because "martial art" represents something far broader in scope than what you think it should be.

We may have to agree to disagree. The etymology of martial arts comes from the old Roman god of war, mars. Ars Martialis. Martial art means the art of combat. Of course, you are correct that in modern times it has come to have a more specific meaning of Asian unarmed techniques practiced largely for sport. Just as the term fencing now tends to mean modern epee, foil, or "saber" fencing, but to a practitioner of WMA, it means "the art of defense".

I apologise to everyone for being rude. I'm passionate on the subject.


DB
 

Drifter Bob said:
Believe it or not, fights do sometimes occur with hand weapons. In many parts of the world in fact where guns have been effectively outlawed, such as England, Australia, and Japan, knowing how to fight with a stick can be a very useful modern skill. It has proven very useful and practical to me in my life.
When does this become a useful modern skill? I was never in a real fight in my life, it seems actually like a very useless skill. And if I am ever going to be attacked, I will hope that I can run a few meters (given my current condition, I don´t think so) and can maybe call the police with my cell phone...

My Cousin dabbled a bit in martial arts, and he noted that the martial artists he practiced with seemed all a bit to eager to use their skill - sometimes it was just there inherent awareness of sorroundings, and their constant assessing of the situation for potential threats. And he knew that if one of them would be in a disco or pub, and would be offended by a drunk (one of the sort of drunks that get agressive), they probably wouldn´t stand back, and this would probably lead to a fight. Sure, they would probably also win it, but the fight would have been unneccessary and threaten or at least disturb others.
Sometimes, knowledge and skill can harm yourself.
 

Remove ads

Top