Get a load of this guy

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

666

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

I have recently found again a passage in Viggiani that sheds some light on how you can check for edge alignment without test-cutting:

ROD: [...] do these two successive mandritti tondi of yours a bit, Conte.
CON: Here they are.
ROD: From the whistle of the sword I hear that they went flat; if they are not good the ear is quick in discerning by the speed of the stroke; don’t you hear the big percussion, and the big reverberation you make in the air, taking a great abundance of it with the flat of the sword? You hear a little less loud, but sharper, whistle, when you do it with the true edge.

(translation by Jherek Swanger)

Sure enough, I've played with swords, blunt metal or wood, a long time before actually trying to cut something for real (had no access to a quality sharp at the time), and paying attention to the sound can be a great help.

Maybe daily use of knives, pell work and attention to the sound of cuts, together, were enough at the time?

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

I have recently found again a passage in Viggiani that sheds some light on how you can check for edge alignment without test-cutting:

ROD: [...] do these two successive mandritti tondi of yours a bit, Conte.
CON: Here they are.
ROD: From the whistle of the sword I hear that they went flat; if they are not good the ear is quick in discerning by the speed of the stroke; don’t you hear the big percussion, and the big reverberation you make in the air, taking a great abundance of it with the flat of the sword? You hear a little less loud, but sharper, whistle, when you do it with the true edge.

(translation by Jherek Swanger)

Sure enough, I've played with swords, blunt metal or wood, a long time before actually trying to cut something for real (had no access to a quality sharp at the time), and paying attention to the sound can be a great help.

Maybe daily use of knives, pell work and attention to the sound of cuts, together, were enough at the time?

Possibly. But I honestly think that the reason there's no direct recorded evidence for it is because it should be obvious and common sense. Think about it.

-B.

[Stacy Clifford]

Possibly. But I honestly think that the reason there's no direct recorded evidence for it is because it should be obvious and common sense. Think about it.

-B.

Agreed. Hammering nails sounds really simple, but hand somebody who's never done it before a hammer and see how many nails they bend at first. The main difference is you can afford to waste a few nails getting the hang of it on a real carpentry project, whereas you'd better learn to get cutting right before you go into a real fight.

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Maybe daily use of knives, pell work and attention to the sound of cuts, together, were enough at the time?

Possibly. But I honestly think that the reason there's no direct recorded evidence for it is because it should be obvious and common sense. Think about it.

But other things that are a bit obvious and common sense are still described because they were part of the routine of exercise. For example one does not need to be a martial art genius to invent the pell, and yet we have description of that. Absence of evidence is not a proof, of course, but it does seem that relatively little time was spent test-cutting, if any...

Of course that does not automatically mean we should not do it nowadays. But being aware of how they trained then, and how this training can be insufficient now, is indeed important in my opinion. Taking what we know they did, and adding the minimum according to our modern common sense, is a nice course of action. Establishing what that minimum is is of course the difficult part

Another thing to speculate on about test-cutting is the material(s) used.

Many modern materials would have been out of question: no plastic bottles, no jugs, no pool noodles. I guess some equivalent to plywood could have been found but perhaps it would have been deemed too precious to ruin while training... Vegetable fibers assembled as in a tatami mat? But even in Japan these were not used at the start as far as I know. In fact any material prepared specially for the occasion would have been mentioned, and complex materials that need work to assemble and have other uses would have been spared, in my opinion. Tree branches might be an option, yet I'm not sure they teach as much about edge alignment and such. And don't they have to be fresh, and of an appropriate diameter?

The thing is that to conduct serious, regular test-cutting, you need a rather big, steady supply of disposable, yet appropriate materials. Even in modern times it can be a challenge. I'd readily believe it was worse in medieval times.

There is one more possibility, clay. At least it can be reused... I don't know how difficult it is to cut, I have never tried. At least it seems to have been in use in Persia.

