Davy Van Elst wrote:
Jesse Eaton wrote:Carlos,
Just to clarify what you meant by "Light and too much balanced blunt", I think you meant "too light and the COG or POB is too close to the cross."?
Carlos, just to be sure, do you mean that most feders are not realistic enough? Because I know someone who makes longswords that weigh less than 1600 gr and are well balanced and the only thing that needs to be done to make them realistic is sharpening them http://www.jinoswords.cz/index.php?lang=en&call=home
which would make them weigh even less.
But I understand you point of view about it being too easy to recover from forceful blowes however if you look at Talhoffer's wechselhau, then you can see that historically speaking this was already part of the existing techniques.
One of the things that strikes me in this discussion is that it looks like there are 2 camps here, one being in favour of binding and controlling and another in favour of using more aggressive blows. While I think that the truth will be somewhere in the middle, it is not because my first blow is a forceful strike that I cannot use a control over the bind when it happens and as such, it is a big part of the KdF (they call it 'edelen krieg' for this purpose).
Look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjT4JepA-Vc&context=C48bea0dADvjVQa1PpcFPYd8_J-OxsaLYjM1mUaUBLAz836XblGoI=
and you will understand what I mean, they fight with a lot of intent and at the same time they also have a good control over the bind when it happens.
BTW. I want to clarify that these are my opinions, and it doesn't mean that I'm against you or anyone else for that matter.
Davy, if you use a too light or/and too close POB blunt and full force, you have those important artifacts:
-----Light and too much balanced blunt:
-Too fast blows (also the blow charges too fast).
-It lets change the direction of the blow at the middle of it (probably canceling all the cutting capabilities).
-Too fast recovery from those full force blows.
-Blows with half force that travel fast but would do absolutely nothing to the opponent.
-Thrusts are not anymore faster than blows, so the half of the historical techniques are useless.
-As the use of full force blows is effective with this unrealistic tool, the blows scares, but the thrusts don't, so a thrusting technique is always emotionally in an inferior position.
If you use an accurate blunt with more realistic atributes and full force, you have this important artifact:
-The blows still scare the opponent (they hurt and injure in the bout), but the thrusts still don't hurt and still don't scare, so a thrusting technique is always emotionally in an inferior position.
-At least, the charge time required for the blow and the recovery are more realistic, so the thrust gains effectiveness (realistically).
By the way, in your video I don't see full force blows, just blows where you put your point in line with the opponent with proper strikes. Intend is an overused word here in historical fencing. Intend to what? You don't need to strike as soon as the other strikes to you, entering both at the same time. Only when you have the security that you have closed your openings and at the same time opened the opponent's ones would you do that, at least if you want to survive some duels before die. Things are not as easy as:
+"I am going to kill you! You touched my wife!"
-"I am going to kill you too! You said I touched your wife!"
And then both got pierced and satisfied for accomplish his wishes
I would like to add that the bind doesn't imply to have a constant and permanent contact with the opponent's blade, but the occupation of the center line in a way that the opponent has to close the lines winding the sword readapting his ward and position. It sometimes require the contact with the opponent's blade, but not in a permanent way.