JerryLove

I do understand; and have put some time into kedo. I had presumed you ment the "not blocking" to be always better for all swords, to which I disagree. Off teh top of my head, I cannot easily thing of a situation where one would seek to slap-block with a Katana from Kendo training; so there I do not disagree.

How *didn't* it help? What qigong has done for my ability to exert and absorb force has been truely impressive for me; my health is better, my root is better, my sensitivity to intent is higher. Great stuff

That comment is both situational and variant based on tactic. There are times, styles, and situations where defelcting (blocking) is neccessairy or warranted. That certainly was teh intent. In while I doubt you will find many with the 2-3 angstrom edge found on a modern razor; it's an accurate generalization fo the weapon. The Spanish bade some excellent metal, particularly the Sarisens (Spanish Arabs). The Vikings also stand out for their skill and knowledge at sword making. Several such groups were mentioned by another poster. I'd fist repeat his suggetion you look at the Historical Armed Combat Association (https://www.thehaca.com). I can't completely agree. While there are similar ideas to deal with; I think these similarities are weapon-to-weaponless as well. I'd assert that teh transition from (say) claymore to epee is at least as signifigant as the transition from unarmed to (say) katana. I tend toward the scalpel and the cleaver personally; at last among unpowered blades.

I'm gonna guess that by "karate" you mean "a Katana"? Well, your first problem is that you've just declared a Katana better than all other long-bladed swords... A claim I certainly challenge you to support. I'd gladly put a good Wootz or bar-rod sword up against a katana in whatever test for 'construction quality" you like... Similarly, the sabre showed itself a more reliable weapon because of its ability to bend. They were usually pointy... but yes, the fighting blades of the armored infantry were not cuting weapons. Cutting is negated by chain or plate armor. This is not a true statement. You had two basic strategies for penitrating armor (and I presume you are referring to the havy armors like clatter-plate). Half-sword fighting (and indeed, the rise of some of the small lithe swords) was intended to "slip through cracks" (such as the holes in the visor) and puncture the underlying armor (if any). The other option was simpy o bludgeon with the sword; attempting to inflict damage through the plate with hammer-like blows. The reality remains that the armored knight was a tank on the battlefield; nerely impossable to kill, shy of piling on top of him, because armor worked... at least until crossbows and composite bows; the Mongols had very effective counter-strategies to knights. I have to question what "better" is. Please refrain from referencing entertainment for establishing historical claims. Regardles of size, a katana (or its larger cousins like the no-dachi) were draw-cut weapons and, as such, not functional for penitrating armor. The short version... you take a piece of iron and beat it till the carbon comes out. This gives you a flexable but soft piece of metal. You pount it into a plate and put a blate of high carbon iron on top of it (sturdy but brittle). You heat-weld them together then fold your sheet in half like a piece of paper. Pound it flat and fold it again... and again... until you are done. Japanese swords were brittle compared to their western counterparts. Actually, the infantries of the various feudall lords relied more on pole-arms. I'm sure you can point me at a museam displaying some of these "bigger but faster" swords? Swords "as tall as they were" fall into the "great weapons" category. No one carried a great weapon except when marching off to battle (a good example is the scottish claymore). Great-sword were primiarily intended to de-horse knigths; though the swiss mercenary army had a particualrly good tactic they commonly emplyed infolving armored soldiers with great-swords supported by infantry with polearms. This is simply an untrue statement. One cannot "cut" though plate at all (pnumatic knfie-press aside). You have obviously never even worked forging the materials involved Some parts did. More importantly, they had invented the blast furnace. All swords will chip if used that way. That's why you actually use what's referred to as a "slap-block" with a sword (a European heavy sword anyway)...

This is too vague to take with any credulity. It's much like the original question, very unspecific. What do you mean by "long or short sword"? Are we talking about a Mycenaean-style bronze-age sword? Or a Roman Gladius? Or a Viking bar-and-rod constructed weapon? An Renissance Rapier? What is a "long sword"? What steel (presumin gyou are looking at steel swords). Actually, in looking, "long-sword" appears to refer to the various medieval hand-and-a-half swords in use in the 13th and 14th century. While I can find nothing calles a "short sword" (though I can think of several short-bladed swords), the "small sword", or "court sword" is a small poking weapon similar to a rapier without the edge. Now, how does one define "better" here? As a generally resiliant blugeoning weapon, I'd rather a hand-and-a-hlaf sword than a katana (a brittle draw-cut weapon) when faving an armored knight. In an unarmored duel, I'm not quite as sure. And the Gracies agree with you. I've known many BJJ practitioners to say that it is more similar to Judo than JJ. It is not inconieveable that Helio (inventor of GJJ) made similar changes to the one's Kano made... thus making a similar art. Certainly, many of Kano's changes were to make the art practiceable without injury; and certainly GJJ's emphassis on Ranodi means that they had at least that similar goal.

There are actually a pletora of CMA with habits very bad for your health. One way of increacing your hitting ability was to break your knicles against a rock and then immoblize your hand while they healed, then break them again. Eventually your had was useless for anything but hitting things; but you ended up with basically a very strong club.

