Mink wrote:The key point is that this sort of stuff cannot really be approached by a symmetrical sparring scenario as can be done for sword vs. sword for example. If you take two equally trained individuals, give a dagger to one and tell them to fight, the guy with the dagger should win the vast majority of the time. That's why people pull daggers in the first placeIn order to have more even chances you need to have a major skill disparity or some sort of pressure on the dagger guy, to force him into the sort of commited attacks that are easier to defend against.
MEversbergII wrote:Related: I've been meaning to open a discussion on the degree of Bullshido and questionable advice present in our field of study, but that's a complex question and I'm no where near experienced or educated enough to make any assertions. I can't help but notice that tournament fights tend to look quite similar - and nothing like what the treaties tell us. Since it gets some results, we can't say it's just sloppy luck. Of course the equipment is a factor, but the system needs to be scrutinized as well. It would be unfortunate if our pioneering scholars were left holding the bag, relegated to the equivilent of Aikido status in the MMA world.
Monzambano wrote:I am shocked - SHOCKED - to learn that an event where my little innocent children participated was abused as an experiment! I hope that at least they did well.
I remember doing a dagger workshop with Alwin Goethals - he was asked whether in his profession as a policeman, he'd use the dagger defence techniques. HIs response was: First, he'd run away; second, he'd pull his gun; third, he'd use his stick; if he had no other choice, he'd use the techniques.
Christian Brandt, also a policeman, said something similar.
Having seen the various videos and reports, it's clear that knife/dagger is one of the most dangerous weapons. So I would not refer to the techniques as bullshido in the Ameridote/Master Ken sense, but clearly, you need to know very well what you're doing if you hope to apply them properly.
SteelCat wrote:One question on historical knife techniques.
Can we assume that at this time in history everyone is all the time wearing a dagger so if it came to a conflict both people involved had one?
SteelCat wrote:And is a knife/dagger fight inheritently more dangerous than for example a sword fight (assuming both are similarly armed)?
Michael Chidester wrote:Jay Vail has tracked down and compiled dozens of videos of actual knife attacks (from prison security cameras, cell phones in the street, etc.), and when you watch them back to back it becomes clear that A) untrained knife attackers attack in basically the same fashion regrdless of context and culture, and B) when people practice dagger techniques in HEMA they do not move or strike like "real" attackers do.
Monzambano wrote:
Incidentally, this is also an argument against the "first touch is a kill" class of tournament rules, mercifully rare nowadays.
MEversbergII wrote:Swords and staves are still first touch kill though, right?
M.
Michael Chidester wrote:There are still lots of ideas about whether the person who lands the second blow deserves points or not, but every tournament I've heard of for the past few years have included some mechanic to penalize a person who compromises their defense to land the first hit. That seems like a facet of HEMA tournaments that's here to stay.
Return to General Historical Martial Arts
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests