Butterfly Swords

[LFJ]

European and American history up through the 19th century is replete with verifiable records of such real tests against non-compliant partners, i.e. warfare and dueling.

Verifiable records of 19th century sword fighting, like written descriptions of what someone did? Okay... Any video of people replicating it today, at speed against noncompliant partners?

However in as much as such testing of the real, sharpened weapon at spead against a "non-compliant partner" will typically result in the maiming or death of one or both participants, it would be illegal ...and pretty insane to try today.

Which is why I find this whole debate moot and a bit childish as well. In an era when (at least where I live) almost anybody can carry guns legally, but carrying Bart Cham Dao will get you arrested, who in their right mind trains these weapons with the intention of actually using them (As compared to training to improve your technique, structure and footwork, etc.)?

You think the only way to realistically test the functionality of the knife-fighting method would be to use live blades and actually chop each other up? So you probably think this "crazy free style wing chun knife sparring" is as realistic as you can get with the knives.

As I train it, the knives can represent any short weapon of opportunity, bladed or non-bladed, that may be available. So, no, I don't do any quillion trapping nonsense, because I won't likely be using the baat-jam-do and don't train to be a reenactor. I train it to be as realistic as empty-hand self-defense though; simple, direct, and efficient, and I highly doubt quillion trapping practicality. To me, it is the equivalent of hand-chasing, or "sticking" which is equally nonsense.

Unless of course, someone can demonstrate it at speed against noncompliant partners...

[Graham H]

Discussion about the quillion aside for the moment, I'd like to ask Kev and Graham a question about their training knives.

Graham, if I'm viewing the picture correctly your knives have the handle in line with the back of the blade while Kev, your handles are in line with the centre of the blade - could I ask the reason for the difference please as in my experience this changes the nature of wielding the weapon quite a bit?

Dave

Changes the nature of wielding the weapon??? I suppose it depends on how you wield it but the position of the handle makes no difference unless it not there at all . The knives go where you put them. Wouldn't you agree? Kev has informed me that the central handle is so that you can parry using both sides of the handle. I wasn't aware of that and it hasn't posed a problem to me yet where the handle is on mine.

[Ozzy Dave]

Changes the nature of wielding the weapon??? I suppose it depends on how you wield it but the position of the handle makes no difference unless it not there at all . The knives go where you put them. Wouldn't you agree? Kev has informed me that the central handle is so that you can parry using both sides of the handle. I wasn't aware of that and it hasn't posed a problem to me yet where the handle is on mine.

Yes I agree, and its not a problem more a question of emphasis, again in my experience, the handle behind the centre of the blade facilitates thrusting actions better and would naturally offer more protection to the thumb side of the hand while handle inline with the back or spine of the blade in this case would make better use of the weight of the blade for chopping actions.

I can see benefits to both orientations and just wanted your comments / ideas on the matter, interesting info from Kev, thanks.

Dave

[GeneChing]

I suppose all of those historical examples of actual weapons with 'sword catching' hooks were designed just for those compliant attackers.

Seriously, just google parrying daggers. You'll find main gauches with 'sword breakers' which is a bit of a misnomer as they were these side slots along the blade to trap. It's actually pretty difficult to break a piece of tempered steel with one of these. Also, you really wouldn't want to do that in a duel as steel breaks sharp so if you broke your opponent's blade, it would leave them with a short sharp in range of a quick stab. You'll find trident daggers, which were these three-pronged spring-loaded devices.

But on a basic note, anyone who has done any sword work (and I specify sword work because baton work isn't quite the same) knows that it's pretty common to lock up guard to guard. That usually stops the action in a sword fight, like a clinch in boxing or MMA. If you have two weapons, the second one is free to work while the locked up weapon is, well, locked up (but rendering the opponent's weapon into the same state). If your locking weapon has some sort of trapping capability, like a parrying hook, all the better to trap with.

[Vajramusti]

I suppose all of those historical examples of actual weapons with 'sword catching' hooks were designed just for those compliant attackers.

Seriously, just google parrying daggers. You'll find main gauches with 'sword breakers' which is a bit of a misnomer as they were these side slots along the blade to trap. It's actually pretty difficult to break a piece of tempered steel with one of these. Also, you really wouldn't want to do that in a duel as steel breaks sharp so if you broke your opponent's blade, it would leave them with a short sharp in range of a quick stab. You'll find trident daggers, which were these three-pronged spring-loaded devices.

But on a basic note, anyone who has done any sword work (and I specify sword work because baton work isn't quite the same) knows that it's pretty common to lock up guard to guard. That usually stops the action in a sword fight, like a clinch in boxing or MMA. If you have two weapons, the second one is free to work while the locked up weapon is, well, locked up (but rendering the opponent's weapon into the same state). If your locking weapon has some sort of trapping capability, like a parrying hook, all the better to trap with.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Good points Gene. Besides- these days the bot jam do-s help with continued hand development rather than sword fighting.

[LFJ]

I suppose all of those historical examples of actual weapons with 'sword catching' hooks were designed just for those compliant attackers.

Examples of sword designs and descriptions of historical applications don't demonstrate the practicality of "sword catching" and whether anyone can actually do it under realistic conditions. Especially with the modern fantasy fighters and reenactors who don't train realistically in the first place, or those who train BJD just to improve their empty-hand fighting.

