Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 115

Thread: Butterfly Swords

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    New York, New York
    Posts
    161

    SiFu Duncan Leung's messageboard

    Hi Wilson,

    SiFu Duncan Leung had answered one or two questions about knives on his discussion board He is very straight forward and speaks honestly about sincere Wing Chun queries.

    Best wishes,
    /Marcus

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    75

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Posts
    135
    Here's another interesting article by Hendrik that touches on the historical significance of the knives in our system -

    Shanghai Connection
    Marty
    "The Evil Chu's"
    Watchful Dragon

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    75
    Wow, that is an awesome article!

    I heard or read somewhere that one version of the butterfly swords had blades that were only sharpened on one side so the blades fit together to form one edge (cross section like this: /||\. ) So they could be drawn and used as one sword and then seperated for emergency fantangle . Has anyone else heard of this?
    Last edited by Yaksha; 07-11-2005 at 02:56 PM.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    Posts
    135
    Yes, amazing how Hendrik can write coherent and concise thoughts when he wants to. Eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Yaksha
    Wow, that is an awesome article!

    I heard or read somewhere that one version of the butterfly swords had blades that were only sharpened on one side so the blades fit together to form one edge (cross section like this: /||\. ) So they could be drawn and used as one sword and then seperated for emergency fantangle . Has anyone else heard of this?
    Marty
    "The Evil Chu's"
    Watchful Dragon

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    New York, NY, USA
    Posts
    660
    Quote Originally Posted by Yaksha
    Wow, that is an awesome article!

    I heard or read somewhere that one version of the butterfly swords had blades that were only sharpened on one side so the blades fit together to form one edge (cross section like this: /||\. ) So they could be drawn and used as one sword and then seperated for emergency fantangle . Has anyone else heard of this?

    You are referring to a type of blade edge known as a single bevel. It's really good for mincing and whittling. A double bevel is better for chopping and slicing, and just about everything else except for preparing sushi.

    A matched set of knifes or swords sharpened with opposite single bevels can never be used as one with any greater effectiveness than a similarly matched set sharpened with double bevels. Regardless of the tang configuration and handle shape, tolerances will not allow for the degree of matching that you are suggesting would be required to have any real effect on usage.

    Additionally, to compromise so greatly on the handle shape in order to match the set to the degree in which you describe compromises the utility of the whole set. An asymmetrical handle is more unwieldy compared to more rounded ones in both grip and balance. A matched set of knives or swords wielded in the fashion you describe would require a much tighter and more restrictive grip to maintain proper integrity in usage as one or separately.

    Lastly, for a given gross motor purpose, it is the blade shape along the entire length and tip, and the blade's balance points which ultimately affect its effectiveness far beyond any effect the type and bevel angle and/or its relative sharpness could have on usage.


    A lot of folklore surrounds knives and swords throughout history and across cultures that, when viewed within the context of the quality of metallurgy and the quality of craftsmanship available at the time - along with a basic understanding of the mechanics of the intended usage of the blades - just doesn't make logical sense.
    Last edited by Tom Kagan; 07-12-2005 at 08:34 AM.
    When you control the hands and feet, there are no secrets.
    http://www.Moyyat.com

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Kagan
    A lot of folklore surrounds knives and swords throughout history and across cultures that, when viewed within the context of the quality of metallurgy and the quality of craftsmanship available at the time - along with a basic understanding of the mechanics of the intended usage of the blades - just doesn't make logical sense.
    So, now that you've got me interested, what was the quality of metalurgy and craftsmanship available at the time?

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    21
    well,

    the quality of Metallurgy and Craftsmanship are two different subjects.

    first, Metallurgy - was in its hay-day back then. however the metal used for swords, knives, etc. was heated and folded Over and over. while this did lend to the strength of a folded blade - primarily it was done so that the Impurities in the metals (back then) (nowadays we have higher grade 'manufactured' metals to work with.) could be worked out, allowing the metal to be forged into a stronger billet or piece to work into its final shape.

    craftsmanship is part of aesthetic/visual appeal And functionality. typically, if a combat weapon, the sword was not typically crafted for visual apeal or looks - but for application. if it was an ornamental, ceremonial, etc weapon - then it would be crafted with more care given to its visual appeal.

    i beilieve that what was produced back then was ideal for the tools and technology which they had to work with.

    SIDENOTE: although the skills, knowledge and methods of these bladesmiths was superb, alot of these weapon making qualities were lost through time. due to lack of documentation, Government and teaching.

    Hope this Helps.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Kansas City
    Posts
    1,386
    tom-

    thats funny you mention that, well its not funny its a good observation. to my knowledge the double butterfly knives come from butchers. They were designed and used similiar motions that a butcher would use to chop up animals (pork, fish, etc). Also, from my knowledge the butterfly knives were not added until the last 150yrs or so of wing chun. So, from my understanding they were added to the system long after the open hand part of the system was developed.
    http://www.wingchunusa.com

    Sao gerk seung siu, mo jit jiu - Hands and feet defend accordingly, there are no secret or unstoppable maneuvers.
    -Yip Man

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    New York, NY, USA
    Posts
    660
    Quote Originally Posted by CoonAss
    well,

    the quality of Metallurgy and Craftsmanship are two different subjects.

    first, Metallurgy - was in its hay-day back then. however the metal used for swords, knives, etc. was heated and folded Over and over. while this did lend to the strength of a folded blade - primarily it was done so that the Impurities in the metals (back then) (nowadays we have higher grade 'manufactured' metals to work with.) could be worked out, allowing the metal to be forged into a stronger billet or piece to work into its final shape.

    craftsmanship is part of aesthetic/visual appeal And functionality. typically, if a combat weapon, the sword was not typically crafted for visual apeal or looks - but for application. if it was an ornamental, ceremonial, etc weapon - then it would be crafted with more care given to its visual appeal.

    i beilieve that what was produced back then was ideal for the tools and technology which they had to work with.

    SIDENOTE: although the skills, knowledge and methods of these bladesmiths was superb, alot of these weapon making qualities were lost through time. due to lack of documentation, Government and teaching.

    Hope this Helps.

    LOL

    See what I mean? A few tangental truths mixed in with a good story makes for compelling folklore. Deconstructing your post properly would require about 2500 more words than I care to to type right now.




    Suppose, for a moment, that I suggested that Ving Tsun BaatChamDo was originally only sharpened on the topmost 3rd of the edge, and that the reason a BaatChamDo was not originally sharpened all the way down the the edge was because the relative poor quality of craftmanship and available ore in the rural inland areas of Southern China, thus preventing a decent quality edge which did not weaken the blade where one would have to sharpen against the grain of the alloy. Additionally, suppose I suggested it was not until more frequent migration occured to the more urban areas along the coastline with ongoing import/export trade that exposure to better quality ore and more skilled blacksmithing craftsmen allowed the last 2/3 of the edge to be sharpened without usability compromise.


    If someone was so inclined, they could go out and and prove or disprove my above postulate. Why? Because, if something is true or not (or in this case, correct or not), considerable evidence will be found in many places - most beyond the martial art field.

    Historians could provide information on population migrations. Government archives could provide figures on ore mining production and quality. Archeologists could provide examples of not just BaatChamDo, but other implements such as the butcher knifes Gangsterfist mentioned or a farm sickle. Scientists could run tests on the implements and local ore. The military could provide recorded information on usage incidents (The U.S. DoD alone has more than 200 years of deconstructed battlefield incidents involving both specifics and generalities of sword and knife usage.) Blacksmiths could provide information about the creative process and the pitfalls found in creating a small hand tool.


    Now, suppose for a moment that I suggested instead that the reason for sharpening only the top 1/3 of the edge was because sharpening the bottom 2/3 of the edge was considered making the weapon "too deadly" and contradictory to the principles and morals of the "monk" carrying the weapon. [NOTE: A skeptic might point out right here that the weapon was already very deadly solely due to the nature of its shape and ask why carry it at all if just this one aspect made it contradictory for a "monk" to carry? - but this avenue is another subject entirely.]

    How do you prove or disprove this postulate? You can't. There is no evidence, one way or the other.

    The best someone could do is become a scholar of the culture and/or a buddhist monk and dig into the religious texts. Even then, they could only make (presumably reasonable) inferences.


    But hey, what set of data could compete with the "wow" factor of an "ancient warrior code" where the lone "monk" wanders the countryside armed with a concealable deadly weapon? A code where they still have such compassion for the person trying to sneak up and slit the monk's throat while he sleeps just for a pair of slippers? Such selflessness that he'd modify his weapon so it lost only about 35% of its effectiveness in killing? A code where slashing with the first 1/3 is more honorable than a slash from the last 2/3? A man of peace who clandestinely belongs to a secret society trying to, against all odds, overthrow the tyranical government hellbent on erasing every reference to the memory of the utopia from better times?


    I couldn't pack the kiddies into the matinee with a powerpoint presentation detailing coastal import/export activity of the era. I'd be too bored to tears just by collating the first thirty spreadsheets. But the peasants still remained peasants, even if most everyone ignores it.
    Last edited by Tom Kagan; 07-18-2005 at 12:08 AM.
    When you control the hands and feet, there are no secrets.
    http://www.Moyyat.com

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Rockville, MD
    Posts
    2,662
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Kagan
    LOL


    Suppose, for a moment, that I suggested that Ving Tsun BaatChamDo was originally only sharpened on the topmost 3rd of the edge, and that the reason a BaatChamDo was not originally sharpened all the way down the the edge was because the relative poor quality of craftmanship and available ore in the rural inland areas of Southern China, thus preventing a decent quality edge which did not weaken the blade where one would have to sharpen against the grain of the alloy.


