|
Railtus posted:I know this post is mostly a joke, but I have seen so many people unironically link to this video and take it seriously that I believe it worthwhile to elaborate on how bad and misleading that video is. I think it's also worth mentioning that for the armor pierce test used, setting up any piece of armor on a flat display stand is a pretty bad way to conduct it. The body itself works as resistance against a bunch of different types of blows, and if you're trying to simulate a period fighter in armor they would usually be wearing multiple layers of different armor and padding underneath the cuirass. Also that cuirass looks really suspect and lovely, you can hear it crumple like a tin can during the stab test and even though my knowledge of medieval mettallugy is kind of suspect, I was under the impression that forged armor was strong and thick enough in the chest that it wasn't really feasible for any sword to punch right through it.
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2014 10:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 07:59 |
|
|
Not sure if it means anything, but I've been practicing German Longsword for about 6 months now, and yesterday my sword school completed its first test cutting workshop. The room was split into two groups, with Siljun Dobup (a Korean martial art utilizing the katana. It's a mixture of Iaido and Shinjitsu, where cuts are made mostly from the scabbard, however they do extend beyond it) students on one side, and German Longsword on the other (it wasn't meant to be this way, but turned into this naturally). The teacher for each form instructed students on proper form and cutting technique. We were cutting tatami mats, which were soaked in water for approximately 24 hours prior to cutting. I tried cutting three tatami mats, two with the Oakeshott Type XVIa Crecy Sword by Albion Swords (an excellent sword known for its cutting ability and shortened grip), and a custom cutting katana owned by one of the Siljun Dobup students (I don't know the make, but they are great cutting swords). I have never cut before personally, and my experience as such is very limited, but here are my thoughts with, as noted earlier, 6 months of Longsword practice. They both cut well, however the katana cuts "easier". Tatami mats are used because they reflect the ability of a user to cut with accuracy and dexterity. You can brute force your way through a tatami mat just fine, however the end result will typically be an ugly, misshapen mess of a mat. However if you can maintain edge alignment (that is cutting on a plane, typically at 45 degree angles for many cuts), and complete the movements as detailed in the texts (turning the hips with the sword, keeping your arms extended, and swinging tip first so as to ensure the "sword wind" is heard at approximately the same height as the section of tatami you are cutting, thus maximizing acceleration of the blade at the moment of impact), the sword will pass through the tatami with little resistance. After that it's all about cutting with more advanced techniques and maximizing accuracy. I am not a very strong person. I can barely bench press my own weight, but once I got the technique down, I found cutting the mats to be incredibly easy. The first mat didn't go so well, but the second and third went down without issue. What I found is that the katana, with its point of balance further along the blade than the longsword (given that a katana lacks a counter-balance) does in fact cut "easier" than the longsword does, which requires a bit more attention to the accuracy of your cut. However, I do believe that it is entirely dependent on the person wielding the sword. Students from both classes had difficulty cutting the tatami mats, some more experienced than others. Another thing to note is the weight of the weapon. We also have a tinker Hanwei longsword that weighs about 2 pounds, and despite its sharp edge, it couldn't cut for poo poo, even in the hands of the teachers. Fact is, it's just too light to cut with a drat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
What the hell does this 2lb long sword look like?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:What the hell does this 2lb long sword look like? Kinda like this http://www.amazon.com/CAS-Hanwei-Tinker-Sharp-Longsword/dp/B003X40CDU/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Dirty Job posted:Kinda like this http://www.amazon.com/CAS-Hanwei-Tinker-Sharp-Longsword/dp/B003X40CDU/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top so I looked around and the sword is apparently 2lb and 14oz which is another 7/8 of a pound, and makes way more sense. With that in mind I'm surprised your cuts weren't good. Though that's still pretty light, Albion Mercenary weighs nearly the same and cuts fine from all I've heard. The inability of the Tinker to cut makes me think there was something else going wrong there, possibly with the edge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2014 23:06
|
|
|
It may not be the exact same sword. It weighs less than equally sized rapiers, and it is overall a really lovely cutting sword.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Some interesting pictures from a book thought lost after WW2. edit: These pictures are on a guys facebook, if you can't see them I'll upload them to imgur later.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 08:15