[Stacy Clifford]

I suspect a lot of test cutting was rather informal. If you're a swordsman walking through the woods with a weapon on you (even if just a staff), don't you ever get the temptation to throw some strikes at nearby saplings as imaginary opponents? (I know I do.) Medieval Europe was heavily wooded, everybody walked, hunting was popular with the noble classes, and saplings grow back pretty easily. It could be showing off for your buddies, alleviating boredom, or slaying the imaginary dragon, just like modern baseball or soccer players hit imaginary home runs or kick imaginary goals. Every physical discipline that people hold important has its own sort of self-imposed practice like this, and if you're walking down the road all the time past hay bales, beanstalks, tall weeds and short trees, there's plenty of opportunity. I'm not saying that's all they ever needed, there may well have been more formal sessions where the master took his students to the woods outside for a little "cut those" test. However, if you think about your own temptations as you learn this art today, you really can't be much different than your ancestors in that regard, humans are still the same when doing something we love. The difference now (sadly) is we have to make up for not being allowed to walk down country roads carrying large bladed weapons.

[Peggy Sue Coates]

I suspect a lot of test cutting was rather informal.

Just a thought folks but perhaps the obvious is being overlooked.

In fact I would offer as a hypothesizes that much test cutting would have been a normal part of the hunting and butchering, which we know from many records and sources was a regular part of their lives. In all likelihood they would have used the sword they carried to decapitate the game which they killed as part of dressing it out prior to taking it home (why drag along yet another weapon/tool when the one they had would do the job very nicely and as has been pointed out several times weapons cost money). They would thus have "gained the knowledge" of what it took to actually cut through flesh and bone with no need to do formal test cuts since this type of "cutting" was a normal skill for them. Comparable perhaps to the acquired balance required for modern people to ride in various moving vehicles, on escalators and so on, or for modern children to operate a remote or other electronic devise.

We don't find records of test cutting for the simple reason that it was done on such a regular basis and in what to them was normal NON FIGHTING part of their lives it was simply not necessary to record in fighting texts what to them was simply a normal part of hunting, not fighting. We don't record many "skills" we use all the time, such as turning on the tap to get water, it is just not needed.

[robrobertson]

Peggy,

When I used to live in Utah (20 years ago), one guy used to hang a chicken by its legs with a string to de-capitate dinner. Whether the edge alinment was off or correct, it was obvious.

While it WAS practical, we'll probably never see that in a book today either.

Rob

I suspect a lot of test cutting was rather informal.

Just a thought folks but perhaps the obvious is being overlooked.

In fact I would offer as a hypothesizes that much test cutting would have been a normal part of the hunting and butchering, which we know from many records and sources was a regular part of their lives. In all likelihood they would have used the sword they carried to decapitate the game which they killed as part of dressing it out prior to taking it home (why drag along yet another weapon/tool when the one they had would do the job very nicely and as has been pointed out several times weapons cost money). They would thus have "gained the knowledge" of what it took to actually cut through flesh and bone with no need to do formal test cuts since this type of "cutting" was a normal skill for them. Comparable perhaps to the acquired balance required for modern people to ride in various moving vehicles, on escalators and so on, or for modern children to operate a remote or other electronic devise.

We don't find records of test cutting for the simple reason that it was done on such a regular basis and in what to them was normal NON FIGHTING part of their lives it was simply not necessary to record in fighting texts what to them was simply a normal part of hunting, not fighting. We don't record many "skills" we use all the time, such as turning on the tap to get water, it is just not needed.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

Reissued:

http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/phpBB2/vi ... hp?t=10886

[Scott A. Richardson]

I think by this point we all know that the various manuals don't linger on cerain issues, ones we can assume were well-known, common knowledge at the time. For instance, Ringeck refers to strikes but never really explains them, most likely because they were well-known to most people. Since the manuals focused more on the higher-level skills needed to rise above the average fighter, there was little need to focus on such pedestrian information. To my mind it would be like a modern Special Forces manual explaining how to pull the pin on a hand grenade.

What this suggests to me is that there will always be things missing in them that we simply have to use some historical knowledge and assume it is because it was thought to be already understood. Just because test cuts are not described doesn't mean they were not part of the skill set used then. This is an interpretation, of course, and like any other it may be flawed.

Which actually gets me to the most important aspect of this whole thing. What I find most frightful in Knight's writing is neither that his interpretation is different nor that he bucks convention -- great things can happen when one thinks in a non-linear manner. What troubles me most is his absolute insistence that his is the only acceptable understanding and that any other view is due to lack of intelligence or research.

I believe we all have to be open to different interpretations of the material and be willing to consider something may be off, or that there may be more than one way of looking at things. His dogmatic stance limits the ability of this art to grow and is precisely the kind of thinking that would lead to the "sportification" of HEMA. And that, my friends, is something I find intolerable.

[Gene Tausk]

Reissued:

http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/phpBB2/vi ... hp?t=10886

Brandon, you're my hero.

Don't hold your breath waiting for a response. However, I did note somewhere on Fattburger's blog that he did mention that he fights in armor (although I could be wrong on this).

Maybe he would consent to armored combat? Once again, don't hold your breath.

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

Reissued:

http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/phpBB2/vi ... hp?t=10886

Brandon, you're my hero.

Don't hold your breath waiting for a response. However, I did note somewhere on Fattburger's blog that he did mention that he fights in armor (although I could be wrong on this).

Maybe he would consent to armored combat? Once again, don't hold your breath.

Ha ha. Thank you, thank you good sir! Well, it looks as if my challenge has been rendered "void" over at Schola forum. I find it incomprehensible how a blog entry can be held against me on a seperate forum, when my post within that forum adhered completely with said forum's guidelines. Well, Matt Easton is the admin over there, so I suppose he can do as he likes, (regardless, I tailored the challenge I posted to the guidelines provided). I suppose one can simply chalk it up as another example of politics creeping into HEMA \ WMA. And no, there's nothing "political" about my outrage. And yes, I am outraged. It is interesting to note, however, that Matt's initial recation to my challenge AS POSTED was positive, and has since been removed, (see no evil, hear no evil, etc., etc). Hmmm. And, yes, I was more than a wee bit "mean" in my blog post, and elsewhere, though not on the Schola forum. The blog entry was designed to be "insensitive," in aide of shaming \ angering Mr. Knight into accepting my aforementioned challenge. Not that any of it really matters, the post is still up for all to see, together with it's last line: This challenge shall never expire. It accomplished what it was meant to. As long as that line remains unanswered, there will at least be (hopefully) some that will not be taken in by our "fechtmeister" friend. Of course, all I got for my trouble was the usual thing, what I like to call the Coward's Rote or Litany: "Why should I? What do I have to prove? What do I have to gain? Just to satisfy your curiosity? Blah blah blah. I'm not in fourth grade. Blah blah blah." There are variations, of course, but the basic formula is the same. It all stems from the same weak-kneed thinking. And no, I am not Mike Cartier, (something which Mike I think would agree with me on). I may be a d**k, but at least I'm not stupid.

Should some here question just what exactly Mr. Knight has to gain, I shall elucidate: respect, of course. Acknowledgement. Should he beat me he will have disproven my acerbic criticisms and mocking commentary, while simultaneously touting the "benefits" of his approach. Satisfaction. Honour. He has integrity to gain. It should come as no surprise he cares nothing for the getting and the maintaining of these things. Charlatans seldom do; they are most happy when throwing them away. I wonder how his hero, Meister Hans Talhoffer, would have reacted to a challenge such as mine. No need to wonder - I'd probably be dead by now. But then, Talhoffer was a real fechtmeister. Even if he is a master (ahem), I suppose I'm safe as houses anyway, as he apparently lacks the guts to engage in even a few more-or-less friendly sparring matches with blunted steel, sans points and all. Like most modern people, I believe that Hugh believes that honour is simply a given. That it does not have to be proven or maintained. It's just handed out. I'm sure he has convinced himself that his refusal to accept is honourable, and not all craven in the least. I've said it before, but if Hugh Knight is indeed confident that his approach is sound, that it encompasses the real Art, then he should have no reluctance to accept my challenge. His reluctance - in truth, resfusal - to do so speaks volumes.

My motivation was, and still is, quite simple. A few prominent individuals within the ARMA have been appreciably quite vocal in their opposition of those who assume the title "master." I thought that I, as an independant voice, per se, could lend additional strength to that opposition. As WMA (or whatever one's preferred term may be) grows, more and more Hugh Knights and similiar ilk are going to pop up, and the more and more ridiculous the endeavor will appear. It's high time more than one organization put a bit of stick about in effort to disprove and discredit these individuals. Don't get me wrong...I'm no fantastic swordsman. I sadly have several deficiencies that need to be overcome. I am competant, however, and thus I can most certainly defeat Mr. Knight.

Yes, you're quite right about him fighting exclusively in armour...hmmm...kinda reminds me of Kendo. And he claims blosfechten freeplay leads to sportification! He's on the fast track to sportification. Actually, it's worse than sportification; it can't even be taken that seriously. His regimen is not vigorous enough to be a sport. In truth, it seems Mr Knight never left the SCA. He still professes a fake, assumed title, he still plays dress up, and he and his "students" still pointlessly bash away at each other's armour. That he has a shallow, cursory knowledge of some of the fechtbucher is irrelevant, as he does not apply anything contained within to any degree of merit. The SCA has its own merits, of course...but the practice of historical European swordsmanship is not one of them. I would challenge him to armoured bouting, but I sadly lack the requisite harness (apart from a decent kettle helm and a rather nice barbute, both by Get Dressed for Battle. I deeply recommend their barbutes, by the by).

Without freeplay - serious freeplay against parnters excerizing proper martial intent - a swordplayer cannot develop certain essential qualities necessary in an effective fighter. Proper understanding of range, for one. It's all very well to bash away at a pell. Pell work is vital and useful, but the pell doesn't move around and it doesn't counter attack, nor does it sieze the intiative and force you to go on the defensive. Yes, you can practice a technique to polished, pristine perfection with a willing partner...but what happens when it goes wrong; whathappens when the opponent sees through it? Such an event precipitates the need for something else, namely excellent reflexes and pure cunning. No one is born with either, they must be developed, honed, and maintained. The only way to do any of that is through serious sparring and freeplay. Hugh Knight contends that these things don't matter, as we no longer rely on swordplay in real life or death situations anymore. This is perhaps his ultimate, and most telling cop-out. If he's not interested in what it takes to win in reality, and does not put himself in a postion to discover those things - namely the "crucible" of freeplay with martial intent - how can he profess to study "historical" combat, let alone be a "master?"

"Barca" from Schola forum: Reality Check: Telling someone they're fat and their Kung Fu sucks is hardly likely to convince them that their challengers (detractors) are really nice, trustworthy good sports just looking for a "friendly, honourable and safe" match.

Reality Check, Barca: I should think it would be the most motivating reason to accept a challenge. Further, when one professes certain insights, then goes off and makes absurd claims, simultaneously belittling the efforts of those more qualified and experienced, and then refuses to back up those claims in any appreciable way; it is likely to draw harsh, even downright "insensitive" criticism from more serious-minded and skilled individuals. When he proclaims the clearly superior works of others as "uniformed" - another of his golden words - and thus beneath contempt; while still refusing to substantiate his absurd notions in the only viable way, then he will draw the most severe censure that can be dealt by a law-abiding individual! If Mr. Knight truly believes he possesses the true Art (a term I use without the slightest affectation or embaressment), then he should have nothing to fear from a controlled, regulated bout or five with me, or anyone else for that matter. If on the other hand, one is a fop and blowhard who wouldn't know good swordsmanship if it bit him in the face, then of course one has everything to fear.

I have little doubt that Mr. Easton (with the very best of intentions) will soon remove my post from the Schola forum altogether once he has been made aware of my response here. Therefore, I repeat the challenge issued originally on that forum below:

I, Brandon Paul Heslop, being greatly wroth, do hereby challenge one Hugh Knight, self-proclaimed "fight-master" of the "School of Battle."

Terms:

5 bouts with federschertwerter, the winner being the one with the most acknowledged, "sound" hits. We shall fight all 5 bouts come what may, however. To be filmed by a third party. Each combatant allowed to bring 1 attendant. Results to be posted on YouTube, any other place I can upload it to. Victor gets glory. Vanquished admits he is no fechtmeister. The very clever shall be able to deduce whom I expect to win.

If at any point Hugh decides he'd like to stop hiding behind his computer screen, he knows how to contact me. This challenge shall never expire.

Perhaps it might be a good idea to create a webpage for real challenges, (as opposed to the rather-morte fainted-hearted variety over at the Schola forum. Again, it's their forum, they can do what they like. No skin off my back). And perhaps one of the features of said page would be a List of Perpetual Challenge. The list would contain the names of individuals that those who maintain the page challenge indefinately, or until said individual accept the challenge. The bottom of the page would be "signed" by everyone who takes part in creating the list, and the challengees can choose from amongst the signees. Anyone interested PM me. Anyone taking offence to this post PM me. Let's not bog down the forum here with snippety back-and-forths.

-B.

[I. Hartikainen]

Brandon,

With all due respect, there really is no obligation for anyone to accept a challenge like the one you have made to Hugh. However, from the fact that he does not accept it, you can draw your own conclusions.

Calling oneself a fechtmeister is not illegal, and while perhaps childish, in my opinion we should not make such a big deal about it. What you are suggesting by behavior is that by beating you in a competition fought on your terms would give a person the right to call themselves a fechtmeister.

When, on the other forum, Matt said that the challenge is not in the spirit of 'martial challenge', I believe he was referring to the 'The blog entry was designed to be "insensitive," in aide of shaming \ angering Mr. Knight into accepting my aforementioned challenge' sort of attitude. A challenge to a fight can get ugly if there is anger and perceptions of honor involved, turning down a challenge made in outrage is actually sensible and quite humble behavior.

We can all draw our conclusions, to better or worse, so why not just give it a rest. As long as a fechtmeister or any similar title is not generally regulated (as it quite possibly never will be) it is not really possible to stop people using it, or to try and control the use of the term. Instead, we could educate the ignorant that a self-proclaimed title does not a skilled swordsmanship teacher make.

Anyway, if indeed he would accept the challenge, I hope it would be fought with respect and no desire to injure but display 'mastery' in the art... that would be nice to watch.

Yours,
Ilkka

[Brandon Paul Heslop]

"With all due respect, there really is no obligation for anyone to accept a challenge like the one you have made to Hugh. However, from the fact that he does not accept it, you can draw your own conclusions."

I have. They are not rosy.

"Calling oneself a fechtmeister is not illegal, and while perhaps childish, in my opinion we should not make such a big deal about it. What you are suggesting by behavior is that by beating you in a competition fought on your terms would give a person the right to call themselves a fechtmeister."

It is not childish. It is disrespectful. It is a "big deal" to me. And NO, I am not suggesting that his beating me would give him the right to call himself "master." Not AT ALL, Ilkka. Kindly refrain from putting words into my mouth. What I am saying, in its purest essence is this: I am not a master. I am not even close. There are many active in this community \ movement that are not masters (there are no masters, in point of fact) that could defeat me in such an engagement, if you will. Nonetheless, though he professes himself a "master," I am confident that I can beat him. This is what I meant WHEN I SAID: "Victor gets glory. Vanquished admits he's no fechtmeister." The victor does not get to proclaim himself a master, the victor gets the recognition of having defeated his detractor and opponent. In no way does this confer anything to do with "mastery." I really cannot fathom how you came to the conclusion that that was what I was supporting. Perhaps, and I do not mean this to offend, it is because English is not your first language? My choice of words are usually fairly strident, and perhaps they can convey the wrong impression on those that do not use English every day? In any case, you have the wrong end of the stick, Ilkka.

"When, on the other forum, Matt said that the challenge is not in the spirit of 'martial challenge', I believe he was referring to the 'The blog entry was designed to be "insensitive," in aide of shaming \ angering Mr. Knight into accepting my aforementioned challenge' sort of attitude. A challenge to a fight can get ugly if there is anger and perceptions of honor involved, turning down a challenge made in outrage is actually sensible and quite humble behavior."

But my blog entry was not my post on the Schola forum. The two were completely seperate and tailored differently, each according to their particular ends and milieu. The one should not be held against the other. IMO, it was pure moral cowardice on the part of Schola's admin (Matt), to render my challenge "void," lock down the thread, and remove his initial (favorable) response. I'm afriad no other spin can be put on that. However, as I said above, it is their forum. They can do what they like. By the same token, I am not under any special obligation to look on it as anything but what I perceive it to be: retroactive kowtowing. My initial challenge to Mr Knight, while strident (and even a little hammed up for the fun of it), was not intended to anger \ shame Mr Knight. It was only after he refused twice that I took that particular angle, (on a BLOG, Ilkka. Not a forum. And I see you disregarded my request to PM about any objections, by the way).

Furthermore, I counter that if "martial challenge" is what it purports to be: "- To encourage competitive tests of skill between experienced practitioners and teachers, preferably from different groups, to serve as an example and inspiration. - To video and present quality bouts online. - To show bouts between different systems and weapons. - To cut through some of the internet bravado and put one's weapon where one's mouth is...," then MY challenge should hardly go amiss, should it? My challenge would have "serve[d] as an example," and no doubt be much "inspiration" to those of us who heartily disagree with knight's dogmatic stance. My challenge, if by some miracle ever accepted, would be against twio very different "systems," as in approaches. And MOST IMPORTANTLY, it would have "put [Knight's] weapon where [his] mouth is." These guidelines suggest a true martial challenge. Perhaps the name ought to be changed? Pseudo-Martial Challenge? Boffer-Fest Quest? Pillow-Fight Tourney Extravaganza? Any takers there? I've got more.

A challenge is a challenge, Ilkka. There are always perceptions of honour involved. It wouldn't be a "fight," or "challenge" otherwise. It's the sort of thing that a "martial challenge" promotes. Honour. Recognition. Etc. More, it is not sensible. It is not humble. I have already said what it is. You are welcome to believe otherwise. I see things as they are. I may be abraisive. I may be outspoken. My mother said it all when I was a kid: "Brandon, you are a little jerk." Well, dear old Mum was right - I can be a jerk - but I'm no fool. And I am not fooled by the "mature, sensible," spin being weaved here. Nor are many others. From the Schola forum: "well done! This is a fight I'd like to see." I'm honest, Ilkka. Too honest to become a snivelling wretch that salves the disproportionate egos of charlatans. There's a Latin saying that I find rather apt here: Asinus asinum fricat. Look it up. So very much of that going on in HEMA. There needs to be something done to counter it. Not timidly, either. Boldly and decisively. To be an "example," as Mr Easton puts it.

"We can all draw our conclusions, to better or worse, so why not just give it a rest. As long as a fechtmeister or any similar title is not generally regulated (as it quite possibly never will be) it is not really possible to stop people using it, or to try and control the use of the term. Instead, we could educate the ignorant that a self-proclaimed title does not a skilled swordsmanship teacher make."

As I said, I already have. As for giving it a rest, from this moment on I have no intentions of further pressing the matter, except to say that the challenge remains perpetually open. As long as Hugh decides to "disregard" (to rhyme with "cower") at it, there will at least be some who are not taken in by his rhetoric, nor bilked by his BS. That in and of itself has accomplished something, though not all I had hoped. As for educating Hugh, I have already stated that there is only one proven testing ground. Not that it matters. He is beyond hope of education. This was intended to educate others, to reveal the weaknesses inherant in Hugh's conclusions. And "teacher," Ilkka? A master is not merely a "teacher." If he chose "instructor" as his appellation, I could hardly take umbrage at that. You're right, though. I can't stop him from calling himself a fechtmeister. I can't stop him from calling himself "God," either. The two are equally suited to him, (in that they are not suited to him at all. Joke).

"Anyway, if indeed he would accept the challenge, I hope it would be fought with respect and no desire to injure but display 'mastery' in the art... that would be nice to watch."

Respect I cannot promise. Too honest. However, once again I believe you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I never had any desire, nor do I now, to injure Mr. Knight. The challenge can easily be brought to fruition and fought without need for injury, (well, not physical injury, anyway. Ha ha). As for mastery being displayed, that would require one of us being a master. As neither of us are, I cannot promise that either. I noticed you put mastery in qoutations, ( 'mastery' ). I remind you that there is only one definition of "mastery." Now, please - I would be delighted to continue this conversation - but in PM. Not on the boards.

Thank you,

-B.

http://audiolatinproverbs.blogspot.com/ ... ricat.html

[CalebChow]

I can only imagine Hugh Knight reading this thread and just laughing his head off over how worked up everyone is about this...

Sorry, I just had to throw that out.

Would be a VERY interesting fight to see, though.