Edges and Flat

[Sripol Asanasavest]

I was told in Krabi Krabong (the mother of Muay Thai) that when you block the sword, you should block with the edge not the flat. They said you don't get as much force distribution as when you block with flat and that way the sword is less likely to break. I can see their logic because in Krabi Krabong they go at it pretty hard and super fast...just pounding and swinging none stop as fast as they can. Imagine my surprise when I read on hear and about the Japanese sword fighting style. It's totally the opposite. In European and Japanese art they tell you to block with the flat. Why is that? Who is correct?

[ChristineChurches]

This is a topic which comes up very often here and on other forums. There are various articles on our website which address this issue, such as:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/damagededge.htm
http://www.thearma.org/essays/edgemyth.htm
http://www.thearma.org/essays/parry.htm

and then from a swordsmith's point of view:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/impacts.htm

Happy reading!
Christine

[Will Adamson]

They said you don't get as much force distribution as when you block with flat and that way the sword is less likely to break.

Actually you want force distribution. More area is contacted, plus the blade will flex, but not break. Less force distribution would mean that the sword is more likely to break. The real advantage is that the force more readily redirects since the edge will not bite into the flat. This means that the person throwing the strike will continue their motion and put themselves in a vulnerable position. There are actually alot of other advantages as well.

[Jeffrey Hull]

I realise that this subject is new to you and that you ask your question in good faith. I want to provide you a decent answer.

But just so you know: This topic is a contentious one in the so-called Western martial arts community. Everyone from the ill-informed to nutcakes to phonies naysay and deny this method of parrying / displacing, all despite the vast proof of historical fight-books and martial praxis and basic physics that we ARMA scholars find reasonable & workable and provide other fencers to consider.

From the archives, I reprise & revise a post I made previously to address this further, one that met general approval of my ARMA fellows:

Flat-Use in Fechtbuecher

The use of the blade-flat in German Medieval and Renaissance langes schwert (longsword) fencing is something advocated by various Fechtmeister in their manuals.

By this is meant the meeting during versetzen or brechen of fighter and foe's swords flat-to-flat, flat-to-edge, or edge-to-flat, but not edge-to-edge.

Firstly, witness the German grandmaster Johannes Liechtenauer advising such.

Liechtenauer (via Ringeck-1438)
(similarly repeated by Von Danzig-1452, Lew-1450; Von Speyer-1491)
(Thanks to Arts d'Armes transcription)
(My translation - JH)

Here we are told a way to break through the ward of a foe:

(25v) Haw krump zù den flechen den maistern, wiltu sy schwechen.

(25v) Hew crumpler to the flats of masters, thus you will weaken them.

Both Ringeck and Von Danzig later explain such as an attack option from Schrankhut -- for example, as Von Danzig explains:

Liechtenauer (via Von Danzig-1452)
(Thanks to Arts d'Armes transcription)
(My translation - JH)

(51v) Die stuck treyb vß der schrankhùt also:
...Item, oder haw im krump zur flechen; vnd alß bald es klützt, so (52r) such die nach mitt der kurtzen schnyden.

(51v) Thus drive the play out of barrier-ward:
...[Thus as aforesaid] or hew him crumpler to the flats; and as soon as it clashes, then (52r) seek the next / nearest [opening] with your short-edge.

Which I have done successfully any number of times versus training partners, and which other fencers certainly have done too.

*****

Secondly, witness Hans Talhoffer advising such.

Talhoffer-1459
(My transcription & translation - JH)

(3r) how uff sin fleche
so tuostu in schwechen
wenn eß knuolt obnen
So nym ab Daz wil ich loben

(3r) Thus hew upon his flats,
So do you weaken him
When it clashes high,
Then take off – that will I laud.

What seems described here is a fighter breaking a foe's strike or ward, doubtlessly at the flat of foe's blade, which brings them to a hard bind, wherefrom fighter takes off with his blade and strikes round to an opening of foe.

*****

Lastly, witness Joachim Meyer advising such.

Meyer-1570
(Thanks to Rasmussen-Schielhau transcription)
(My translation - JH)

...fang jhm sein Schwerdt aff deine klingen fleche...

...catch him his sword upon your blade-flat...

And furthermore Meyer advises one to properly do hanging-ward:

...empfach damit seinen streich auf deiner Klingen fleche...

...withstand his strike upon your blade-flat...

Rather straightforward stuff there.

*****

Plus there are many other de facto examples of where the best option for displacing turns out to be flat-to-flat interface of the blades, examples I may leave to other fellows to describe if they so desire.

And by the way, yes, there are some sensible Japanese ryu which advocate similar methods of displacing with katana and so forth.

And yes, please read those excellent articles about sword-displacement and edge-damage by John Clements and others, available in the Articles & Essays section of the ARMA website.