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:so I looked around and the sword is apparently 2lb and 14oz which is another 7/8 of a pound, and makes way more sense. With that in mind I'm surprised your cuts weren't good. Though that's still pretty light, Albion Mercenary weighs nearly the same and cuts fine from all I've heard. The inability of the Tinker to cut makes me think there was something else going wrong there, possibly with the edge. The first review on Amazon mentioned a horrible secondary bevel. On the other hand, completely blunt training swords can cut tatami if used properly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 09:32
|
|
|
For those interested, Schola Gladiatoria (link here) is an excellent YouTube channel hosted by a rather well-known HEMA practitioner and historian. He has many different videos describing all manner of different medieval weapons, fighting styles, and historical issues regarding combat. The videos are a bit dry (it's just him talking in front of a camera), but I find them pretty interesting, and maybe others will too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
Dirty Job posted:For those interested, Schola Gladiatoria (link here) is an excellent YouTube channel hosted by a rather well-known HEMA practitioner and historian. He has many different videos describing all manner of different medieval weapons, fighting styles, and historical issues regarding combat. The videos are a bit dry (it's just him talking in front of a camera), but I find them pretty interesting, and maybe others will too. His series on the katana vs longsword is pretty drat interesting if you are into it. He systematically gets rid of all the myths about the katana and explains things like that video posted earlier where they stab through a piece of crappy plate armor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
Dirty Job posted:For those interested, Schola Gladiatoria (link here) is an excellent YouTube channel hosted by a rather well-known HEMA practitioner and historian. He has many different videos describing all manner of different medieval weapons, fighting styles, and historical issues regarding combat. The videos are a bit dry (it's just him talking in front of a camera), but I find them pretty interesting, and maybe others will too. I watched the axe video and while his talk about technique seemed fine, some of the things he said about the history and construction of the weapon did not jive. Making an axe, in a historical way at least, requires more than 'rudimentary blacksmithing skills', forge welding for one. He also says axes were popular from the 12th (forgetting Hastings for some reason) to 14th centuries, then again from the 14th-16th centuries, instead of just saying 'throughout the medieval and into the early modern period' or something both more accurate and simpler. Railtus posted:The first review on Amazon mentioned a horrible secondary bevel. Looking at the John Clements vids, he has a number of things going for him when he makes these cuts: 1. He takes a huge wind-up, which is something I haven't seen in any depictions of medieval fencing. (consider this image) 2. He is cutting downwards, which is more powerful than an upwards cut. 3. He is cutting at hip-height, which gives the sword the most distance to accelerate and, is, to my understanding, the strongest point of the swing because you are fighting gravity the least. 4. He works out. He is strong. Dirty Job, by his own admission, is not terribly so. This is something that no amount of technique can fix. I cannot speak for his teachers, but they also might not work out as much as Clements. So yes they can cut tatami if used with techniques to cut tatami with a blunt long sword but this use is not the same as techniques actually applicable to WMA, and thus probably not useful for the class Dirty Job was taking. Btw, Hegel, can you translate the text on the image I linked? I'm trying to figure out what the hafted weapon is. The bendy head makes me think it's a flail but the point looks like a spear. And check out the rear end patches. The guy on the left has a bunch of dice, I think. For a look at a sharp WMA type sword cutting tatami: long ago (around 2005?) James Williams of the Bugei Trading Company bought an Albion Knight and sent them videos of him cutting with it. Those have since gone from the Albion website, but someone has thankfully uploaded them to youtube. Of particular interest are these two videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLdox4VeSow https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wgIhsWGQRk The main reason I flag them up is that he does very easy, but still clearly powerful upward cuts, once with the front edge and once with the back. He is not straining himself or grunting theatrically or anything like that. Whether or not his technique is particularly applicable to WMA it is clear that a sharp sword is much more useful for cutting practice when using a tough medium like tatami. As an aside I'd like to address this: Dirty Job posted:It may not be the exact same sword. It weighs less than equally sized rapiers, and it is overall a really lovely cutting sword. By equally sized I assume you mean of equal length. Rapiers can actually be pretty heavy because of their complex hilts, and such a weight difference does not necessarily equate to better cutting performance. Consider these two swords: http://www.myarmoury.com/review_aa_els.html http://www.myarmoury.com/review_aa_mil.html You'll notice that the longsword is both longer and lighter than the rapier, but because of things like the use of two hands, thinner blade, etc, I would expect the longsword to be a better cutter. Using brass or bronze hilt components will also make a sword of the same length heavier, because of their greater density than steel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
All this stuff makes me wish I didn't have heart problems so I could learn HEMA.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
That weapon looks like it's broken. A Saufeder most likely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Btw, Hegel, can you translate the text on the image I linked? I'm trying to figure out what the hafted weapon is. The bendy head makes me think it's a flail but the point looks like a spear. And check out the rear end patches. The guy on the left has a bunch of dice, I think. den oberhou fur den stuck; perhaps something like "An overhand blow for the sword"? "Piece" can mean "weapon." Any native speakers want to correct me? Anyway, it's not about the hafted weapon, it's describing what the sword guy's doing. InspectorBloor posted:That weapon looks like it's broken. A Saufeder most likely.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
WEEDLORDBONERHEGEL posted:den oberhou fur den stuck; perhaps something like "An overhand blow for the sword"? "Piece" can mean "weapon." Any native speakers want to correct me? No idea about the etymology of things, but maybe "stuck" is a form of "stock" (stick) to mean a spear or other polearm? So that the sentence could mean something like "using an oberhau for/against the spear"?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Dirty Job posted:For those interested, Schola Gladiatoria (link here) is an excellent YouTube channel hosted by a rather well-known HEMA practitioner and historian. He has many different videos describing all manner of different medieval weapons, fighting styles, and historical issues regarding combat. The videos are a bit dry (it's just him talking in front of a camera), but I find them pretty interesting, and maybe others will too. Any other thoughts on this guy? I watched this stuff all afternoon (at work, mer). I really don't know much about weapons and the like and he was pretty drat engaging.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
WEEDLORDBONERHEGEL posted:den oberhou fur den stuck; perhaps something like "An overhand blow for the sword"? "Piece" can mean "weapon." Any native speakers want to correct me? Stuck as in Stück could also be translated as "part", like "In this part of the play, he is eaten by a bear" (Incidentally, the short form of when I say "play" could also mean [Theather]Stück). Confusing enough for you?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
InspectorBloor posted:Stuck as in Stück could also be translated as "part", like "In this part of the play, he is eaten by a bear" (Incidentally, the short form of when I say "play" could also mean [Theather]Stück). Confusing enough for you?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
How important was individual skill in medieval combat? It seems like contrary to Hollywood portrayals that skill wouldn't matter a whole lot as most armies relied on formation, discipline, and tactics to win the day. The average soldiers job is gonna be to stay in formation and fight as a unit, right? Being skilled I'm sure would help but not to the degree that one or two badasses could dramatically affect a battle. Is that true or am I off base?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
Vigilance posted:How important was individual skill in medieval combat? It seems like contrary to Hollywood portrayals that skill wouldn't matter a whole lot as most armies relied on formation, discipline, and tactics to win the day. The average soldiers job is gonna be to stay in formation and fight as a unit, right? Being skilled I'm sure would help but not to the degree that one or two badasses could dramatically affect a battle. Are these not skills? That said, someone has to be out there killing people/making them not want to stick around. A winning strategy was to reduce individual heroism by bring more soldier up to an elite pvp level. A proper knight would have been training for war for most of his life. And encased in armor and really well armed and have a kickin' rad horse, but the whole life time of training would be pretty significant as far as something like a melee. Figuring out how to train your soldiers to consistently or reliably, e.g. fight in a phalanx, ride a horse, hit a target, not run, build fortifications, direct artillery, stand in the face of fire, reload a musket in under 20 seconds, lay down suppressing fire and execute a flanking attack, or outmaneuver an enemy fighter has always been an aspect of war. e: if it helps, not to be all  about things, but the Spartans build a pretty fricken bigass hegemony based on the idea of the ultimate lifelong soldier. It was terribly unsustainable, forced them to keep said badasses near home, made their decision making inherently conservative and, morally, was pretty loving horrific for the helots, but it worked. It's not the only way to win a war- a popular pop narrative of Athens v. Sparta is kinda the ur-brains v. brawn in western culture, and ultimately the winner was... Thebes. Who sorta did both and then got stomped on by the Macedonians. Anyway, yes, opting for 'skilled badasses' or at least 'a professional military class' or 'dude who really just hang around and train until it's time to kill people' can get you pretty far militarily.
