Main > The Courtyard

Hugh Knight on test-cutting

(1/3) > >>

Sir Edward:

Hugh Knight started a blog not too long ago, and he had some interesting points on test-cutting (in his opinion it's pretty worthless). I thought I'd share the link:

http://talhoffer.blogspot.com/2008/02/myth-of-test-cutting.html

I think he's neglecting the fact that it's just plain fun. :)

Thoughts?

Das Bill:
Well, Hugh's pretty opinionated... I agree with a lot of his opinions, and disagree with others. This particular post is no different. Many of Hugh's observations here are spot on. On the other hand, when he says that test cutting encourages bad habits, he is making an assumption. You of course know how much test cutting we actually use at VAF's program, which is to say, not much at all. But when we do actually test cut, we stress the importance of proper form, non-telegraphing, and correct follow through. This is the difference between *test* cutting and just cutting. The former is a test of one's own abilities to use proper form functionally, while the latter anyone can do.

I actually have an article for myArmoury that, unfortunately, I wrote well over a year ago and still isn't published. This is partially because Nathan's busy, but its also because there are two companion articles that two other people were supposed to finish, and they still haven't come through. Nonetheless, the basic gist was about how test cutting is about using martially correct technique to accomplish the goal. Even moreso, it is only one aspect of training, and used alone is fairly useless. Used in conjunction with multiple training methods (i.e. solo forms, partner drills, pressure drills, response drills, physical conditioning, etc.) it can become an important aspect, particularly since most modern people are very divorced from the knowledge of what it is actually like to cut something with a sword.

Further, Hugh brings up the idea that all cuts should end in langen ort. The thing is, that's not really supported by the texts. Why would alber be one of the four primary guards if you never cut to it? Why does nebenhut exist? And whether people like Meyer or not, Meyer explicitly has many attacks that start high and end low. (The counter argument to that last point is always that Meyer's longsword art was for sport and therefore not real, which to me is a load of dung, considering his dussack, halberd, dagger, and rapier sections were most certainly used for earnest fighting even if the longsword was declining by the Renaissance.) And if we look beyond Liechtenauer, EVERY two handed sword style that I've ever seen has both cuts that end point forward and cuts that end point down. Chinese, Korean and Japanese sword styles have these. The Italian masters, from the medieval Fiore to the Renaissance Bolognese masters, flat out say there are half cuts and there are full cuts. So that argument, in my opinion, is bunk.

So basically, I agree with Hugh's post in that I think people overdo it with the importance of test cutting, and I agree that many people misuse it. But I also completely disagree that it is a useless excercise. Guy Windsor put it well in his article on test cutting in Western Martial Arts Illustrated: "...cutting practice is vital for historical swordsmanship practitioners and can yield important feedback about the swords in question, or a given cutting style. There is a world of difference, though, between unscientific 'Let's have a go at cutting stuff' practice, and properly thought-out cutting research and training. And above all, cutters should remember that targets don't avoid, parry or hit back."

Sir Edward:

Yeah, that's generally what I was thinking, but I wanted to see what you thought. I don't want to take articles like that at face value since when it's presented in such a black and white manner, it eliminates any room for discussion of where value CAN be found in such an activity. It's a generalization that, unfortunately, may lead people who are new to this whole sword thing to think that it's a path they shouldn't even bother to investigate. It's important to understand how it differs from actual combat, but that's true of anything we do, whether sparring, drilling, or cutting.

He certainly writes well, and has a convincing and authoritative style. I just haven't had much exposure to his opinions yet.

Sir Edward:

Apparently the Albion Meyer is useless too:

http://talhoffer.blogspot.com/2008/03/practice-longswords.html

:)

Personally, I love mine. I love the A&A Fechterspiel too, but the Meyer is equally serviceable, and has a really nice feel. I don't care that they took some liberties in the design.

Now, if he were complaining that the Liechtenauer had edges too thin for his tastes, I wouldn't argue with that.

Das Bill:
*shrug* As a person who helped with quite a bit of feedback on the A&A fechterspiel, and owner of the original prototype, as well as pusher of A&A's products in general, I agree with Hugh's comments about it. But I also own an Albion Meyer, and I like it every bit as much. I agree with him that the Albion design isn't historically accurate... but the A&A one isn't entirely, either. While the A&A one is very much inspired by the originals in museums, they took liberties based on modern practitioner's feedback, including the fact that the blade is not peened, but has a nut holding it in place.

So again, while I don't totally disagree with Hugh, he tends to take an overly strong opinion that, for me, makes it hard to accept his stance.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page