Talk:Singlestick

message: From what I understand, the foil is actually a sporting representation of the smallsword, not the rapier.  It is true, though, that the smallsword evolved from the rapier, so it probably isn't too incorrect to say it the other way.  Does anyeone have any documented history on this?  Also, "broadsword" is commonly used to refer to a very wide variety of sword types.  In this context it might be good to include that here, "broadsword" refers to a specific type of sword, the basket-hilted broadsword of the roughly 17th-19th centuries, most popular in Scotland.  And, to get really picky, the singlestick also corresponds to the very similar basket-hilted backsword, the single-edged version of the double-edged broadsword.
I have been told that wasters were used for teaching swordsmanship from the 14c. I have no sources, but I'm sure they didn't 'appear in the 16c'.
The notion that the English thought hitting below the waist unfair during any time period is a myth, most likely perpetuated by Sabre fencers, who do not hit below the waist. George Silver (16th & 17th Centuries) frequently cites the leg as a valid target area, as does Joseph Swetnam (17th Century), and Zachary Wylde (18th Century). Three different masters spanning three centuries, all of them striking the leg. The line "The old idea, prevalent in 16th century England, that hits below the girdle were unfair, disappeared in the 18th century, and all parts of the person were attacked" should probably be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.229.170 (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Silver himself mentions the old rule about not hitting below the waist, and it is mentioned in other old sources too. We don't know how widely the rule was used, and obviously it wouldn't apply in serious duels, but it was quite possibly the norm in sporting matches. Megalophias (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Sherlock Holmes was "an expert singlestick player, boxer and swordsman" (Ref: A Study in Scarlet by Doyle)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.129.101 (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sherlock Holmes 

message: Proposition: The photo of U.S. sailors ought be replaced. It is demonstrably incorrect, even if it is faithful to its source 1899 book.  I suggest using any of the contemporary U.S. Navy photos in the links below, as none can be still under copyright.  
Observations:  All 18 men in the current photo are left handed, if the photo is a correct representation of the scene.  
Wikipedia source: Wikipedia’s article on “handedness” states “Studies suggest that approximately 10% of the world population is left-handed”   The article states that slightly more men than women are left-handed.  
Analysis: Let’s assume arguendo that 10% of American men in the U.S. Navy lower ranks circa 1898 were left handed.   The probability of a random group of 18 sailors being left handed is  1E-18 (“one to the negative 18th power; that’s 00000000000000001%, or one in one quintillion.  I know of no comparable odds in any aspect of any situation in the universe.  The odds of finding any one human of the 7,000,000,000 on Earth, and THEN guessing his birthday, are more than 40,000,000 times higher than the odds of those 18 men being left handed.  I have found NO other singlestick photo or engraving showing ANY left-handed participant.
Supporting Evidence:   I haven’t found the source 1899 book cited for the photo.  Perhaps it has right-handed sailors (end of inquiry).  Even if not, I have found no other photo of “singlestick” on the internet that shows any left-handed participants.  The links below contain three other U.S. Navy contemporary photos showing all-right-handed singlestickers.  
I am no copyright expert but it seems to me that all photos from the 1800s are no longer subject to copyright.
https://martialartsnewyork.org/2015/01/30/singlestick-and-kung-fu-the-u-s-navy-encounters-chinese-kicking-in-1895/
http://victorianfencingsociety.blogspot.com/2014/07/singlestick-part-2-saber-roosevelt-and.html
http://laststandonzombieisland24.rssing.com/chan-30329891/all_p10.html
Here is one from a U.S govt source, certainty usable
https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/our-collections/photography/numerical-list-of-images/nhhc-series/nh-series/NH-52000/NH-52182.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorker (talk • contribs) 05:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I've also uploaded three of the images you linked. Thanks for that. Opencooper (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Impossible" Photo 

message: Oxford dictionary states:
*A single-stick is:
**a. Fighting, fencing, or exercise with a stick provided with a guard or basket and requiring only one hand.
**b. A stick used for this.
**c. 'A wooden sword used on board ship for teaching the use of the cutlas’ ( Cent. Dict.).
*A  cudgel is
**a. A short thick stick used as a weapon; a club.
It goes on to state that "b. in plural. Short for: A contest with cudgels; = cudgel-play n." and it describes cudgel-play W
"The playing or wielding of cudgels; the art of combat with cudgels; a contest with cudgels."
It seems to me that cudgel is better described as a club (weapon) (as the OED states) than single-stick, because the weight of a cudgel is in the business end and not the hand end as it is in the single-stick (from the EB1911 article "SINGLE-STICK, a slender, round stick of ash about 34 in. long and thicker at one end than the other, used as a weapon of attack and defence, the thicker end being thrust through a cup-shaped hilt of basket-work to protect the hand".)
The word cudel was added back in 2006 with this edit which included EB1911 as a source. However the article in EB1911
*
which I have quoted above, does not state that a single-stick is a cudgel (quite the reverse literally). So I am removing the word  cudgel and redirecting cudgel to article club (weapon)
-- PBS (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A single-stick is not a cudule