And especially in the topic of BJD where people talk not just about having a guard that serves a parrying advantage should a weapon slide down, but where purposefully catching, trapping and manipulating the opponent's weapon with that little hook is a main part of their method and something they actively look to do.

I say trying to catch and control a swinging katana at speed with your little hooks like this is a quick way to lose your hand and your head. But again, if someone can provide demonstration...

[BPWT.]

Examples of sword designs and descriptions of historical applications don't demonstrate the practicality of "sword catching" and whether anyone can actually do it under realistic conditions.

For sure, a picture or an actual - and old - sword/knife/dagger doesn't demonstrate practicality in and of itself (it's just a picture or an old object). But the question is why would weapons be designed in a certain way and then used on the battlefield, and after continued use still be produced and later used again, if they don't work?

Why would the BJD have these 'hooks' if they serve no practical purpose under realistic conditions? Were the knives not developed for practical use?

Or is there evidence to suggest that the design of the knives was based on aesthetics - purely as ornaments?

[LFJ]

That's what we're getting down to. We can assume swords were historically used in a particular way based on their design and whatnot, but it does us no good to think so, and we could even be wrong. What matters is what one can actually do with it now in a realistic manner.

As you can see in pictures in this thread, not all BJD designs have large or fancy quillons. The WSL design reflects the practicality and basic principles of the entire system; to be simple, direct, and efficient. There is no sword-chasing or hooking just as there is no hand-chasing or sticking.

[LFJ]

Plus, I must reiterate that not everyone is like Vajramusti and doesn't train the BJD to be practical weapons:

Good points Gene. Besides- these days the bot jam do-s help with continued hand development rather than sword fighting.

Of course, we are very unlikely to enter a duel with BJD, but that is just another reason for our design not having a particular tool like the quillon used as a main part of our knife-fighting method. The simple design of the WSL BJD and its use transfer very well to any short weapon of opportunity, bladed or non-bladed, which we are more likely to use in a real fight. Working on trapping skills with the quillon is a waste of time unless you are a fantasy fighter or just having fun.

[BPWT.]

Of course, we are very unlikely to enter a duel with BJD, but that is just another reason for our design not having a particular tool like the quillon used as a main part of our knife-fighting method. The simple design of the WSL BJD and its use transfer very well to any short weapon of opportunity, bladed or non-bladed, which we are more likely to use in a real fight.

Okay, thanks - that gives me a better picture of why you do what you do (or rather, why you would modify the design of the knives).

Still.... ... I think the fact that the knives were designed with these hooks is an indication that they could/were used in application. If they served no practical purpose, I can't see why they would have remained.

All moot for me, of course, as I haven't learned the BJD yet.

[LFJ]

Still.... ... I think the fact that the knives were designed with these hooks is an indication that they could/were used in application. If they served no practical purpose, I can't see why they would have remained.

I could image them being there for added protection of the hand should another weapon slide down the back, and then later misinterpreted by modern people who only train at slow speed with compliant partners. You can think up all sorts of nifty uses for them that work... under those circumstances.

But then again, if they really were used like in the picture I posted, I'd love to see someone demonstrate the skill at speed against non-compliant partners. I have strong doubt about its practicality as it stands now, regardless of whatever historical artifacts and descriptions you may pull up.

[Graham H]

I think what is important here is how our knives can improve our own Ving Tsun as a whole. When trained correctly they have a very positive effect on all other parts of the system. Small quillions/Large quillions, offset handles, what does it matter? As long as they are functional for purpose and can be used by the practitioner effectively its no problem. The strategy of the knives is important. There are many systems where the weapons are seen as a traditional addition and some people advocate the idea that they were thrown into the mix sometime later. An incorrect idea IMO because both the knives and the pole are too involved everywhere else to not be part of the evolution of VT in its beginnings. Maybe there were other weapons that faded out. When people talk about weapons they usually talk about the forms or some rehearsed applications against each other. I am fortunate that in my lineage they have a lot more importance and are sparred with as well as the open hands. As with most things in Ving Tsun common sense should prevail but unfortunately in a lot of Ving Tsun common sense is in short supply. Its the fantasy vs Reality question like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=j55d8uqvKDQ

[GeneChing]

I say trying to catch and control a swinging katana at speed with your little hooks like this is a quick way to lose your hand and your head.

Your visualization of this might be wrong. You don't really catch the sword with the hook. You parry the blow with the spine of the weapon. Generally, when blades meet, they tend to travel towards the guard. When that happens, is when the trap is applied. I've done it with hook swords, although I suppose you could argue that the opponent was compliant as we weren't really cutting each other up. Granted, it would be much more difficult with a short blade like a butt sword or a jitte, but it's not impossible.

[k gledhill]

Your visualization of this might be wrong. You don't really catch the sword with the hook. You parry the blow with the spine of the weapon. Generally, when blades meet, they tend to travel towards the guard. When that happens, is when the trap is applied. I've done it with hook swords, although I suppose you could argue that the opponent was compliant as we weren't really cutting each other up. Granted, it would be much more difficult with a short blade like a butt sword or a jitte, but it's not impossible.

" parry with the spine " ?

[GeneChing]

Some blade enthusiasts describe weapon architecture using terms that used to describe anatomy. So the pommel end is called the 'butt' and the point is called the 'head'. The dull edge of a single-edged weapon is called the 'spine'. It's useful when describing attributes of a distinctive blade because you can deploy terms like 'ventral' and 'dorsal'.