Well, I've used it to good effect, though safe occasions for such have of course been rare.
For example, what makes it inferior to a stop thrust on the same horizontal plane? Nothing, as far as I know, and no one would debate the usefullness of that technique. They both lack cover, and they should both use the same footwork, and they are both used when you have the opportunity to land a good blow before he can retaliate, usually vor or nach. (with any technique, you should be able to use cut, thrust, strike or slice)
And don't forget we're talking about doing this strike well, i.e. not standing there. It should go without saying that voiding, traversing, etc. will be used.
The aspect of covering a line of attack obviously one ups this cut in most situations, and that's not being debated, but often you can recognize where you have such a time and place that that cover is not needed.
For another comparison, how about durchlaufen. You void, and trade your blade for cover and hip throw him. But say you void too wide for a hip throw, but you see that your void was good, and you have the time and place to cut his body (depending on your swords point of origin, of course).
It's not an issue that this technique will be rarely needed and rarely advised, but it does have its place.
I think the only bias against this technique is from people going about thinking of it as a movie technique, or something performed without skill, proper dexterity or foot maneuvers, or when it would get you struck in the head. Certainly not as an opening cut, or a theatrical twitching cut, or anything of the sort.
 |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