1. Yes Pagua is both crcular and fluid (It's best known for its circles). 2. Yes, there are. I'm only familiar with the large Pagua sword as a trad. weapon. I do however watching it with a knife. 3. No, I don't think there is an over emphasis. There is very little of what would be traditionally called "kicking" in Pagua. The feet are heavily used to disrupt and setup knees. I don't know Budo taijutsu, and so cannot render a valid opinion on the matter. I can tell you that Paguaa is probibly the most complex and difficult to master the the three big Neijia arts; as such, I would not generaly consider it as a second-study art until you were rather advanced as an artist in general.

Sounds about right except that I don't consider bushido * any more than any other religion; and I can think of other warriors I'd actually regard more highly (the Spartans for example).

I don't know what Gengis used; but since Pagua Chang seems to only be around 200 years old, we can assume that was not it.

Actually just kicking him in the nuts works without worryingabout grabbing much.

Yes, I know several people who have gone on training trips abroad... including to China.

My bad, the last of the Samurai disappeared in the 1880s. WWII just saw katana wearing conscripted followers of the emperor who were not Samurai class.

You are most welcome... I'm suprised there were not follow-up questions

1) Extremely. 2) Upright grappling strikes. 3) When taught/done right? Very close.

They certainly existed in 1940... that's "modern".

Better range, higher rate of fighter, more stopping power? It does take less training to make a marksman that can shoot other skilled people than it does a swordsman that can defeat other skilled swordsman in fair combat. I won't call one "easier" or "harder" as it will vary by situation, and as it's unimportant to the topic.

OTOH, if you want to break the board, you'd do better with the hammer alone than with the nail. The nail will menitrate, but the hammer will break the wood. Alternately, you could argue about how much more pointed the force is on your hand in a spear-hand than if you spread it over a greater area. So there is the issue of what you are trying to accomplish. If you are trying to put your hand throgh their torso, and you are going to use the same force regardless of what you hit with (spear hand or open palm for example), then the hammer/nail analogy applies directly. OTOH, if you are hitting their head, and you want to get their brain to rattle... you are more interested in getting their head to accellerate quickly. In this case, the open palm (for example) offers an easier strike which is safer on your hand and from which you can deliver more force... While less likely to put your hand through their skill (which won't happen either way), it's a better strike to get a knock-out from a head-hit.

I'd suppose that depends on situation but no, I did not say the required skills were the same; just that it required skill.

OK, Samurai focuses too much on pre-combat protocol and is killed from the trees by a ranged weapon. Spain owned the Phillipines as a colony, just as the Dutch owned Indonesia, and the French IndoChina, and the British parts of China and India. The Japanese in WWII used firearms. And to say that "any warrior can kill effectively with a gun" is about as useful as "any warrior can kill effectively with a sword". If you had said "1940", my money would have been on the Samurai who would have shot the Kali warrior with a superior ranges weapon (the rifle).

Your claim that bruises are impossable. After seeing the practitioners; the've uillustrated nothing worth training. After reviewing their published and incedental qigong suggeestions, they are unhealthy. Then you were incompitent (I'm nut suprised) at syntactical structure and should take a communications or compositions class before posting here again. Ohh, more ad-hominyms... try adding a debate or discussion course along with your course in composition. I look forward to seeing you again on a discussion board when you understand what a discussion is.

And my handgun has a better range than your Katana... I don't know what modern samurai carry, but modern Phillipino warriors generally have assault rifles. Again, the fallacy of the basic question is eqposed; "samurai are supermen" lunacy not-withstanding. Here's one for you. A few score boatloads of 1850s Portuguese against a nation full of Samuari of the same period. Or some boatloads of Spanish soldiers and an arcipeligo of Kali warriors? Here's a hint; both Asian countries lost.

Which era? Feudal japan? The post-feudal Imperial era? Under the Shogunate when Zen started creeping in? Japanese or Okinawan? Which Ryu? Same question to the Phillipino warrior. Which tribe? Which style? Pre or post colinization? What weapons? Under what field conditions? Starting at what range? Are they tring to live or just kill their opponent? Who'se bigger? Who'se trained for longer? Who'se faster? Anyone in an odd state (the Kali guy currently Amok?) Anyone in armor? Anyone tied off for the fight? Does anyone else ralize this is a stupid question as phrased?

Most of Spyderco's designs for the first several years were designed by a Silat Practitioner named Steve Gartin. The man is quite impressive using them as well

Yes, I would rather run away and live than stand and die... Functionaly, what ever scenerio I feel at the time is most likely to live with "and live" fo rme, is the one I would choose to persue.

p=mv So let's imagine a 1/10th pound bullet (very heavy) travelling at 1500 fps (very fast for a bullet) gives us 150 feet-pounds of momentum. A car weighting 1000 lbs traveling 10mph (about 14fps) give us 14,000 feet-pounds of momentium. So the car has around 100 times the momentium. Exactly You present a functionally impossable situation. If you are not pushing to accellerate, then you are not adding energy you could add... If you cannot push to accellerate, then you are decellerating your own punch. To ignore the theoretic physics and look solely at rpactical expereince.. hitting through a target inflicts more damage than not hitting through a target.