Did Knots on Pells serve a Purpose?

[Brian Dailey]

My “questions”/ observations come from two fine articles: “On The Pell” by John Clements, and the companion article referenced “Essential Training: the Pell”, by Stewart Feil., both of which are found in the Articles and Essays section of web site. Mr. Clements' article, included a graphic of a tapestry / painting from the 14 th century, Les Etablissmentz de Chavelerie, (showing a knight practicing at a Pell). The description of the Pell in the graphic was: “The pell is depicted as a simple knotted tree trunk of perhaps six feet in height and 4 inches diameter.” What caught my attention was the word knotted. In all three of the graphics the Pell is indeed knotted, but what was also unique is that both graphics, in the article where swords were being used, showed the blade engaged at one of the knots. This has me curious though, were the knots intentionally depicted and serving a purpose; and not merely artistic license? In other words, would the knots have been there to offer both resistance, and additional striking planes to the blade as to simulate: downward strike to the neck/shoulder, contact with another weapon, or a point where force could be applied for a “slicing” motion. I bring this up for academic purpose, as pictures of “Modern Pells” seem to only depict a cylindrical surface, which would seem to limit the strikes that could be made without repositioning the Pell. So I wonder, are “modern pells” missing something? Please keep in mind that my exposure to training aids and what others are using is almost non-existent, heck I’m still trying to get in a proper guard; however, I thought it would be interesting to get some feedback from those that know more about these things than me, which would be just about everyone reading this post. Thanks!
Brian Dailey

[Tim Merritt]

Did knots serve a purpose? I imagine so; it makes sense for the purpose of honing the targeting skills. As far as modern pells being cylindrical, I suppose they are built for their purpose and it depends on what you want out of it. I’ve heard some people talk about the feedback from the stick striking the pell, and how fast you can recover from the snap back to score points. If that’s the purpose, to score points, then it might explain the modern pell designs seen.

While I generally default to the historical for swordsmanship (for obvious reasons), I’ve taken a modern approach to the construction of my pell. It is human shaped. Skeleton of PVC pipe, padded with carpet padding, and totally wrapped in duct tape, clothed, with a metal and plywood base. The head is even detailed, with chin and nose (and the mouth is jack-o-lantern-like that my kids put on when we used it as a Halloween prop). So I definitely target areas—side cut to the knee, up in the crotch, try to take its head off at the neck, split the skull down the middle, thrust to the sternum... Punch and kick it also. When I use it, I think of it like a person, in a most martial aspect, not to improve my score in a game.

[Sean_Gallaty]

Other practice pells from ema have protrusions to use as limbs. Without a knot, what are you going to aim at? Also a knot is super-hard, so you'll better feel if you make a good harmonic strike.

Btw, what do you call a 'harmonic hit' here? By that I mean a hit placement where the striking object lands on a harmonic point on the weapon so you don't get recoil shock (and you get a much harder hit)

there's also a way to find the harmonics of a weapon.. someone help me here... suspend it from a thread cradle, sprinkle sand along the length and then strike it along the body with a tool.. and the sand will jump off of everywehre that is NOT a harmonic.. or somethnig? sorry, I might be way off, but I can't find it in google.

[Randall Pleasant]

Sean

The "Harmonics Theory" that is often discussed else where on the Internet has more to do with the marketing of swords than the actual laws of physics. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" /> I would suggest that you read the article Sword Motions &amp; Impacts by Senior ARMA Researcher George Turner.

[Sean_Gallaty]

Wow talk about an immensely informative article.

I'm reading it now.

[Sean_Gallaty]

Well, there's a lot in that article that's counterintuitive and even things that go against the common wisdom. I guess the real question is, in test cutting against armor and soft materials does all this theory hold up?

Could there be other factors such as deliverability of a blow or perhaps unpredictability of a blow that might factor? Does this methodology hold up in practice?

Secondarily, are there any hand and a half wasters that have a historical weight and balance? The last thing I want to do is end up practicing with a weapon with bad balance.

[Jake_Norwood]

Counterintuitive? What in that article is, to you? I'm curious.

Also, remember that a waster isn't meant to be a sword. It's a waster, and was historically for different purposes somewhat. I have a few heavy wasters that are not balanced like swords, but that's intentional--they build strength. OTOH, sometimes is *is* very nice to have a waster that feels more like a sword. For this, I reccomend an NSA "perfect" line waster, or a Raven studios waster.

