How much is enough?

[Jake_Norwood]

In the Bob Charron Test cutting thread there's a lot of talk just now about deterring your opponent through wounding him, and how softer cuts are enough to stop an opponent.

I'm not question the value of a quick, light cut such as the stramazzone or wrist or half-arm cuts. Instead I'm asking, "how much is enough to make the other guy stop?"

I don't think we can know this for sure. Everybody is different, but I think we can agree that if an opponent isn't dead, he can still kill you.

One extreme: simple wound wins fight.
We have the coup d'jarnac and a few plates from Talhoffer as examples of how a single wound to a major tendon or limb (are there any minor limbs?) can win the fight as the other guy loses all will to fight and starts groping about for his hand.

The other extreme: He just won't quit!
Musashi says to strike an opponent again and again.
Jay Vail (I think) posted some accounts from the korean war and WWII about GI's taking it in the arm, torso, and even neck and still killing their opponent hand-to-hand.
Almost all medieval and renn. dagger techniques involve somehow disabling your opponent's ability to attack you before you kill him. Why? Because one wound, more often than not, isn't enough to stop someone set on killing you. There there's account after acount of the horrible abuse that a human body can take under duress and still survive from wars, attempted murders, and more.

This tells me two things. First, that we can't assume that a single moderate cut would "be enough."

Second, should this affect the way we spar? If so (and I think so, at least sometimes), then how?

Jake

[John_Clements]

In one of my books in progress, I have an extensive 40 page section of nothing but documented historical accounts of sword wounds and deaths. It makes a strong case that people can take multiple injuries and keep going unles you take them out with killing or incapacitating strikes. I think it reflects in why the manuals talk about fencing strongly.

JC

[Jake_Norwood]

And we're all anxioiusly awaiting those books. I think that we simply cannot overlook the refusal of a human to lay down and die or back off, even when they should. War after war has proven the same.

Jake

[Guest]

I see no problem with (training to) fence with all your strength (by this, I mean physical) so long as you are still balanced and in control.

Reason 1: Your movements will be quicker, and stronger. This will make all forms of counters, diplacements, counter cuts, etc much more difficult for your opponent to execute.

Reason 2: Sucessfull cuts, slices, thrusts, -- all damaging strikes will be even more damaging, which in many cases will prove to be to your advantage.

Reason 3: Emotional content- I believe that you will more likely be in the proper mind set in your fencing when using your whole whole body and strength to accomplish the task at hand.

What I am NOT saying:
"Strike so hard that you cannot recover quickly."
"Only train with full-speed and full-power, all the time."
"Do not use any skill, evironmental or other advantages when you fight."
"Do not ever attempt strikes which will not behead or otherwise instantly kill opponents."

It seems to me that the level of damage and type of damage nessisary to "put someone out" is very dependent on the individual person. This being the case, (right?) I'd rather find my fault in "going too far" than not far enough. I'm speaking, of course, in a historical perspective and not a "modern applicaiton" one.

Nevertheless, I see much good in sparing "to first hit," "to first 'good' hit," (meaning torso, knee, or 'obvoiusly' disabling strike) and also "to first 5 hits" or some other similar way continuing even after several strikes. I personally haven't been varying my sparring in this way recently, and I plan on trying some of this soon.

[Shane Smith]

The biggest problem with hitting with less than full strength while maintaining your form through proper technique is this; A man struck lightly may not manage to die on time,ie. before he has the opportunity to return the favor,whereas a man cloven in two will be no further threat unless you slip on his innards and fall upon your own blade as you exit the field <img src="/forum/images/icons/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

Sometimes a slight wound puts people into submission, sometimes people turn Golem, you do not know how it will be untill you see...
So more than wondering how much damage you have to do, I think one should consider what to do after hitting, since you can't make a reliable check up to your opponent during a fight.
My usual source (do not cite not to give you an "AGAIN" attack) is clear on this point: after an exchange of blows in which you hit, you regain a straight point to cover your return to distance. When your opponent quits or is over, you take away his weapon and you do not accept his surrender unless he offers you his sword by the hilt.
So hit- be ready, not hit-contemplate the result, even run thorugh, people do not necessarily die.
Carlo

[Randall Pleasant]

In my youth when I did not have the wisedom to play with swords instead of guns, I always define enough as being when I could see the *inside* of either the brain or the heart or I could see a cross-section of the spine, nearer to the head the better. Anything else and the game is still in play.

