Get a load of this guy

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

http://talhoffer.blogspot.com/2008/02/m ... tting.html

I...I have no words.

LOL.

-B.

[Nathan Calvert]

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

I...I have no words.

LOL.

-B.

i dont know which is the better question to ask. how can this guy be so dumb, or how does he find armor in that size

[Chris Ouellet]

He sounds like he's never been trained before. There's a gulf of difference between a trained swordsman and an untrained swordsman. The trained swordsman can make large damaging cuts quickly. Human reaction time is a fixed number, it can only be improved very little 180-200 ms. A trained swordsman can cut 2-3 times faster than someone with no training at all. Large cuts from a trained swordsman experimentally can approach human reaction time - this is a fact. There's no need to appeal to flawed historical interpretation(s) to understand that large cuts capable of inflicting tremendous damage are essential to good swordsmanship.
Really the only debatable angle is the converse of what he's proposing: the effects of poor swordsmanship with weak linear "taps" incapable of seriously damaging even straw...

Edit: He's not fit it seems. That explains a lot. He needs some serious basic training.

[Nathan Calvert]

He sounds like he's never been trained before. There's a gulf of difference between a trained swordsman and an untrained swordsman. The trained swordsman can make large damaging cuts quickly. Human reaction time is a fixed number, it can only be improved very little 180-200 ms. A trained swordsman can cut 2-3 times faster than someone with no training at all. Large cuts from a trained swordsman experimentally can approach human reaction time - this is a fact. There's no need to appeal to flawed historical interpretation(s) to understand that large cuts capable of inflicting tremendous damage are essential to good swordsmanship.
Really the only debatable angle is the converse of what he's proposing: the effects of poor swordsmanship with weak linear "taps" incapable of seriously damaging even straw...

Edit: He's not fit it seems. That explains a lot. He needs some serious basic training.

this is what happens when someone who trains in or at least goes through the motions of training in eastern martial arts takes what little understanding they have of eastern martial arts and tries to apply it to western martial arts. i actively train in both eastern martial arts and western martial arts, and i have seen several people like this guy who think that since both are similar you can train in one exactly like you train in the other.

[Brian Hunt]

Actually,

this fellow, Hugh Knight, is a knight in the SCA. He has some interesting and sometimes rather strange ideas on historical european martial arts. Oh well, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

all the best.

Brian Hunt

[Randall Pleasant]

Scholars

It appears that one of the things Hugh Knight is trying to justify is the use of the Lazy version of Vom Tag in which the sword is held in front of the chest with the hilt just about one's belt. Cuts from this position can only be made by pushing out the point to longpoint. Really powerful cuts are just impossible from this position. Thus Hugh mis-quotes Hanko Döbringer by suggesting that "it goes from the nearest in search of the closest and goes straight and right when you wish to strike or thrust" means "we’re supposed to cut in a straight line from guard to the target, not a big swing". This is, of course, plain silly.

To justify cutting only to longpoint Hugh gives the following quotes from I.33, “Note that the entire heart of the art lies in this final guard, which is called Longpoint; and all actions of the guards or of the sword finish or have their conclusion in this one and not in the others.” But Hugh fails to note that in I.33 there are several longpoints, one of which is very low. Moreover, the focus on longpoint in I.33 is not because that is where cuts end but because "all actions of the guards or of the sword finish or have their conclusion", i.e. that is where some of the main action of I.33 takes place! The majority of I.33 is about working from the bind and binds happen in longpoint!

Three things we know without doubt. First, Hugh Knight does not understand European Longsword. Second, Hugh Knight does not understand the Sword & Buckler art shown I.33. And finally three, Hugh Knight has a very long anti-ARMA history. The web site and writings of Hugh Knight have no value for serious students of these arts and we are best served by leaving this Hugh alone in his sad little corner of the Internet. Saddly, a few people wishing to understand these arts will undoubtedly be mis-lead by him.

