?? on blocking/parrying

[Blindside]

Ok, I’ve got a question for you FMA folks.

In the historical European swordsmanship circles there is an ongoing debate about how prevalent the use of edge on edge blocking was used versus edge on flat. In a nutshell the argument is that edge on edge blocking will create damage to the sword’s edge while a parry using the flat of the blade would minimize that damage. Because many of these arguments are drawn from interpretations of drawings and contradictory statements from different swordsman’s treatises it seems unlikely to have an easy resolution. After seeing, reading, and practicing some of blocking exercises I find myself believing that the flat of the blade was largely used. (It should be noted that much of these arguments are about the use of long/bastard/hand and a half swords.)

All of my (brief!) experience with escrima were focused on the stick, though my understanding is that is supposed to translate to an edged weapon. However, in many drills and counter exercises I find myself doing what is essentially edge-on-edge blocking. In some blocks it is easy to see how to do a flat of the edge parry, but not so in others.

For example if my opponent throws a #4 (horizontal backhand) slash, I can counter with an inward block but that would be edge on edge. Turning the use the flat of the blade exposes a very weak angle of the wrist. The only workable way I see using the flat here is to support the block with my off-hand or forearm.

So I guess my question is: How prevalent are the uses of the edge on edge blocks versus edge on flat? What is your preference and why?

Thanks for your time, I look forward to your responses.

Lamont

 

[Black Grass]

Originally posted by Blindside
Ok, I’ve got a question for you FMA folks.

In the historical European swordsmanship circles there is an ongoing debate about how prevalent the use of edge on edge blocking was used versus edge on flat. In a nutshell the argument is that edge on edge blocking will create damage to the sword’s edge while a parry using the flat of the blade would minimize that damage. Because many of these arguments are drawn from interpretations of drawings and contradictory statements from different swordsman’s treatises it seems unlikely to have an easy resolution. After seeing, reading, and practicing some of blocking exercises I find myself believing that the flat of the blade was largely used. (It should be noted that much of these arguments are about the use of long/bastard/hand and a half swords.)

All of my (brief!) experience with escrima were focused on the stick, though my understanding is that is supposed to translate to an edged weapon. However, in many drills and counter exercises I find myself doing what is essentially edge-on-edge blocking. In some blocks it is easy to see how to do a flat of the edge parry, but not so in others.

For example if my opponent throws a #4 (horizontal backhand) slash, I can counter with an inward block but that would be edge on edge. Turning the use the flat of the blade exposes a very weak angle of the wrist. The only workable way I see using the flat here is to support the block with my off-hand or forearm.

So I guess my question is: How prevalent are the uses of the edge on edge blocks versus edge on flat? What is your preference and why?

Thanks for your time, I look forward to your responses.

Lamont

Most FMA styles have become stick styles. Even those that are or claim to be edge based have become have been heavily influenced by the use of the stick Hence the use of edge to edge blocking. There are very few true sword styles.

Kalis Ilustrisimo ( sword Ilustrisimo) is a sword style. There are no force to force blocks. Some parrying techniques that may look like blocks are done with the back of the sword. What can differeniates between a block and a parry depends on the angle in which the defensive weapon meets the attack. This is why recontructind fighting methods can be difficult become of the static nature of pictures, the subtlity can be lost.

In regrads to your example and the weak wrist angle. This is true if you are trying to block, but if you parry by cutting the attack at the correct angle you will have a strong structure as well as save you blade.

Another important factor is footwork. But thats another topic.

Vince
aka Black Grass

 

[lhommedieu]

For example if my opponent throws a #4 (horizontal backhand) slash, I can counter with an inward block but that would be edge on edge. Turning the use the flat of the blade exposes a very weak angle of the wrist. The only workable way I see using the flat here is to support the block with my off-hand or forearm.

Side-stepping to the left (assuming you're facing a right-handed strike), turning the waist towards the strike, rotating the wrist counter-clockwise while pulling it up, keeping the arms extended, and bracing the wrist with the left hand (i.e., with the carpal bones) is one way to block this strike with good body mechanics. It should be said that the "block" merely means that you've adopted a particular skeletal structure for a very brief space in time - you move off the block the moment that his weapon has cleared your obstruction.

This is the way I learned to block strikes when I first started learning FMA's. Notice that it starts with good footwork. In general the wrist was rotated clockwise and turned down (while side-stepping to the right) when blocking forhand strikes, and rotated counter-clockwise and turned up while side-stepping to the left when blocking backhand strikes. It's a good, basic way to block and typical of how many FMA's handle blocking - but other FMA's handle it differently.

I was told (and used to think) that the reason that the flat and back of the blade was presented was that it "saved" your edge. Lately though, I've been thinking that perhaps, given the other considerations above, turning the weapon in this manner allows you to "roll" off his weapon a mite faster and hit faster off the check with the hand.

Some other considerations:

1. You are attacking with point and edge: in either case, your edge is going to receive some damage going in - so why make a federal case out of blocking with the edge if you're attacking with it anyway?
2. Given the rapid speed of an edge to edge attack, (and your chances of survival even in the best scenario) why spend any time worring about saving your edge? You've got better things to do - like stopping his attack at all costs.
3. Given the various qualities of different steels and the methods used to make swords, some blades will retain their edges remarkably well. This is especially true if your sword is better than his.

At any rate, the FMA that I study now allows for edge to edge blocking - if necessary. It also considers parrying, passing (with the back of the blade), shearing, and cutting the limb, which are obviously higher-order skills. Blocking, however, can still save your bacon.

Best,

Steve Lamade

 

[bart]

I've wondered about that myself, but I think that blocking with the edge, although bad for the cutting edge, might protect you more than with the flat as the metal will break more easily.

In the FMA the practicality of the moment supersedes all else though, and regardless of what may be good for the blade, what is good for the body will take precedence. It would make more sense to block with the strong part of the blade with good wrist support than to worry about whether your blade will become notched or not. Stick art or not, it makes more sense to let the blade take the damage than to risk your person.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Federico]

In many historical accounts, actual live blade combat is often documented as only a quick burst of a few cuts, before things are over. In that scenario, where every shot has the potential to do much destruction, it would only take one or two succesful blocks and counters to lead the way to ending the fight. And has been said, blocking is only one of many tricks one has in thier arsenal, so it is the amount one would have to edge block really would not be that frequent. I have also done destructive, edge on edge testing with knives, and it is amazing how much they can actually take, and how while there is damage, each individual strike is not as deep as some may fear, averaging only 1 or 2 mm deep. So if one assumes the practitioner is combining proper footwork to minimize the power of the attack, I could easily imagine blades survivng combat. Also, many antique pieces (barong, kris, etc...) that appear to have battle-field damage, bear nicks that would coincide with an edge blocking philosophy. Then again one could argue the fact that since they were battle field pick ups the bearer was not succesful in his edge blocking strategy.

 

[Cruentus]

Nice Post!

I always stress that even though your techniques translate accross mediums (stick, knife, sword, etc.) you must familiarize yourself with your tool, and make the adjustments where needed. Your stick techniques will translate to a blade to a degree, but you need to familiarize yourself with the blade to understand it's strengths and limitations that differ from the stick.

With the blade, I think more about angling and cutting the attacking hand rather then blocking. I think more of a palis-palis redirection rather then hard blocking; as what was taught in Presas' original family style which was a sword and daga system. If one picks up an actual blade or training sword, one can see that it is much easier to block and redirect with the side of the blade with Palis-Palis rather then with a hard force-to-force block. This is different then when I fight with the stick to a degree.

I agree, however, that a blade fight will be over so quickly that most likely no one will really have the chance to block at all.

Good Thread!