the JJ fucked around with this message at 07:35 on Feb 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
Vigilance posted:How important was individual skill in medieval combat? It seems like contrary to Hollywood portrayals that skill wouldn't matter a whole lot as most armies relied on formation, discipline, and tactics to win the day. The average soldiers job is gonna be to stay in formation and fight as a unit, right? Being skilled I'm sure would help but not to the degree that one or two badasses could dramatically affect a battle. Pitched battle was very much the exception to the norm for Medieval warfare, which generally took the form of either sieges or raiding. In small-scale fighting and skirmishing, such as would happen all the time during foraging, patrolling or raiding, individual skill at arms is much more important than in large battles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
Vigilance posted:How important was individual skill in medieval combat? It seems like contrary to Hollywood portrayals that skill wouldn't matter a whole lot as most armies relied on formation, discipline, and tactics to win the day. The average soldiers job is gonna be to stay in formation and fight as a unit, right? Being skilled I'm sure would help but not to the degree that one or two badasses could dramatically affect a battle. Imagine you are punching the poo poo out of a guy, and then his friend cold-cocks you in the back of the head. You lost the fight. Let's say you straight-up knock out the first guy with your first punch, and you intercept his friend before he can get you. But his buddy throws a brick at your face. You lost the fight. Expanding that to the battlefield as a whole, it becomes a little bit irrelevant for a soldier to be a hulking badass swordsmaster, because there is a limit to how powerful a human being can be. It's not really enough better than an average guy with a friend or two.. Perhaps a hypothetical badass who knows 200 sword techniques would be better off training troops rather than fighting in a battle. Not that elite soldiers weren't a thing, but when described, the general emphasis is on training and morale, rather than flexiness of pecs. When a unit is created with the intention of being elite, they are used as a means to an end. Sometimes it's vanity. Speaking tactically, they're intended to do something critical, maybe take a point faster or counterattack a strong enemy. Just having them hang around and do soldier things better than other soldiers wouldn't be an inspired task. There's also stuff like the Viking at Stamford Bridge, but that's really a long-rear end duel in disguise. It's also a pretty extreme example, since it was literally one guy on a bridge holding off an army (Because the army couldn't march everybody over at once). Otherwise, the heroics of one person tends to save platoons or companies, rather than win a battle by themselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
Slim Jim Pickens posted:There's also stuff like the Viking at Stamford Bridge, but that's really a long-rear end duel in disguise. It's also a pretty extreme example, since it was literally one guy on a bridge holding off an army (Because the army couldn't march everybody over at once). Otherwise, the heroics of one person tends to save platoons or companies, rather than win a battle by themselves. One person save a platoon, one platoon saves a company, the company save a battalion, and that battalion wins a war. For want of a nail etc. etc. etc. Like, it's not that anyone didn't want to field a bunch of badasses, if you could get them, well, that's just peachy and great. But yeah, at a certain point (which varies a lot) having 3 okay dudes ready to back each other up is better than 1 superhero. On the other hand, 10 dudes on horses with steel armor could easily gently caress up n farmers with sticks with n = the number of farmers who need to die before the rest decide 'gently caress this.' What I'm saying is there's a balance between quantity and quality and pouring all your resources into one over the other is probably going to gently caress you up. Many not everyone needs to be a super hero but professional armies and/or warrior castes are a pretty universal part of human history (even modern history) for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Looking at the John Clements vids, he has a number of things going for him when he makes these cuts: Very good point, one of the criticisms I have heard of ARMA is that their test-cutting does not match their fencing. Vigilance posted:How important was individual skill in medieval combat? It seems like contrary to Hollywood portrayals that skill wouldn't matter a whole lot as most armies relied on formation, discipline, and tactics to win the day. The average soldiers job is gonna be to stay in formation and fight as a unit, right? Being skilled I'm sure would help but not to the degree that one or two badasses could dramatically affect a battle. On one hand, individual skill does get prioritised quite a bit in the training. For instance, looking at the physical training outlined in the Deeds of Marshall Boucicaut, or the physical indicators in the Towton Graves, and HEMA in general, all indicates that individual ability was definitely considered extremely important. Though as others have said, this does not necessarily