    Now, suppose for a moment that I suggested instead that the reason for sharpening only the top 1/3 of the edge was because sharpening the bottom 2/3 of the edge was considered making the weapon "too deadly" and contradictory to the principles and morals of the "monk" carrying the weapon.
    Hi Tom!

    Good post and good points. How about a third theory to muddy the waters even more? The lower 2/3 of the blade was needed for defense against bigger heavier weapons. The knife form has lots of "chopping" against the shaft of the pole. A sharpened edge can be a relatively fragile thing and hard to maintain when consistently knocked against other hard surfaces (ie other weapons), regardless of the quality of the metallurgy involved. So why sharpen something that won't stay sharp? Additionally, by keeping the lower 2/3 unsharpened, blade thickness is maintained at the edge so it will stand up to blocking forces better. Another point.....a sharpened edge would "catch" or "lodge" in the wooden shaft of the opponent's weapon and potentially disarm the knife man or at least stop the flow of his response. And besides, how often can you bring the lower parts of the blade (especially near the handle) into play offensively? The majority of the offense work is just naturally performed by the distal 1/3 of the blade.

    Keith

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    New York, NY, USA
    Posts
    660
    Quote Originally Posted by KPM
    Hi Tom!

    Good post and good points. How about a third theory to muddy the waters even more? The lower 2/3 of the blade was needed for defense against bigger heavier weapons. The knife form has lots of "chopping" against the shaft of the pole. A sharpened edge can be a relatively fragile thing and hard to maintain when consistently knocked against other hard surfaces (ie other weapons), regardless of the quality of the metallurgy involved. So why sharpen something that won't stay sharp? Additionally, by keeping the lower 2/3 unsharpened, blade thickness is maintained at the edge so it will stand up to blocking forces better. Another point.....a sharpened edge would "catch" or "lodge" in the wooden shaft of the opponent's weapon and potentially disarm the knife man or at least stop the flow of his response. And besides, how often can you bring the lower parts of the blade (especially near the handle) into play offensively? The majority of the offense work is just naturally performed by the distal 1/3 of the blade.

    Keith

    Very good points, too, Keith.

    And, if we weren't speculating on mere conjecture, I might, hypothetically, agree with such suppositions.

    Do you see how these things get started? I offer up a half-@ssed rumor (the 1/3 part to 2/3 part of a blade edge's belly to choil ratio), as The Truth (tm) with no evidence or supporting references (thus, yet to be proven sufficiently), and already we have a third "reason" why someone would make a few swords or knives that way to improve battlefield odds in "ancient times."


    Now, don't get me wrong: I am of the opinion that there is sufficient basis and evidence to support your postulate - enough to make it a bona fide working theory. However, again there would be evidence found to add greater support to the idea that a choil of 2/3 of the length of the blade was necessary for "blocking". Since there are so many examples of knifes and swords from China, Europe, and other areas which were not made this way, I would have to remain a skeptic and suggest that reasons for making a blade this way leaned more toward the quality of blacksmithing and available ore rather than any improvements in combat effectiveness. Additionally, although the problem of getting a blade "hung up" is a very real one, I'll suggest the opposite by stating that any blade sufficiently sharp to "cut in" will "cut out" - if the practitioner knows enough not to loosen their grip to the point where they accidentally let go. Weapon retention is a one credit Blades 101 prerequisite.

    I'm also going to point out that carrying such a sizable weapon has to have multiple purposes - some not originally intended. If a person is going to make what was a considerable investment in a tool, they would probably be inclined to want the greater utility that sharpening more of the edge would bring, if at all possible. Taking along additional blades for chopping wood, cutting food, etc. etc. becomes somewhat unmanageable after a point for the lone monk seeking satori by following a path of vengeance for the killing of his brothers.
    When you control the hands and feet, there are no secrets.
    http://www.Moyyat.com

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    75
    I heard from at least two seperate scources that the origional butterfly swords were not sharpened at all and were mass produced by casting out of relatively cheap metal rather than hand forging. The whole design was meant to be inexpensive as possible/practical at that time. One of my scources then goes on to say that later, the tips were sharpened by the wing chunners for stabbing, and much later, the entire blades were sharpened and/or custom made.

    Does anyone know of any historical examples of butterfly swords still in existance? Say, in photographs or museums?
    Last edited by Yaksha; 07-18-2005 at 02:45 PM.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    21
    Tom,

    dont know why you would say that about my post. i was replying to a question about the metallurgy and craftsmanship. granted, i'm NO expert - but i have done Sh!tLoads of research, reading and speaking with various people on the subject.

    in fact, i am a bladesmith (knifemaker - not like it matters).

    i would agree that my post wasnt very clear or concise, including references. but i was just shooting out some points to answer a question - while i could ( at work).

    Steve

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Behind you!
    Posts
    6,163
    OK, I confess I know absolutely nothing about the development of the Baat Jaam Do, but LMAO at the idea that monks would need easily concealable knives more than say, rebels, outlaws, thugs, performers etc...!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •