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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 5556842" data-attributes="member: 15538">I imagine it usually matters less. My experience with boffer combat suggests there is a big difference between tournament fighting versus grand melee. In a tournament, you usually want as much reach as you can get, up to a point of diminishing returns. In combat in an open field, though, I think alertness and commitment to attack matter much more than pure speed. I personally use a fairly short blade, generally no more than 30", as my primary weapon. In fact, if you look at the history of warfare, firearms have diminished the importance of melee combat, to the point where a melee weapon is not a credible primary weapon. Yet some kind of hand weapon remains an important part of the arsenal. First there was the saber and bayonet, then the trench blade. Modern warfare has pretty much settled, since, on the long knife, where it remains. Something around a foot in length provides just the right amount of heft to provide good cutting and pentration, while using no more reach than is needed. This has relevance to our discussion because I'm confident a trained woman can present a credible threat with a knife. The important factors are mainly psychological. Reach means little if you leave yourself open to a counter-thrust, and at best, a mutual death. Power means little, since the strength required to pierce something important with a dagger is not tremendous, and women have been demonstrating their capabilities at butchering animals with blades for millenia. Well, actually, you might. That's the thing about real combat; you never know what you'll have to deal with.</blockquote>

Verification