[Shane Smith]

The gentleman has overlooked the great importance of edge alignment. A guy who has never cut a resistant target has no concept of how he must follow through to make a wounding or maiming strike nor has he any level of assurance that he isn't hitting flat.

A flat cut looks great thrown in a flourysh and if cutting air is all one ever did, he'd be none the wiser concerning that technical and fatal flaw. A flat cut from the whole arm will fail. A flat cut thrown tight to longpoint will also fail. The only way to gain assurance of proper technique is to set yourself to the task at hand until you have gained proficiency.

[Brent Lambell]

As a historian, Mr. Knight is clumsy and flabby. By the looks of him, his swordsmanship is probably both as well.

I have read multiple essays on his blog and noticed that many of his articles are sloppy from a technical point of view. I have read him trying to make broad generalizations about the subject based on one small bit of circumstantial evidence. He references secondary sources regularly to support his argument, but primary sources would be much better considering the material we have available. And thank you to Randall who pointed out that when he does quote the masters themselves, he often misinterprets their teachings.

I recommend reading his blog with a VERY skeptic eye and maybe as an example of what not to do.

[Stacy Clifford]

Sadly his blog is an excellent example of the fact that all it takes to make a lot of people think you know what you're talking about is a good command of the English language. Hugh Knight's theories about swordsmanship (and assessment of his own abilities) are clearly deeply flawed to us, but he's articulate enough to make some people believe his dung heap is a diamond mine. Never underestimate the power of a fool with a silver tongue.

[TimSheetz]

Hi guys.

This article is well, all the words I can thikn of seem cliche... but what comes to mind is "absurd", "laughable", .. I guess I'll go with "ridiculous".

I'd like to continue but my stomach is getting upset.

Peace,

Tim Sheetz

Sadly his blog is an excellent example of the fact that all it takes to make a lot of people think you know what you're talking about is a good command of the English language. Hugh Knight's theories about swordsmanship (and assessment of his own abilities) are clearly deeply flawed to us, but he's articulate enough to make some people believe his dung heap is a diamond mine. Never underestimate the power of a fool with a silver tongue.

[Shane Smith]

Never underestimate the power of a fool with a silver tongue.

That is quite profound. Where did this quote come from originally?

[David_Knight]

I don't need to follow that link to know that Hugh Knight (no relation, I assure you) is a very sloppy scholar. I stumbled across a review of Polearms of Paulus Hector Mair by Hugh Knight a few months back. Although it was overall a positive review, he began with:

There is a brief forward and introduction (they seem pretty vanilla, but I confess I started with the real material and have put them off for later other than a skim over).

He then proceeded to complain about a number of choices we made as authors that he just couldn't understand, all of which I explained very clearly in the introduction he didn't read.

He also made an absurd claim that Mair's poleax was "clearly just a short halberd," which tells me that he either didn't read the halberd chapter or didn't understand Mair's painstakingly thorough instructions (which, inexplicably, Mr. Knight called "more vague than most").

I explain the differences between Mair's halberd and poleax and respond to all of this on the PHM blog, by the way: http://blog.paulushectormair.com/2008_0 ... chive.html

But most amusingly, he wrote:

And the best part is there's no factually erroneus and unendurably self-serving "introduction" by John Clements, even though these guys are both ARMA members.

I wonder if he'll ever notice that there is in fact a prologue by JC in the "pretty vanilla" introduction that he didn't read.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

I've just read through more of his material, (for want of a better term). I'm not terribly aloof, rather self-admittedly brusque, so I have to say - it's official, now - I hate him. No other word will do. I wouldn't go so far as to say despise, or loathe, or detest. But it's pretty close.

-B.

[Mike Cartier]

don't let David knight fool you , he is in fact the twin brother of Hugh


I know this fellow well and he is a waste of HEMA space, let him be, even discussing him gives too much credence to his absurd notions of HEMA.

[Shane Smith]

don't let David knight fool you , he is in fact the twin brother of Hugh


.

I suspected as much...They look like a set of bookends...Identical!