[Guest]

There was a similar discussion on the e-list a couple of months ago. The question I had was concerning the historical frequency of the so-called "double-kill," and whether the human organism has an innate physiological mechanism which stops it from completeing an action (such as a cut) when it suffers concurrent, massive trauma. I think the general consensus was that every situation will be unique.

In a life or death situation, one cannot rely on disabling one's opponent simply by wounding him with one's blade. One can never know how one's opponent will react when wounded. He may decide he doesn't want to fight anymore. He may see blood and pass out. Or he may ignore the blow and strike you in turn.

Personally, I think as martial artists we must assume that our opponents and fellow martial artists have a certain level of conditioning. Years ago when I first began studying mixed martial arts, I would bruise and bleed very easily during training. As time went on and my training progressed, my body could withstand a lot more punishment- I became callused to the abuse. I believe in the recent translation we have seen of the Codex Guelph it states something along the lines of a boy in training must expect to see his blood flow and feel his teeth crack all in preparation for battle. What I am getting at is that I believe that we must adopt the attitiude that our opponent has a heightened level of conditioning; factor in adrenalin and we can assume that he is not going to go down easy.

Ben

[Jay Vail]

John: bring 'em on! Can't wait to read 'em.

[Guest]

Good question Jake. I think if I was in a fight for my life, I might be pumped up and able to fight on with a minor wound. However, I find that in free play I sometimes take blows to the hands and arms that could be quite disabling. Would I really be able to continue to fight with a partially severed wrist? A missing thumb? a gaping slash in my forearm? I probably wouldn't be able to fight very effectively, or for very long before blood loss caught up with me. When this happens in sparring, we generally acknowledge this as a fight ender and start over.

[Guest]

I know you are saing this with humor, but before people start to assume that the European swordsman had a "cut him like a tree, so you count the rings and see how old he is" mindset, lets remember that swordsmen considered themselves as part of a nobelty, for the most part, that most were pious, that manuals deal with accepting the opponent's surrender. Fab showed us moves from the axe play for judicial duels in Burgundy, many are aimed at just winning the duel in accordance with the rules, without necessarily infilct killing wounds.
So, please do not turn European swordsmanship into a more bloody practice than it actually was, winning is enough, knights had rules they respected and cherished more than life itself, or so we think.
Carlo

[Jamie Fellrath]

Carlo, I think you make a good observation, to a certain point. Even in combat, there were rules (and still are). But those rules only applied, in many cases, to the nobility. The men-at-arms and conscripted peasant warriors got no such treatment.

I think it behooves us to think of this as a bloody business as we are trying to keep it real, so to speak. We're looking to re-create the style as it existed for everyone, not just the nobility.

[John_Clements]

Mike, excellent observation on the importance of emotional content in training!

So far, in thousands of years of human history, warriors have not managed to find a way to engage in personal self-defense or hand-to-hand combat without it.
The mindset crucial for delivering violent energetic actions can't be simulated by going soft and slow. For this reason alone, as much as for the psychical requirements, training must be conducted at realistic speed and force.

[Erich Wagner]

Wasn't it in "Axes, Swords, and Knives" (History Channel: Modern Marvels) that Ron Harris talked about opponents that are cut taking a long time to bleed out and the possibility of both combatants ending up dead? It seems that the same observation could be made regarding "lighter" sword wounds rather than powerful cuts. I've never been in a knife fight but I know that they can inflict devestating injury. Can anyone on this forum relate first hand experiences of knife inflicted wounds and the resulting outcome of the fight? While we don't see anyone fighting with swords in this day and age, knives are still very popular. We could gain some insight from these confrontations.