4 ms·
Sure, but how many of those techniques involve intentionally damaging the opponent's sword? The emphasis in what you said lies on "and counterattack simultaneou
by pluma 8y ago
Sure, but how many of those techniques involve intentionally damaging the opponent's sword? The emphasis in what you said lies on "and counterattack simultaneously". If you overcommit into a block enough to damage the opponent's weapon, you won't be able to counterattack.
The reason the 5lb sword still moves swiftly is that it's not used for a Hollywood cleave.
- mirimir 8y agoI agree with you 100% that Hollywood-style direct blade-blade blocks are rare. At least, for skilled fighters. But they do happen, as a last resort. You get knocked down, say, and use your blade as a shield. But about those Claymores. You're right that they'd be slow for cleaves, with the huge rotational inertia. But in melee, it's my impression (perhaps colored by too much fiction) that one can make that an advantage. Basically, by never reversing direction, but rather by following 3D Lissajous curves. Which isn't really that different from Aikido.
- pluma 8y ago> following 3D Lissajous curves The only problem with that is that it creates predictability, which is what you want to avoid. That said, my entire argument was that it's not helpful to imagine swords as having been specifically designed for causing damage to other swords or even withstanding repeat blade-on-blade strikes for extended period of times. And we seem to agree on that.