mean full battles was the reason. On the other hand, this is probably the reason why one or two badasses are usually unlikely to dramatically affect a battle: because I would expect most of any full-time military caste to be badasses. Normally the feats of personal badassery tend to just be impressive in their own right such as an individual duel rather than an individual turning the tide of a battle. For instance, Pierre Terrail, Chevalier de Bayard, at the Battle of Garigliano (1503), is said to have held the bridge against 200 men – I have never followed up on this to confirm it for sure so I don’t know the full research surrounding it – but the French army was still defeated, and the French even had the larger army. Generally, formation, discipline and tactics certainly seem to get the most consistent results. For instance, English successes in the early Hundred Years War seems to rely on them. Later on, the French got better at countering English tactics, and the battles start turning the other way. The Swiss pikemen tended to be pretty successful, again by just being overall extremely well-trained rather than relying on a few heroes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Railtus posted:Very good point, one of the criticisms I have heard of ARMA is that their test-cutting does not match their fencing. What a wonderfully baseless and vacuous reference. I'm not even sure what this really means, or how it is even makes sense. Have you ever done test cutting?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
Railtus posted:Very good point, one of the criticisms I have heard of ARMA is that their test-cutting does not match their fencing. This is very true. In our practice we de-emphasize huge wind ups and delivering test cuts with steps because we want our cuts to measure our ability to swing with efficacy. I'm sure my teachers /could/ power their way through the tatami mats (even with a terrible sword), as could the much larger students in my class, but while the end result is the same (a cut mat) it doesn't in any way inform our abilities other than "you are very strong". HEMA and ARMA often come to grips (and John Clements is often ridiculed by the HEMA community, which started as a break-away movement from ARMA) because of their very different emphasis' and demands for students. Also because the hierarchy in ARMA means Clement's word and interpretations are the one and only, while in HEMA it is much more communal and scientific. At least that's the impression many of the HEMA practitioners from across the world I have spoken to seem to give. An ARMA interpretation may deem something as a law (for instance, using the flat of your strong to parry) while HEMA may interpret it as more of a guideline. Certain maneuvers may be more advantageous if you choose to ignore the "flat of your strong" argument at that moment. This is where the disparity between ARMA and HEMA really shows.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
Dirty Job posted:This is very true. In our practice we de-emphasize huge wind ups and delivering test cuts with steps because we want our cuts to measure our ability to swing with efficacy. I'm sure my teachers /could/ power their way through the tatami mats (even with a terrible sword), as could the much larger students in my class, but while the end result is the same (a cut mat) it doesn't in any way inform our abilities other than "you are very strong". Not quite (and judging by the fact that your practice group de-emphasizes 'wind ups and cutting while stepping' merely illustrates that your study group is missing the larger totality of the art (insofar as their are optimal times to strike with a wind up or step with a cut, just as their are optimal times to maintain efficiency of motion, and a focus on one or the other is a bastardized understanding of the master's teachings). ARMA methodology stems exclusively from what works. It just so happens that John Clements knows his poo poo, and he's very hard to prove wrong practically. Obviously, other groups find it easier through word of mouth to object to his interpretations, but when push comes to shove ARMA could care less about the variety of interpretations other groups have, but instead rather: does it work? does it work often enough to be practically used in a life and death scenario? and how exactly does it work? I've had personal disagreements over techniques with John Clements that were resolved through several hours of practical application (painfully I might add) that gave a much more conclusive assessment than just methodological discussion. The reason why there is so much friction between ARMA and the HEMA community is the HEMA community perpetually gets their panties in a bunch when someone doesn't agree with them, and when asked to put up or shut up abstain from physically trying to prove their point against an antagonistic opponent. Because John doesn't sugar coat anything, and will painfully tell you to your face how pathetic your application of techniques are, he rubs a lot of people the wrong way. ARMA is therefore made up of members who's only interested is the recreation of the art as practically precise as possible, with any aspect of the ego removed from the equation. Aynone who can't stand to have their opinions disregarded after a practical demonstration proving them wrong either quits outright or leaves and joins the HEMA alliance community (where they can continue to talk about how awful ARMA and John Clements is, to the comfort of their bruised ego's). If John Clements was contradicted and then 'schooled' via a practical assessment (actual full on steel clashing), he would quickly re-assess his position on something and leave behind any 'outdated' understanding. There have been several of these epiphanies over the last decade in ARMA (so its not terribly rare to occur) and merely emphasize that John Clements and ARMA are not going to cow-tow to other organisations under the guise of politeness or manners unless they prove through a true test of practical application rather than a scripted drill. We're hear to practically re-learn a lost art, and we don't have the time to deal with people who aren't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Now fetch my steed, peasant
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:Not quite (and judging by the fact that your practice group de-emphasizes 'wind ups and cutting while stepping' merely illustrates that your study group is missing the larger totality of the art (insofar as their are optimal times to strike with a wind up or step with a cut, just as their are optimal times to maintain efficiency of motion, and a focus on one or the other is a bastardized understanding of the master's teachings). ARMA methodology stems exclusively from what works. It just so happens that John Clements knows his poo poo, and he's very hard to prove wrong practically. Obviously, other groups find it easier through word of mouth to object to his interpretations, but when push comes to shove ARMA could care less about the variety of interpretations other groups have, but instead rather: does it work? does it work often enough to be practically used in a life and death scenario? and how exactly does it work? I've had personal disagreements over techniques with John Clements that were resolved through several hours of practical application (painfully I might add) that gave a much more conclusive assessment than just methodological discussion. The reason why there is so much friction between ARMA and the HEMA community is the HEMA community perpetually gets their panties in a bunch when someone doesn't agree with them, and when asked to put up or shut up abstain from physically trying to prove their point against an antagonistic opponent. Because John doesn't sugar coat anything, and will painfully tell you to your face how pathetic your application of techniques are, he rubs a lot of people the wrong way. ARMA is therefore made up of members who's only interested is the recreation of the art as practically precise as possible, with any aspect of the ego removed from the equation. Aynone who can't stand to have their opinions disregarded after a practical demonstration proving them wrong either quits outright or leaves and joins the HEMA alliance community (where they can continue to talk about how awful ARMA and John Clements is, to the comfort of their bruised ego's). It is really cool to see someone boast about ARMA's objectivity while peppering his post with ad hominems and offering no evidence to back up his point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:Not quite (and judging by the fact that your practice group de-emphasizes 'wind ups and cutting while stepping' merely illustrates that your study group is missing the larger totality of the art (insofar as their are optimal times to strike with a wind up or step with a cut, just as their are optimal times to maintain efficiency of motion, and a focus on one or the other is a bastardized understanding of the master's teachings). ARMA methodology stems exclusively from what works. It just so happens that John Clements knows his poo poo, and he's very hard to prove wrong practically. Obviously, other groups find it easier through word of mouth to object to his interpretations, but when push comes to shove ARMA could care less about the variety of interpretations other groups have, but instead rather: does it work? does it work often enough to be practically used in a life and death scenario? and how exactly does it work? I've had personal disagreements over techniques with John Clements that were resolved through several hours of practical application (painfully I might add) that gave a much more conclusive assessment than just methodological discussion. The reason why there is so much friction between ARMA and the HEMA community is the HEMA community perpetually gets their panties in a bunch when someone doesn't agree with them, and when asked to put up or shut up abstain from physically trying to prove their point against an antagonistic opponent. Because John doesn't sugar coat anything, and will painfully tell you to your face how pathetic your application of techniques are, he rubs a lot of people the wrong way. ARMA is therefore made up of members who's only interested is the recreation of the art as practically precise as possible, with any aspect of the ego removed from the equation. Aynone who can't stand to have their opinions disregarded after a practical demonstration proving them wrong either quits outright or leaves and joins the HEMA alliance community (where they can continue to talk about how awful ARMA and John Clements is, to the comfort of their bruised ego's). I'm pretty sure very few people in this thread give a gently caress about your little feud.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
