The forms (as I already said once) do NOT reflect the metallurgical advances of the last 200 years. There has been no need. The wars of the last 200 years were fought with guns as the main weapon. Hence sword forms have not had to be adjusted to take into account differing metal. In addition, changes in metallurgy are not so paradigmatically different to require a shift in the way the sword is used. The Taiji Jian form that I practice now was probably almost exactly the same (in how it uses the blade) 200 years ago. Somewhere you developed this notion that only 1/3 of the blade was used historically in Jian. You have never said where but you have been grasping at straws to try to support your claim. Now you are just trying to create a shadow of a doubt within your opponent’s argument with this whole metallurgy tangent.
Tell me, where did you get this 1/3 notion? Did it just spring full grown from your head or did you get told it by somebody else?
I know that the traditional forms have not adjusted to the advances in metal technology. My question is how have you adjusted that issue given that the steel we have now is much stronger, hence you can do more with today’s sword compared to those in the past. You seem to either 1) not understand the issue at hand or 2) out for a troll.
Steel is not an issue in this regard. The forms operate as shown regardless of the medium used–metal, wood, plastic, or cardboard. The principles still apply. The practitioner must work around the radically different materials–wood will react quite differently than a cardboard tube–but the form remains the same.
It is an assumption that steel today is better. If you refer to L6 steel, that material is nothing new: it is old technology. But Bugei uses it in their line of Japanese swords. What they make, though, is a modern creation that does not reflect swords of the past. Swords that cut were meant to chip and become dull and require cleaning. They were not meant to cut blade on blade and remain undamaged. Traditional Chinese swords were made into strong steel cutters and thrusters. Their composition was the framework for Japanese swords, which did not change in production: they stuck with the Chinese method and dia a good job of making excellent weapons. Edges were hard with cores that were soft. They were meant to take damage.
To say “you can do more with today’s sword compared to those in the past” is also misleading. Even an L6 blade will operate the same way in terms of parrying or deflecting. The only thing is that the user will not see the damage on the balde’s edge when he or she incorrectly blocks or deflects another weapon.
The person using the weapon is most important. Even though King Arthur had Excalibur, he was not necessarily the best or brightest swordsman of his time. Thinking of weapons as superior in build or design develops a false sense of superiority, which opens someone up for defeat. When the wako attacked China’s coast, written documents describe their swords cutting through the Chinese weapons and those using them. However, General Qi Qiguang’s tactics defeated the “superior” wako weapons.
There is plenty of truth in the phrase “the pen is mightier than the sword.” The pen is a better weapon tactically but, in the skilled hand, physically as well. The weapon of choice or the quality does not matter: the skill behind the weapon does.
I agree wih almost all that you say. But I think history has shown that the quality of the weapon makes a difference. Evolution from stone, bronze to Iron age is telling of the impact of advances made. In sports, people not only train up their skill but research to find the best equipment.
But as a point in history, if your weapon is constantly being broken by your opponent is something to be worried about. For example if you have a broadsword facing off a jian, one of the strategies you could employ is to break your opponent’s jian.
Have you seen the end of the movie, Count of Montecristo?, when the young punk snapped the sword of a more experienced swords man to get the added advantage?
With the examples I provided–cardboard, plastic, wood, metal–the material does not have to be heavy or heavily weighted toward one end as with a stereotypical stone club. That was what I was going for. Something that simply limits how you move because of the sheer weight will play a role. Even still, the weight, in my opinion, is not a giveaway to defeat.
Breaking a jian may prove difficult as you describe because Chinese steel, when the sword-making process did not suffer significantly, was very strong. Even a dao cut may not be enough to do what you subscribe. If “bashing” is involved, well, yeah, then breaky break away.
I liked that movie, and that scene looked good to me. But it is only a movie, and whether or not that would actually happen is beyond the scope of reality. Anything can happen in a movie. Based on that kid’s cut, the sword ou hero was using must have really s-u-c-k-e-d. Count of Monte Cristo? Yeah, right–Count of Paper Sword is more like it.
Originally posted by Ego_Extrodinaire My question is how have you adjusted that issue given that the steel we have now is much stronger, hence you can do more with today’s sword compared to those in the past.
I’m sorry but I am afraid you have lost me. The first half of the sentence is framed as a (rather vague question). Just for fun, my answer to the question is: nothing! I have not “adjusted that issue given that the steel we have is now much stronger”.
But of course, there is the second part of your question which begins with “hence” - something which usually signifies an answer.
My entire point has (and continues to be) that metallurgical advances have NOT effected the practice of the Jian. This is not ignorance nor is it Troll baiting it is a simple truth.