From: jon@zeus.med.utah.edu (Jonathan Byrd)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Subject: Re: Which is most effective? Point/Edge weapons.
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:05:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: zeus.JON.92Apr9140547
Organization: Foo

In article <4900@igor.Rational.COM> jquarant@mipos3.intel.com (James Quarant) writes:
   +In article <1992Apr5.040743.23510@cs.brown.edu> tac@cs.brown.edu (Ted A. Camus) writes:
   +>
   +>   A good, but subtle example is Smith's description of the Chinese long
   +>   double-edged sword.  He writes to the effect that "the Chinese learned
   +>   (as later did the European fencers) that the point of the sword was more
   +>   effective in attacking and keeping the opponent at bay than the cutting
   +>   edge."
   +>
   +>   Oh really?  I guess a couple dozen generations of Samurai just couldn't
   +>   figure it out huh?  The reason that the Chinese and Europeans often (note
   +>   I say often) preferred straight swords is because they never developed
   +>   the cutting edge technology (no pun intended) that the Japanese smiths
   +>   did.  A katana or tachi can slash the wrist of a fencer in a sweeping
   +>   motion before the tip of a long sword would be able to reach the
   +>   kenjutsuka's body.
   +
   +Excuse me, but why does the fencer have to go after the body?  Epee
   +fencers can attack any part of the body (knees and hands are nice
   +targets to start with) and sabre fencers, although restricted to
   +above the waist, can also attack the hands (painful!).  I'm positive
   +the samurai used the tip every so often, but did they develop a whole
   +system based around it?  You might flip through "The English
   +Masters-of-Arms", a history of English broadsword and its competition
   +with the "unmanly" new fencing style used by the French and Spaniards.

   True.  In fact, at my old fencing club we pitted a sabre against an epee
   (using epee targets, ie. a touch *anywhere* scored).  The sabre and epee
   fencers were always arguing which was the most effective weapon--the
   point weapon or the edge weapon.  We found that the epee won 75% of the
   time.  Typically, as soon as the sabreist took his point off target to
   deliver a cut, the epeeist could simply thrust into the sabreist's
   attacking arm.  If the epee  thrust missed, then the sabreist often
   scored.  Even then, the epee blade was plenty strong enough to parry
   sabre cuts.

boy, i'm not sure if any of these arguments will hold water.  here's
why:

first, a comparison of european swordsmanship to japanese
swordsmanship is complicated by deep philosophical differences.  a
samurai was not trained to whittle away at his opponent.  to preserve
his honor, a samurai required a quick, decisive victory.  it is my
understanding that this desire for a decisive victory is the
fundamental reason behind the restrictions of the legal target areas
in kendo.  a solid strike to any of the legal target areas in kendo
would end the bout immediately.

second, the tip of the sword *is* absolutely crucial to kendo, not
only because of the thrusting tsuki attack, but also because, like
chess, control of the center is fundamental to one's kamae (posture).
again, this reflects a japanese philosophy: simple and
straightforward.

third, any comparison between fighters of different sword styles is
likely to reflect the individuals' skills more than the overall
effectiveness of the styles.

fourth, being poked in the arm is not nearly as devastating as having
one's arm completely severed.  a "point" in one style may not be
nearly as devastating as a "point" in another style.

fifth, if fencers of different styles trained together more often, the
styles would almost certainly evolve.  as it is, epee fencers train to
fight epee fencers, kendoists train against kendoists, etc.  after the
styles had evolved to some degree, who knows which style would be more
or less effective against another style?

--
jonathan byrd
jon@apollo.med.utah.edu