Get a load of this guy

[RayMcCullough]

Huge Knight definitely is a waste. If there is something that he cannot do or does not understand he will write and essay and fill in the blank......

"This essay will show that ________has no value, no historical provenance, leads to bad swordsmanship, and confuses people about how swords work."

In reality we should read this....

This essay(and everything else he does) will show that Hugh Knight has no value, no historical provenance, leads to bad swordsmanship, and confuses people about how swords work.

Catch ya'll later. I'm off to do something productive instead of worry my mind about the idiots on the internet(been there done that and just got dumber trying to enlighten them).

[Stacy Clifford]

Never underestimate the power of a fool with a silver tongue.

That is quite profound. Where did this quote come from originally?

If I've ever heard it somewhere, I forgot where. I had great English teachers all through school and learned early the value of good writing for hiding flaws (not that I had to do it often, but it was a useful skill to have on the occasional test). The idea just follows from my own observations over the years of the effects proper English has on people's perceptions. Correct use of language (like "the Queen's English") has been a sign of authority, education and power since ancient times, while common vernacular was usually the opposite, and it still has much the same effect today (just look at Bush vs. Obama), even though history is littered with idiot kings and brilliant commoners. Heck, Randall is one of the smartest people I know, but his English is "turrble". Basic idea though is that using language correctly just makes it easier to get people to take your ideas seriously because it sounds educated, even when it's not.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

I had great English teachers all through school and learned early the value of good writing for hiding flaws.

Fortunately good writing is not just used to hide behind. It should be easy enough to find flaws in the argumentation of Hugh Knight if indeed his ideas are as laughable as described in this thread. I'm sure there are ARMA members sufficiently articulate to write a convincing counter-article then.

Just calling Hugh silly, unfit, anti-ARMA etc. is not doing that at all. I know it's funnier and a great stress-reliever but it's actually less constructive as a criticism than what Hugh has to offer...

I do not agree with what he says about how longsword cuts should be envisioned, but I don't like it when I see someone criticized because he can express himself well. That's not the spirit of Renaissance at all

Regards

[Stacy Clifford]

I think you misunderstand me, I'm not criticizing him for being able to express himself well, I find that an admirable trait on its own. I'm simply trying to make the observation that many people give more credence to an idea that is well expressed and look less critically at it as a result. ARMA's entire philosophy is pretty much based on not taking anyone's word for it and testing ideas for ourselves, so we're not so easily convinced, but despite what we here think, Hugh Knight has his followers and I'm saying I think he represents an example of this. He's not the only one, HEMA has a number of them, he just happens to be the subject of this thread. When you're battling for public opinion, skill of expression is a potent weapon that can make bad ideas harder to fight.

[Gene Tausk]

I had great English teachers all through school and learned early the value of good writing for hiding flaws.

Fortunately good writing is not just used to hide behind. It should be easy enough to find flaws in the argumentation of Hugh Knight if indeed his ideas are as laughable as described in this thread. I'm sure there are ARMA members sufficiently articulate to write a convincing counter-article then.

Just calling Hugh silly, unfit, anti-ARMA etc. is not doing that at all. I know it's funnier and a great stress-reliever but it's actually less constructive as a criticism than what Hugh has to offer...

I do not agree with what he says about how longsword cuts should be envisioned, but I don't like it when I see someone criticized because he can express himself well. That's not the spirit of Renaissance at all

Regards

I don't think anyone here is criticizing him because he can "express himself well." We are criticizing him because he:

1. From what I understand, he does not believe in sparring as a way to develop oneself as a swordsman. He is not unique in this, but it is laughable nontheless.
2. Claims that you do not need to do test cutting with swords to learn how to use a sword. This is completely laughable. What next? If I want to learn how to use a gun, should I avoid target practice?

These are laughable ideas and the idea that we should write a "counter-article," while understandable, requires time on the part of the essayist. Quite frankly, Hugh's ideas on test cutting are so off-base it is not even worth responding. He is wrong. Period.

