Jian useage

[r.(shaolin)]

Re: Adam Hsu's article, " A Straight Talk About Straight Sword" in the Jan/Feb 2005 issue of Kungfu Tai Chi.

Mr. Hsu makes some very good points in this article about swords. In particular he highlights the problems with modern wushu swords. There is one criticism however that he makes which I disagree with. He claims that the cross piece used in many swords coming out of the mainland are incorrect.

Historically speaking both directions were used in combat jian - wide facing the blade and wide facing the hand. Examples of Ming Dynasty swords with the wide part facing the blade can be seen in the very same magazine on pages 22, 23. This type of cross piece can also be found in the authoritative Song Dynasty military encyclopedia Wu Jing Zong Yao. Further, this can be collaborated by looking at the Buddha Scroll. This precious scroll of Buddhist art is an eighteenth century reproduction of a twelfth-century work. In it you will find detailed drawings of many northern Chinese military weapons - including the jian. Again the sword cross pieces, like those in Wu Jing Zong Yao, have the wide section facing the blade. If there is interest in seeing these I'll post them.

The jian we use, has the cross piece positioned this way as well. The development of this type of cross piece was not arbitrary. In understanding its usage the reasons becomes quite clear.

My point of course is not that the other style was not used or useful but that both were used in combat jian.

On another note, Paul Chen's company, Hanwei makes beautiful swords. My only complaint with their other wise great weapons is that the range of blades tend to be too short and the handles a bit too round. From the sounds of it Adam Hsu's sword should have the handle corrected, hopefully he'll have a greater choice of blade lengths.

[GeneChing]

You should write a letter to the editor. I think you have some excellent points and we'd probably publish it in our next issue. You can even email it - gene@kungfumagazine.com

[ngokfei]

That's cool knowledge. A rebuttle in KFM?;)

Just jabbing you gene.

haven't picked up that issue yet, but from what I hear its going to sell out very quickly due to its heavy does of info and the like.

So I best get a moving.

r.shaolin

Are these documents you site available in the main stream.
besides historical info do they discuss usage and theory?

[GeneChing]

In fact, you'll find a good one in our Jan Feb 2005 issue (http://www.martialartsmart.net/kf2001226.html) in the letters section, rebutting our cover story in the previous issue (http://www.martialartsmart.net/kf2001225.html). Our letters have declined in general, mostly due to this forum, I think. But feel free to send me letters. We'll even accept emails. Our only stipulation is that we won't publish something that has been posted here since that's a bit redundant.

[r.(shaolin)]

ngokfei wrote:
Are these documents you site available in the main stream.
besides historical info do they discuss usage and theory?

Hi ngokfei,
I wouldn't say main stream, but these documents are not
rare. Wu Jing Zong Yao lists weapons, illustrates weapons and describes the various weaons in use. Most of the subjects concern military methods, i.e. ways of storming cities, attack with water, naval battles, attacking with fire, defending cities and drawing of weapons etc.

The scroll is mainly made up of 600 portraits of buddhas, bodhisattvas, historical figures and symbols from the Chan, Huayan Tiantai, Pure Land and Tantric schools of Buddhism during the Song and Qing periods.

r.

[richard sloan]

I just read that article.

I too found the cross piece info a little strange...as it is just as likely an easier rake across a hand guarded by a turned hilt that would allow the blade to just slide down the guard...since examples of both kinds of hilts exist in the western history of swords I simply assumed Hsu was overstating and that there were probably both examples to be found...

I believe there is a somewhat anecdotal tale I recall in Bowie lore about a rude discovery of this nature of hilt shapes and where a blade can travel...attacking the opponent's hand is an important strategy and so is it's defense.

[GeneChing]

Swords are tools. With the exception of the bejewelled peices that the upper class bore, their designs are based on practicality. So it's a very tough argument to make - that historical swords are 'wrong' - especially in the modern day. What I've always found fascinating about Chinese sword guards is that they are relatively consistent. The same is true for Japanese swords, but I could envision that a little better, given Japanese culture. Chinese culture is all about diversity - you can see it in the vast array of weapons, but not so when you only look at sword guards.

If you take European swords, you can see a Darwinian evolution pattern across history. As the steel gets better, the swords get slimmer. They evolve from crude bronze clubs to very refined point weapons. The invention of the bell guard is very novel. You can see some of that development in Chinese guards, particularly in the south, with the cross bar on shorts swords like butterfly knives (http://store.martialartsmart.net/45mw3.html), but that could be written off to cross fertilization since it echoes the pattern of a naval boarding sword.

I'm curious what everyone thought about Master Hsu's applications techniques that he used to demonstrate his assertion.

[Banjos_dad]

So, is he trying to initiate a letter-writing campaign to the sword armories to change this communist-imposed flaw, or will he errr..."provide" the new weapons?

[SimonM]

Originally posted by r.(shaolin)
Re: Adam Hsu's article, " A Straight Talk About Straight Sword" in the Jan/Feb 2005 issue of Kungfu Tai Chi.

Historically speaking both directions were used in combat jian - wide facing the blade and wide facing the hand.

Although you are correct in this regard, I tend to agree with Adam Hsu regarding the practicality of the blade-facing cross piece compared to the hilt-facing cross piece. Only one thing I would personally add is that with a hilt facing cross piece it is important to get one where your knuckles have adequate defense. After all, a deflecting hilt-facing cross piece is not so good if it deflects the attack into your sword hand.

That is more a matter of sizing your sword to fit your body more than one of overall design though.