Jake

[Sean_Gallaty]

Intuitively speaking, I'd expect to gauge the effectiveness of a the blow based on the shock that goes back into my hand a la baseball.

I would -expect- a sword to be swung and struck with the same motion that all other accelerated tools are swung (hammer, baseball bats, golf clubs, hockey sticks, etc.) that is, they are swung with a conversion of linear to radial motion at the final arc of travel at impact.

I'm a latecomer to the discussions here (and sensitive to that), but I believe that I can produce a much, much harder hit using the legs, body, shoulders and arms and converting that motion to linear motion at the point of impact. Every part of the body contributes force, and that force is converted - like the tapering body of a whip, the energy required to move the heavier handle becomes a wave of motion that is converted to velocity in the thinner, lighter tip.

Common sense seems to suggest that any force which goes into my hand is force that does not go into the target, and when I read 'the weak' I thought it meant 'weak part to strike with.' Admittedly I have a lot more reading to do.

If that's all wrong, I've got a lot of unlearning to do.

Mind you I am paranoid about swordsfighters devolving into weak nonlethal hits sparring with weapons that encourage that. It's a theme with me, I've encountered it a lot.

- nox

[Jake_Norwood]

LOL... you can ask a lot of folks around here how "weak" I hit.

Tim? Stew? Shane? Stacy?

Something that may affect your assumptions:

Common sense seems to suggest that any force which goes into my hand is force that does not go into the target, and when I read 'the weak' I thought it meant 'weak part to strike with.' Admittedly I have a lot more reading to do.

No worries here. The learning curve is pretty steep. I remember lurking around here for months before posting as much as you did, so you're a brave guy. The terms "weak," when referring to the sword, however, comes from the orginal languages as "schwech" or "foible." It is the part of the sword from roughly the middle of the blade to the tip, especially the last, say, 10 inches. It's called "weak" because of the amount of leverage that can be applied using it when in the bind or in deflection. It is the part that you are supposed to hit your opponent with--where the most power is transferred. The "strong" (Starck or Forte) of the blade is from the middle to the hilt--where you have the most leverage in the bind.

As for shock going back into your hand--this is not a good thing. Your grip, if supple, will not feel much at all when you strike, regardless of the power generated. If you feel too much reverb, you're gripping to tight, and you'll be unable to react to subtle changes in your opponent's pressure at the bind, you'll be more likely to be disarmed, and you'll have less control over your strikes.

You are absolutely correct that power is generated by the entire body contributing to the strike--this is important and fundamental. Form, however, generates most of the power. If it is properly transferred to the target you *won't* really feel much of it coming back to get you in the hands or otherwise. Cut "with serene hand." Calmly, controlled, but still violently.

Jake

[Jake_Norwood]

Oh, I meant to add this.

Well, there's a lot in that article that's counterintuitive and even things that go against the common wisdom. I guess the real question is, in test cutting against armor and soft materials does all this theory hold up?

I assure you it does! Understanding, of course, that armor is not cut through, generally speaking. That's why it was used. The stuff really, really works.

There a a ton of clips, mostly from the international gathering in 2003, depicting all manner of cutting against all manor of targets using exactly the techniques/methods (trained on the pell, as in that article) against several different types of targets (mostly tatami and armor). Check them out.

Jake

[Shane Smith]

LOL... you can ask a lot of folks around here how "weak" I hit.

Tim? Stew? Shane? Stacy?

I don't think "weak" is word that applies to any of us at impact <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Stacy Clifford]

I concur, weak hitters are definitely not a plague found within ARMA.

[John_Clements]

I must make this quick as this is moving in time for our new house and I am still struggling to stay on sabbatical.

That is a very interesting observation. While Roman accounts only refer to "stakes" or "posts" simply put in the ground (as 16th century art shows), and while it is reasonable that an ordinary tree tunk was chosen for such practice, it is also possible that they selected ones with convenient knots to serve as focus targets. I know when I make a new pell I use wooden fence posts with similiar features.

JC

[Sean_Gallaty]

Those clips are impressive and even scary. I have to admit, my favorite is john c cutting the melon, and the melon slowly sliding off the pell, to fall in halves. Classic.