One can develop one's skills as a swordsman through test cutting or one can take Hugh's approach and avoid this valuable skill. Scratch that. It's not a "valuable" skill. It is a fundamental skill. Claiming that one is a swordsman and not doing test cutting with sharps is like claiming that you can learn to speak a language by never actually testing yourself speaking the language to a native. It's completely ridiculous and inane.

Not to mention the fact that this guy holds himself out as a swordsman, which is an athletic activity, but looks like he can down 12 Big Macs and a 64 oz. Coke in one setting.

[Sam Nankivell]

I have to admit, I don't find Hugh Knight's ideas very reasonable, but at the same time I don't exactly favour all the personal attacks I hear calling him "stupid" and "fat". All that does is make the criticizer seem like a complete childish jerk and actually drives the reader towards the man being criticized. My father, a world finalist debater, has stressed this to me many times. Heck, in my own debating career I have seen it happen many times. The people who use this sort of style that includes personal attacks frequently lose their debates because the judge simply thinks: "Wow, what a jerk" and punishes the debater for it. It is even more of a blow if you are being judged by an audience, who frequently judged based on rhetoric rather than logic.

If you are going to criticize the man's ideas, then criticize his ideas, there is no need to state he is "stupid". Such strategies will come back and kick you in the behind.

Now, on to our feature presentation .

The main hole in the logic of Hugh's test cutting essay is that he doesn't like test cutting because it encourages large and overly dramatic blows that would not be used in combat. Of course, the simple solution to this is not to use large and overly dramatic blows. When you are test cutting, you must be sure to use blows that you would use in combat: tight, direct and in true time.

As for sparring, the koryu traditions that he cites as an inspiration for methods don't all agree that sparring is a bad thing. For instance, the Shinkage-ryu tradition invented the predecessor to the shinai, the fukuro shinai, which was covered by a leather sleeve in order to add more weight and act more like a real sword. This was a tradition that was founded in the 1540s, a time when swords were most definitely used in earnest.

Also, I don't see why people are so afraid of how articulate he is. All that means is that his points are clear and understandable, which in turn makes them easier to identify and oppose with your own. When someone writes poorly, it is harder to understand their argument and therefore harder to oppose it (however, since their argument is harder to understand, it is less likely to gain support). Besides, there is a simple solution to an articulate opponent, become articulate yourself. Read some practical guides to good writing such as "Elements of Style" http://www.crockford.com/wrrrld/style.html or even better, George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Language. It is far more simple then people make it out to be.

[Stacy Clifford]

I think my original argument is getting blown a little out of proportion here. From the standpoint of being easier to refute with better reasoning, you're right, his articulation is actually useful to us. My point is that to a layman who has no knowledge of HEMA and doesn't do a lot of research, it makes him sound more authoritative than he really is (in our opinion), making it that much harder to combat the kind of misinformation that he promotes. Sure I'm complaining a little bit here, but it's a fact of life in this field we resigned ourselves to dealing with a long time ago, and I was just trying to describe it as I saw it. Don't make it out to be more than it is, it's not that big a deal.

I would also agree that we don't want to look like jerks, but I also don't believe we should shy away from calling a delusion what it is. I may be able to admire his dedication to studying the sources, but Hugh Knight is trying to redefine the art to fit his physical condition, rather than redefine his physical condition to fit the art, and that is worthy of scorn. It's a weakness of will on his part, not intelligence, and if we allow him to get away with denying the intense physical reality of fighting arts while loudly claiming his authority on the matter, it makes it much harder for the art as a whole to be taken seriously. The line between rightful scorn and arrogant derision can be a fine one sometimes, and yes we cross it sometimes unnecessarily, but strong claims require strong reactions and the risk needs to be taken.

By the way, thanks for the Orwell reference, I found the original article and printed it out. Anything by Orwell is good reading.

[I. Hartikainen]

Chaps,

the word is free and everybody are allowed to express their thoughts, there's no need for that really to provoke direct insults and challenges.

I disagree with many things that I hear people say, and - as any swordsman should - I have strong opinions and I believe in what I am doing. Even so, I try to remain humble and open, thus willing to learn as learning is always changing.

Instead of shooting Mr. Knight down I would be interested in seeing how those who are so against him can argue some of his points.

As far as I know, and this comes from what I have heard from those more experienced in the subject than I am, tameshigiri was indeed used to test the quality of the sword, not the swordsman. I believe any Japanese swordsman of the time was expected to be able to cut through a roll of tatami on a stick. That is not really such an impressive feat of skill if we think about it. By looking at the marks on the tatami, we can tell something about the quality of the weapon even if the cut was precisely aligned and went through.

As far as I know, there is no mention of "test cutting" in any source literature we have. I would be very interested in reading it, if there were. According to what I know, we have descriptions of use of sharps in one-on-one practice, some mention of the use of a pell and some mention of the use of a wall target and performing strikes into the air.

Most of the Italian texts make mention of "strikes" (colpi) instead of "cuts" (taglii), which - at least to me - is an indication that the idea was not to cut limbs off, but inflict impact trauma centered to a small area (the edge), with no specific aim to severe limbs off the body. Edge alignment is of course a factor here, the idea of "a clumsy cut" being enough is quite silly. Improper blade placement will not lead to just ineffective damage, but to ineffective defensive actions as well.

Still, a sword is a deadly tool in the hands of even a twelve-year-old-boy with no training.

From experience I find it true that the mechanics used to most effectively slice through tatami are different from what is required by the combat situation. A more forceful strike can be done by leading with the body and whiplashing the sword from there. While this is good against a static roll of tatami, an experienced swordsman would accept the invitation for a countering thrust to the open targets.

I do occasional test-cutting myself, but I think it is good to keep in mind that the context is different. Test cutting is good for various purposes: getting used to a sharp sword, learning edge-alignment, getting relaxed in the actions and so forth, but for actual combat training, it is only a part of the equation. Someone can be trained to be a good and able swordsman even without it, and with proper training, someone who has been trained without the use of test-cutting would probably be rather good in it should they begin the practice only later on.

Finally, the argument of leaving the point on-line is true, and expressed by the source texts as much as experience. I have seen a lot of sparring (even done some ) and often, especially with shinai and other simulators, we see strikes landing on the ground and being swung through the target without hitting. This is, in my opinion, bad practice and people only get away with it because their opponent/partner is not skilled enough to seize the tempo of their opponent/partner. For example, the Bolognese school is specific in that when you are close to the enemy, your point should not go out of presence (not go off-line), and that the moment when your enemy's point travels past you, you can attack them safely.

Let's try to give less volume to our prejudices, if we think someone is wrong, let's prove them so and all learn from the experience! Ok?

Yours,
Ilkka

[Sam Nankivell]

I think my original argument is getting blown a little out of proportion here. From the standpoint of being easier to refute with better reasoning, you're right, his articulation is actually useful to us. My point is that to a layman who has no knowledge of HEMA and doesn't do a lot of research, it makes him sound more authoritative than he really is (in our opinion), making it that much harder to combat the kind of misinformation that he promotes. Sure I'm complaining a little bit here, but it's a fact of life in this field we resigned ourselves to dealing with a long time ago, and I was just trying to describe it as I saw it. Don't make it out to be more than it is, it's not that big a deal.

I would also agree that we don't want to look like jerks, but I also don't believe we should shy away from calling a delusion what it is. I may be able to admire his dedication to studying the sources, but Hugh Knight is trying to redefine the art to fit his physical condition, rather than redefine his physical condition to fit the art, and that is worthy of scorn. It's a weakness of will on his part, not intelligence, and if we allow him to get away with denying the intense physical reality of fighting arts while loudly claiming his authority on the matter, it makes it much harder for the art as a whole to be taken seriously. The line between rightful scorn and arrogant derision can be a fine one sometimes, and yes we cross it sometimes unnecessarily, but strong claims require strong reactions and the risk needs to be taken.