*****

Thus to whomever still disagrees with flat-use as sensible and preferable:

If flat-use is a problem for a fencer, then really it is not ARMA with whom he disagrees. Indeed, he actually disagrees with physics, respect for one's own weaponry, and sadly, the Fight-Masters.

[Matt Bryant]

I was told in Krabi Krabong (the mother of Muay Thai) that when you block the sword, you should block with the edge not the flat. They said you don't get as much force distribution as when you block with flat and that way the sword is less likely to break. I can see their logic because in Krabi Krabong they go at it pretty hard and super fast...just pounding and swinging none stop as fast as they can.

I imagine this difference has more to do with the variations of weapons used. As for European blades, I use the flat (or strike my edge into their flat).

Also, rest assured that the fighting men of the day were indeed going very hard and super fast.

[Jeffrey Hull]

Please view this fine video of ARMA scholars sparring with blunt steel swords to observe, among many other things, the method of parrying / displacing

http://thearma.org/Videos/Federschwert_sparring.mp4

[Alan Abu Bakr]

I like Will's explanation of the physical reasons, as it will aid me, when explaining this to others, as will Jeffrey's very good answer.

But aside from essays, ARMA also has two nice videos, that shows these points (aside from the one linked to above):
Flats & Edges which shows how easy it is to parry without edge to edge
and, which, in my opinion, even more clearly shows edge to edge to be bad is the nice Adventures in Edge Bashing video.

[Sripol Asanasavest]

But just so you know: This topic is a contentious one in the so-called Western martial arts community. Everyone from the ill-informed to nutcakes to phonies naysay and deny this method of parrying / displacing, all despite the vast proof of historical fight-books and martial praxis and basic physics that we ARMA scholars find reasonable & workable and provide other fencers to consider.

Thank you everyone for replying and especially, Jeff!

Check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSpfAg0vajY This is what confuses me about Thai martial art. I'm not sure why they do it that way, but apparently that's what they've been doing for centuries.

[Randall Pleasant]

Some major edge damage in that video. Without doubt, such damage greatly reduces the cutting abilities of a blade.

[Will Adamson]

I have no idea why they think that they should be blocking with the cutting edge when the damage is so obvious.

[Sripol Asanasavest]

I don't know why they do it that way, but apparently they've been doing it for centuries. Anyway, I think this is the only martial that do this. I'm not surprise since Krabi Krabong and Muay Thai fighting system is totally different than most fighting system. It breaks every rule other martial art have like going on the offensive which is also a good way to defend yourself and more. It's been design to train soldiers quickly and effeciently since back then the king had no standing army so whenever there were invading army, they had to train large number quickly...kindda like modern drafting of soldier before sending them off to Vietnam or whereever. This is why it baffles me when reading about Japanese and other martial arts. I'm sure there is more to it than that, but I haven't a clue. Nothing is typical with Thai martia art;l it always differ than other fighting system for some reason and some people have just recently discover it effectiveness and use it to their advantage like in the modern MMA which most choose Muay Thai as their striking techniques. I know it's weird.

I kindda like European martial art. Medieval Europe, Rome, and Greek always fascinate me and it is fun to compare the difference between my culture and European, and so is comapring the similarity. I love dicussing topic like this.

[carlo arellano]

Crudelli might have hit upon the answer. Now if the materials were brittle, that is the metal had an even hardness through the blade rather than the flexibility of european models would edge vs edge keep the blade from snapping?

[Randall Pleasant]

I don't know why they do it that way, but apparently they've been doing it for centuries.

Sripol

That is an assumption at best. A teacher of a living tradition saying something like "this is how is has always been done" provides absolutely no evidence that it was in fact done that way centuries before. Specific cultural knowledge, like all culture, under goes cultural evolution. People always think they are doing things exactly like their forefather when in fact they never do. My guess is that centuries before, when those blades were actually used in combat, they did not kack up their blades. Edge hacking in the East is probably like in the West, a produce of the last couple of centuries.

[Alan Abu Bakr]

"The force will be dispersed that way into the sword, so that the sword won't break, it will absorb the force"

What what?
I don't see how that makes sense.

[JeremyDillon]

"The force will be dispersed that way into the sword, so that the sword won't break, it will absorb the force"

What what?
I don't see how that makes sense.

That's because it doesn't. Often times, people construct such specious rationalizations on the spot without really thinking. Of course a sword is more likely to be damaged and broken when bashing edge-on-edge. How could it be otherwise? By blocking a blow with the flat of the blade, you greatly increase the surface area of the impact, reducing the force per unit area of the impact. Also, a blade is much more resilient to strikes to the flat because the blade will tend to bend or flex instead of crack or chip on it's softer, less resilient edge. These two factors ensure that blade on blade contact edge-to-flat is much less likely to cause damage to either blade. The gentleman hosting that program tried to adapt the evidence to fit what the teacher had told him, assuming the teacher must be correct. This is a huge mistake for anyone in an empirical field (i.e. martial arts).