To quote Lichtenauer : "Bisst du boese, Brueder?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 17:34
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:It is really cool to see someone boast about ARMA's objectivity while peppering his post with ad hominems and offering no evidence to back up his point. What evidence would you like? The HEMA communities love affair with poor pictographic interpretations leading to the 'Lazy Vom Tag' (guard resting on the shoulder)? The resent renouncement and contradiction of the Krumphau interpretations as seen by some of the more recently ostracized ARMA members (now HEMA alliance captains). I could go on, but I suspect (and have had enough experience arguing with people in this situation) to realize that nothing short of me showing them, or anyone else who would actually really like to understand something via a practical demonstration, just how wrong they are and why they are wrong. If you or anyone else is amenable to meet, I would be happy to demonstrate any confusion or counter-idea they may have (and if I am proven wrong, which has happened on several occasions, I will stuff my face with humble pie). Making broad generalizations of ARMA and John Clements through cherry picked details is no better than ad hominems, and cutting tatami with a blunt sword can be done any number of ways. The fact that you give so much credence to a few video interpretations merely to back up your misguided view speaks volumes to your academic rigor. Have you ever test cut?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Alekanderu posted:I'm pretty sure very few people in this thread give a gently caress about your little feud. If someone wants to badmouth my organization, then they can eat a bag of dicks, and so can you sir.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:If someone wants to badmouth my organization, then they can eat a bag of dicks, and so can you sir. Railtus posted:Very good point, one of the criticisms I have heard of ARMA is that their test-cutting does not match their fencing. Dirty Job posted:This is very true. In our practice we de-emphasize huge wind ups and delivering test cuts with steps because we want our cuts to measure our ability to swing with efficacy. I'm sure my teachers /could/ power their way through the tatami mats (even with a terrible sword), as could the much larger students in my class, but while the end result is the same (a cut mat) it doesn't in any way inform our abilities other than "you are very strong". HINT: Neither of these posts are "badmouthing" your organization you giant sensitive baby, they're just listing some of the criticisms they have heard. As a historian, you should appreciate opposing viewpoints.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:Not quite (and judging by the fact that your practice group de-emphasizes 'wind ups and cutting while stepping' merely illustrates that your study group is missing the larger totality of the art (insofar as their are optimal times to strike with a wind up or step with a cut, just as their are optimal times to maintain efficiency of motion, and a focus on one or the other is a bastardized understanding of the master's teachings). ARMA methodology stems exclusively from what works. It just so happens that John Clements knows his poo poo, and he's very hard to prove wrong practically. Obviously, other groups find it easier through word of mouth to object to his interpretations, but when push comes to shove ARMA could care less about the variety of interpretations other groups have, but instead rather: does it work? does it work often enough to be practically used in a life and death scenario? and how exactly does it work? I've had personal disagreements over techniques with John Clements that were resolved through several hours of practical application (painfully I might add) that gave a much more conclusive assessment than just methodological discussion. The reason why there is so much friction between ARMA and the HEMA community is the HEMA community perpetually gets their panties in a bunch when someone doesn't agree with them, and when asked to put up or shut up abstain from physically trying to prove their point against an antagonistic opponent. Because John doesn't sugar coat anything, and will painfully tell you to your face how pathetic your application of techniques are, he rubs a lot of people the wrong way. ARMA is therefore made up of members who's only interested is the recreation of the art as practically precise as possible, with any aspect of the ego removed from the equation. Aynone who can't stand to have their opinions disregarded after a practical demonstration proving them wrong either quits outright or leaves and joins the HEMA alliance community (where they can continue to talk about how awful ARMA and John Clements is, to the comfort of their bruised ego's). As for "wind ups and cutting with step", we de-emphasize wind ups because they are a clear tell within our sense of practical application. In our general training, a wind up is something to be avoided because it's something that can be taken advantage of, which is something the Siljun Dobup teacher in our school heavily emphasizes. All cuts should be delivered fatally, and should be done so with as little movement of the blade necessary. As for cutting with step, they are ultimately necessary for more advanced maneuvers, but we are not necessarily advanced cutting students. I'm sure that in the months to come we will be cutting with step, and in our usual training we do practice maneuvers with step, but for our first attempt at cutting tatami, no steps were to be taken. Instead we focused on accuracy, and getting a feel for actually cutting through tatami.