By the way, thanks for the Orwell reference, I found the original article and printed it out. Anything by Orwell is good reading.

Your right, but it sounds far better when you simply say that his physical conditioning leads to a flawed interpretation rather than "he's fat and stupid". Actually, to be honest, I don't remember seeing him directly mentioned as stupid in any of these threads. However, I have seen it bluntly implied several times.

What really needs to be known is that although strong claims require strong reactions and strong evidence to back those reactions, they do not require strong language. Again, I have seen many a debater making strong claims get shot down by opponents who used a reasonable tone of voice. Using a reasonable voice helped to illustrate how extreme and absurd the other side really was.

Then again, I have also seen extremely aggressive, fire spewing, rhetorical demons win debates as well. But it tends to be a but it tends to be a high risk strategy that can quickly and easily (very, very easily) backfire in the face of a softer and calmer opponent who isn't afraid.

[Stacy Clifford]

Well to get away from my unintentionally controversial observation and argue the point directly, I think there's a simple reason the texts don't mention anything about test cutting. Using blades in those days was part of everyday life, from harvesting crops to butchering meat, chopping wood, cutting rope, clearing brush, etc. Even if you were too noble to do any of that menial labor, if you carried a sword all the time it was no big deal to swing at a few saplings in the woods occasionally just for practice (every guy knows the innate temptation to swing at stuff when we're carrying a stick, it's practically genetic). Test cutting as a formal practice method just wasn't necessary, nearly everybody spent their whole lives doing it. Modern times aren't like that for most people since we all started migrating into the cities, so it is necessary for us to get used to handling a blade in order to get a feel for how to make a clean cut. It's a modern addition to hone a skill that our ancestors probably assumed you already had when you walked in the fechtschule door.

Regarding the Italians calling them "strikes" rather than "cuts," I think that is probably a semantic difference in how you look at the action and the result. We tend to use cut and strike interchangeably to describe the action of swinging the sword, but you could just as easily say the strike is the action, since the same swing can be made with any weapon, and the cut is the result since you are using a blade, or you could argue the reverse that the cut is the swinging action and the strike is the result of weapon meeting target. English is funny that way. I don't know if the perspective is different in Italian or not, but I think it's fairly safe to say that anybody who ever swung a blade had in mind a deep cut as the ideal result, not just acute blunt trauma. Admittedly though, I'm sure they were wise enough to say you take what you can get against armor.

I agree that someone could train in swordsmanship for a while without test cutting and still be fairly good at primarily because I do so myself most of the time. We don't have a lot of sharps among us here in Houston because they're so darn expensive, so we don't get out to do test cutting nearly as often as we'd like to, but I'm still not bad at it. Just the same, I've seen for myself how subtle differences in edge alignment can cause drastic differences in results, and I wish I had more opportunity to work on this skill because I can see its vitality to my own practice. Maybe if Albion had a 50% off sale...

For the last point, it seems too obvious that swinging and missing when you're in range to be struck is a bad idea, but if keeping your point in line at all times is so vital, then why do guards such as vom tag, alber, and tail exist? They are all the beginnings or ends of cuts, and the edge is the threat to the opponent rather than the point. If you are going to cut at your opponent then you have to take the point off line at least briefly to generate power. They may well mean that when you're dangerously close you should use guards that threaten with the point, but you still have to cut as if you know you'll hit the target and follow through, you just need to be able to recover very quickly. This argument is tricky and needs to be analyzed some more than what I've done here, but it's late and I need to go to bed, so hopefully we can continue this (once again on topic) discussion later.

[RayMcCullough]

Maybe a topic on "what kind of cuts are there?" would be good.
There are 2 types. Both are cuts. But they are different. The Slice and the Strike.

1. The slice is a cut made when the sharp edge is in contact with the target and then slide forceful across the object.

2. The strike is a cut made when the sharp edge makes contact with the target at a high rate of speed. The beveled edge traveling very fast will split open(or cut into/cleve/hew) the softer target.

Both are cuts that have a specific purpose.

[I. Hartikainen]

Stacy,

I agree with you. one of the reasons why test-cutting is good for us today is because we don't carry swords around all the time, and most of us actually use knives quite rarely as well.

About the points off-line and on-line, the Italian made the distinction between the wide play and the narrow play. What these terms _exactly_ refer to, if they ever had an exact definition, is still unknown at least to me, but generally we can at least say that the wide play happens in the initial stage of the fight, where being out of measure you can keep your point off-line and thus prepared for a cut (or strike with the edge).

In the narrow play one should not depart from the guards that keep the point in line, which in the Fiore longsword tradition would be the instabile guards, and in, for example, the Bolognese tradition the strette guards (gioco stretto = narrow play, gioco largo = wide play).

This is probably the reason why the thrusts were favored over the cuts, since they keep the point in presence they lead to a safer fight, since taking the point off-line in preparation for a strike was considered a tempo in which the opponent can attack. If you think about it, it is possible to see why the fencing tapered towards the 17th century rapier style of leaning back and always keeping the point forwards: it is a result of systematically emphasizing safety and control, attempting to punish every mistake the opponent would make. I personally like a bit of a bash, and actually favor the 16th century styles more. Cuts and strikes are fun, but they need to be done with judgment.

I would argue that alber actually threatens more with the point than the edge, even if the false edge can be utilized especially against the hands/arms. If you read Fiore, you'll notice that all of the stabile guards, except coda longa, threaten with the point, the pulsativa guards threaten with the edge and the instabile are the guards that can be used in contact with the opponent's sword or the opponent itself. During the fight, or after engaging the opponent the play should be within the instabile guards, where frontale parries to the left side and posta longa to the right side, also delivering the strikes - and from the bind (incrosada) entries into close quarters are possible as well. But the point stays pretty much in presence, taking it into the pulsativa or stabile positions would certainly cause trouble. This is interpretative and not directly said like this by Fiore, but if you read the text and experiment, you will probably agree with me pretty far.

In the 16th century styles, using the sword alone, the high guards and others with the point off-line should not be much used, as they are unsafe (according to the texts). From those online, attacks with the edge require a preparation of sorts, which would be dangerous as it offers a tempo to the opponent. Therefore they suggested using a "provocation", where you can, for example strike the opponent's sword initially and only then, when you have a tempo, to strike at the opponent. On the contrary, if you found your sword being struck, you were to step back a pace and turn a strike to the arm. If the swords were to get bound (this was called strette di mezza spada, closings of the half-sword) you were supposed to work with thrusts and strikes on both sides of the opponent's sword, using feints &c., most likely according to the pressure you feel against your blade.

Still, the point stayed online, unless you were to press your opponent's sword down with your blade. You see this action in I.33 (mutacio gladij), Fiore (rompere di punta), the Bolognese (as far as I know, don't have the reference here now) and I believe in Hs. 3227a (Döbringer) it is said that, if after a parry (absetzen) you enter into alber or schrankhut you are in eisenpforte, and I believe this refers to locking their sword under yours (which would create an interesting correlation to Fiore's porta di ferro).

Yours,
Ilkka

[Mike Cartier]

well i am not sure what japanese schools did has to do with what HEMA does or why rapier theory from centuries later has to do with Longsword fighting but it seems Mr knight like to take these adversarial positions.
i'm not sure we need to argue any of this man's points, so far he decries sparring, test cutting and doesn't show me much of anything.

This issue is best ignored, if you don't want to spar or test cut then don't, arguments about sparring are rife within martial arts and its a gulf that never gets crossed by extended arguments, invariably thoe who detest sparring do so for reasons other than the advancement of combative skills.

in short who cares.