[GeneChing]

Well, that's the rub. Read the issue more carefully. Whether or not you support the guard argument, you'll note that we note that Adam Hsu is a consultant for one of the leading Chinese swordmakers now, Paul Chen. He's redesigned the sword hilt and it's going to hit the market next year, or so I'm told.

[David Jamieson]

I find adam hsu's writing to be pretty good and his knowledge to be in depth.

However, I also find that when Adam Hsu disagrees with something, he points at it and states "It is wrong".

Ultimately, this is his failing and he had to get over it. :p

Just because something doesn't fit your idea, doesn't make it wrong. especially when we are talking about minutia that has been argued and proven by boths sides to be correct.

ergo, not wrong but different. It would be nice if Hsu would say "I would do this because my experience says so, but there are other ways". Much more diplomatic and ultimately, correct approach.

[GeneChing]

YOU'RE WRONG!!!

Sorry, had to say it. I just couldn't resist....:p

[David Jamieson]

well maybe so, but I can't be right about everything, it gets tiring. :p

[GeneChing]

I never get tired of being right. :D

[SimonM]

If the Adam Hsu design is going to replace the current entry level Jian put out by Hanwei right now I might be more tempted to pick up a Hanwei Jian. I have found that their current offering is not to my liking. I don't like the absence of any sort of fuller/blade support and I really don't like their guard. Still, it may not be a wide enough guard for my gargantuan hands even using the design that Adam Hsu proposed. Still, worth a look.

[GeneChing]

The main difference between the old guard design and the new guard design is the direction of the cross piece. In our new Sword special (http://www.martialartsmart.net/kf2001226.html), Hsu has turned the quillons around so that they face blade-wards instead of hilt-wards. You'll see the new version on page 17, and throughout Hsu's submission starting at page 32. You'll see the old version on page 37. It also appears like the design is a little more streamline, but the overall look is the same. I doubt that would change the balance significantion, but it'll certainly change how you grip it. The old version lets you choke up on the guard, the new version does not.

Here's the most glaring hopological hole in Hsu's argument. It was common practice in sword to cross the guard with the finger to give a better grip. In Europe, this led to the development of the parrying hook, finger ring, pas d'ane, and eventually the ricasso and bell. Admittedly, that's European sword evolution, but I've seen some parallel examples in Chinese weapons, although rare. The real irony to me is that Hsu's design almost echos a classic finger ring/ricasso design, if he just opened out guard piercing a little more.

[r.(shaolin)]

Gene wrote:

"It was common practice in sword to cross the guard "

.....................
This practice developed during the European renaissance with swords that were designed for thrusting.

Placing or wrapping the index finger outside or around the cross piece of a sword or knife which cuts as well as thrusts, would be rather dangerous. I've seen pics of people doing this with Chinese jian, but this is a modern practice and was not done in TCM.

r.

[GeneChing]

...but like you say, it was done. A spur or prong can give your grip more purchase and thus, more control. It's not conventional with a simple guard because it exposes your finger, but that's where inventions like the finger ring come into play. You did see finger rings on western sabers, so although it is more of a thrust-over-cut tactic, I wouldn't say it was limited to such. And you can choke up on the guard without crossing over - in fact, you could make an argument that this is a reason for the design of some jian guards. Of course, like anything Chinese, you find plenty of exceptions. I'm just playing devil's advocate in this particular discussion.

[SimonM]

Originally posted by GeneChing
...but like you say, it was done. A spur or prong can give your grip more purchase and thus, more control. It's not conventional with a simple guard because it exposes your finger, but that's where inventions like the finger ring come into play. You did see finger rings on western sabers, so although it is more of a thrust-over-cut tactic, I wouldn't say it was limited to such. And you can choke up on the guard without crossing over - in fact, you could make an argument that this is a reason for the design of some jian guards. Of course, like anything Chinese, you find plenty of exceptions. I'm just playing devil's advocate in this particular discussion.

The practice jian that my sifu provides are a little more robust than those in the Hsu article. They also have a cross piece designed much as Adam Hsu suggests. However, they are wider and have a gently curved interior edge. As a result they provide good deflection and still allow you to choke up towards the blade. Sadly, they are all wushu steel. (On the subject of sure it's dangerous... but... I prefer to practice with live, combat steel. It keeps me mindful of my sword and encourages me to not make stupid mistakes.)

[r.(shaolin)]

SimonM

Where do you train and who is you teacher?


r.

[SimonM]

Northern Black Dragon Martial Arts
London, Ontario, Canada

My Sifu is Master Paul Chau

and you?

[r.(shaolin)]

I'm a student of Chai Meng Woo (Hu Jie Min) and study Honan Shaolin Lohan Men.

r.

[Ben Gash]

here's what I thought (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=34453)

[mickey]

Greetings,

Adam Hsu wrote an article about the sword guard in the latter part of the last century for Inside Kung Fu, stressing the same point. It did not bother me then and it does not bother me now.

I would dare say that Adam Hsu is a researcher; but, I would never say that he is a historian. I have never heard him refer to himself as a historian. I think that title came as a result of publishing good quality articles. I can write a series of articles for IKF on the secret arts of tied shoes laces from the Kun Lun mountains and how it pertains to Feiyues; in time, I too, would be regarded as a martial arts historian.

Humor aside, Adam Hsu is a practitioner of martial disciplines stemming, for the most part, from Hopei and Shantung provinces. Should that, in any way, be considered the entire pantheon of Chinese martial arts?

Adam Hsu's latest article serves only two functions. Firstly, it shows off his new toy. Secondly, it shows poor business sense on his part. There is more money to be made by offering swords of both guard positions for purchase.

mickey