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:If John Clements was contradicted and then 'schooled' via a practical assessment (actual full on steel clashing), he would quickly re-assess his position on something and leave behind any 'outdated' understanding. There have been several of these epiphanies over the last decade in ARMA (so its not terribly rare to occur) and merely emphasize that John Clements and ARMA are not going to cow-tow to other organisations under the guise of politeness or manners unless they prove through a true test of practical application rather than a scripted drill. We're hear to practically re-learn a lost art, and we don't have the time to deal with people who aren't. The first rule of fight club is that the leader is right unless you fight him for the crown.  I don't have any issue with ARMA, but if this is the attitude of a typical member then no wonder the other groups don't like them. Also, if you're going to adopt a superior attitude then learn to loving write, mate. Do you also not have time for spelling and basic grammar like they're/their/there?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:What evidence would you like? The HEMA communities love affair with poor pictographic interpretations leading to the 'Lazy Vom Tag' (guard resting on the shoulder)? I'm a military historian first and foremost, not a fencer, so I'm laughing at your awful posts. I don't really care about the debates of particular interpretations, since they don't seriously inform my hobbies and interests except peripherally. That said, I was actually just browsing one of my old haunts and it's really funny you should mention the vom Tag because I happened across a rebuttal to this point. The vom Tag on the shoulder is based on textual evidence, including from Ringeck. See the top post by Christian Henry Tobler: http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2384&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40 so: lol quote:Making broad generalizations of ARMA and John Clements through cherry picked details is no better than ad hominems, and cutting tatami with a blunt sword can be done any number of ways. The fact that you give so much credence to a few video interpretations merely to back up your misguided view speaks volumes to your academic rigor. Have you ever test cut? What broad generalizations have I made? Please provide evidence for these "any number of ways" (this, incidentally, is a broad generalisation). I have test cut, and I would like to know what learning advantage there is to cutting tatami with a blunt sword over a sharp one. The medium is meant to be hit with sharp blades. canuckanese posted:HINT: Neither of these posts are "badmouthing" your organization you giant sensitive baby, they're just listing some of the criticisms they have heard. As a historian, you should appreciate opposing viewpoints. lmao this guy is not a historian
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:What evidence would you like? The HEMA communities love affair with poor pictographic interpretations leading to the 'Lazy Vom Tag' (guard resting on the shoulder)? The resent renouncement and contradiction of the Krumphau interpretations as seen by some of the more recently ostracized ARMA members (now HEMA alliance captains). I could go on, but I suspect (and have had enough experience arguing with people in this situation) to realize that nothing short of me showing them, or anyone else who would actually really like to understand something via a practical demonstration, just how wrong they are and why they are wrong. If you or anyone else is amenable to meet, I would be happy to demonstrate any confusion or counter-idea they may have (and if I am proven wrong, which has happened on several occasions, I will stuff my face with humble pie). Making broad generalizations of ARMA and John Clements through cherry picked details is no better than ad hominems, and cutting tatami with a blunt sword can be done any number of ways. The fact that you give so much credence to a few video interpretations merely to back up your misguided view speaks volumes to your academic rigor. Have you ever test cut?  There is only one way to settle this
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
I'm having a deja vu of whitebelts argueing which sporty martial art is better. It's all jacking off unless you fight no holds barred.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 07:59 |
|
|
Nektu posted:Nerd tribalism God if only. Correct I am not a historian, or even a particularly proficient writer. I get pleasantly excited when 'Historians' believe they understand something without practical application. I'ts easier to speculate than to scientifically test for the validity of something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 19:07
|
|