[s_taillebois]

There is one variant argument, albeit a ghoulish contradiction that M. Knight seems to be ignoring, that of the dead. Aside from revenge hacking of the already helpless and hapless....Many of the verifiable wounds which actually killed such as the men who died at Towton, were done quite efficiently-often with 3-4 cuts/slices or thrusts (or fewer). And since these men were no doubt resisting with all they had left their killers had to be very practiced....M. Knight does acknowledge the need for some efficiency but doesn't seem to consider from whence these abilities originated.

And those abilities could not have been possible without very direct and repeated experience in what their weapons could do, and how to achieve that end. So in addition to pell work, flourishes, sparring and etc the victors had to know exactly what their weapon could do under various and serious conditions. Which to some degree indicates cutting and thrusting practice into materials approximating the intended final target. (And such traditions as boar hunting may have fulfilled some of this need...as period illustrations do tend to show the hunter closing with the boar) And as M. Clifford so clearly noted the people of the period did use large cutting implements as a very necessary component to their daily lives.

Interesting M Knight seems to makes no mention of the problems of recovering from a poor thrust or cut (although to his credit he does mention the troubles of such as over carrying), so the assumption is all actions of this nature are somehow going to be perfect? And correcting for when it goes wrong is inherent to any credible weapons training, which once again implies some pragmatic training in test cutting.

And anyway, even with somewhat compliant (or bound) victims, such as the poor people hacked away to eternity at the tower of London. Things still went wrong. And for that reason it seems that executioners did practice for practical reasons, plus the tactic of tormenting their victims to be...

All the Japanese references can't comment as do not know enough about those traditions to say much of value.

And will refrain from any comment on the picture, or pro or anti ARMA dispute etc... as the world is an imperfect place wherein we are as we are, and as such seem to have an inherent desire for squabbling between groups.

[Sam Nankivell]

What I really don't get of Knight's arguments is his opposition to sparring. In what other ways can you prepare someone's tactical sense and reflexes for combat? You can drill them until they have perfect technique, you can instill instinctive reactions through drilling as well, but you cannot simulate the actual stress of an antagonistic encounter.

Earlier, I did bring up one example of a koryu that spars: the Shinkage-ryu school, who not only practice sparring but invented the shinai. However, some more important points need to be made about the difference between the koryu and WMA in general.

Firstly, the koryu are a complete and living tradition. Their methods have been tried and tested on the battlefield in duels. Assuming there have been no changes from the time when those arts were used in earnest, the techniques should work just fine. WMA on the other hand do not have the luxury of an unbroken, unaltered tradition to turn to. Unlike the koryu, we are actively interpreting manuals and trying to reconstruct them. We do not have the luxury of a master who has spoken with his master who has spoken with his master, all the way down the line to Fiore himself, to tell us exactly what he means when he says you can make a volta stabile, tutta volta and mezza volta with your sword. Instead we have to experiment to figure out what exactly this means. One integral part of the experiment is testing your hypothesis. Without sparring, there aren't really any ways we can do that.

Secondly, the koryu, or so I have been told by some, exist now only for the sake of preservation. This means that the primary goal of the school is not to build good fighters, but to continue the oral tradition and technical expertise of the pedagogy and techniques of the school to prevent it from dying out. Therefore, sparring is unnecessary and might even alter the tradition slightly (which in their eyes, would probably be a very bad thing). However, for most WMA, it is a matter of reconstruction rather than preservation, so sparring must play an integral part in testing theories, as must it with other reconstructions of martial arts going on around the world.

More importantly, what about all the evidence we have for sparring through the early 16th century onwards as "schulefechten"? What about the practice swords clearly illustrated in earlier 15th century books such as the Codex Guelf and Von Danzig? (On a sidenote, does anyone have any quotes from 15th century masters who speak of "assault" or "freeplay" as a part of their art?)