# WSL book



## wckf92 (May 5, 2022)

Anyone read this yet? Any thoughts on it?














						Gong Sau Wong: A Tribute (Softcover) by Eric Lilleør | Blurb Books
					

What if you could transport back in time for a front-row seat into the life and legacy of one of the most respected Wing Chun masters in history?  "Gong Sau Wong: A Tribute" offers you just!  At a whopping 360 pages, "Gong Sau Wong: A Tribute" is a fascinating and intimate window into the life...



					www.blurb.com


----------



## geezer (May 5, 2022)

wckf92 said:


> Anyone read this yet? Any thoughts on it?
> 
> View attachment 28398
> 
> ...


This is the first I've heard of it.

Thoughts? None ...except I'd like to get ahold of a copy.


----------



## Callen (May 5, 2022)

wckf92 said:


> Anyone read this yet? Any thoughts on it?


I thought it was a nice tribute. It includes 25 interviews from first generation WSLVT practitioners, which in my opinion adds to the book's relevance. It's also a bit of a rally cry for many within the WSLVT community. The first hand stories, insights and experiences about WSL add to the level of excitement and inspiration to those who train his method.


----------



## wckf92 (May 5, 2022)

Callen said:


> rally cry



What do you mean? To bring all the WSL family together or...? To dispel any "bragging rights" by his direct students? etc?


----------



## Callen (May 5, 2022)

wckf92 said:


> What do you mean? To bring all the WSL family together or...?



Yeah, an inspiration and sense of shared pride. It has mostly been received as a positive contribution to the WSLVT community. Political disagreements aside.


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 6, 2022)

This man earned a whopping 9 pages in Judkins, et al.

Who doesn't remember this?





Always reminded me of the Anthrax album cover.


----------



## J.Smith (May 12, 2022)

Good morning all, 

I'm after a copy of the following book below,
If you have a copy, and don't mind parting with it, please email me.

Kind regards, 

J.Smith


----------



## Steve (May 12, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> This man earned a whopping 9 pages in Judkins, et al.
> 
> Who doesn't remember this?
> 
> View attachment 28399


This will probably be my only post in this thread, and then I'll go back to lurking.  But I sincerely thought this was a satirical image, given the amount of infighting I've read over the year between the different branches of WC/WT on this forum.  I thought it was tongue and cheek.  And your reference to Judkins, given the kerfuffle that recently created, just added to my confusion. 

All that to say, thanks for the chuckle.  I'll fade back into the shadows again, now.


----------



## wckf92 (May 12, 2022)

J.Smith said:


> Good morning all,
> 
> I'm after a copy of the following book below,
> If you have a copy, and don't mind parting with it, please email me.
> ...











						Ian Protheroe – Wing Chun Weapons - Wing Chun United
					

Wing Chun Weapons: Butterfly Swords and Dragon Pole by Sifu Ian Protheroe




					wingchununited.com


----------



## J.Smith (May 12, 2022)

wckf92 said:


> Ian Protheroe – Wing Chun Weapons - Wing Chun United
> 
> 
> Wing Chun Weapons: Butterfly Swords and Dragon Pole by Sifu Ian Protheroe
> ...


Thank you for your quick reply, unfortunately they are "out of stock" and are not restocking that item. 


But if anyone has a copy happy to pay for it


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 13, 2022)

Steve said:


> This will probably be my only post in this thread, and then I'll go back to lurking.  But I sincerely thought this was a satirical image, given the amount of infighting I've read over the year between the different branches of WC/WT on this forum.  I thought it was tongue and cheek.  And your reference to Judkins, given the kerfuffle that recently created, just added to my confusion.
> 
> All that to say, thanks for the chuckle.  I'll fade back into the shadows again, now.


It's basic Crane technique, right there on the cover.  And I personally thought the stopwatch motif was, shall we say, precise for someone claiming "science" in a Wing Chun context.

Judkins' work is the most advanced _scholarly _research on Wing Chun published to date.  It was excerpted in the_ Journal of Sports History_.  And Judkins co-wrote it with a very legit Wing Chun instructor.  It's going to draw out people making easily falsifiable claims, like "he based it mostly on this dude/bood".

That's how you spot the lineage warriors.  The first thing they did was question my reading comprehension, remember?  Ha.  I read their book, too.

This is a pee on my head and tell me it's snowing situation.  I could do a whole thread on the lies that get spread around on Wing Chun, especially recently, but as long as I stick to historical science...I don't have to.


----------



## Eric_H (May 24, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> That's how you spot the lineage warriors.  The first thing they did was question my reading comprehension, remember?  Ha.  I read their book, too.
> 
> This is a pee on my head and tell me it's snowing situation.  I could do a whole thread on the lies that get spread around on Wing Chun, especially recently, but as long as I stick to historical science...I don't have to.


C'mon man, you are not a victim. There is no crazed group of lineage warriors after you. People disagreed with you, and you didn't react to all of it very well. Some of your critics got more personal than was necessary too. 

I thought we had a pretty respectful back and forth in the locked thread, though we walked away still disagreeing with each other.

Though I have issues with it, Judkins work is worth a read, his effort is to be commended. It is only as good as its sources, and for some people some of the sources aren't considered very good. YMMV.


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 24, 2022)

Eric_H said:


> C'mon man, you are not a victim. *There is no crazed group of lineage warriors after you. *People disagreed with you, and you didn't react to all of it very well. Some of your critics got more personal than was necessary too.
> 
> I thought we had a pretty respectful back and forth in the locked thread, though we walked away still disagreeing with each other.
> 
> Though I have issues with it, Judkins work is worth a read, his effort is to be commended. It is only as good as its sources, and for some people some of the sources aren't considered very good. YMMV.


That's debatable.

I think I reacted to it the same way I'd react to any flash mob of kung fools who show up online to spread lies about scholarly literature.  Those "people" are wrong, and a lot of them are for sure Wing Chun student trolls.  One of them basically said "I only log in once a month to troll you".  Uh huh, I see you bud.  Some other dude in a different thread pretended to know me, and used the same "Greasy Dragon" reference.  Play on, playa.

The book's bibliography contains over 150 sources.  A know a couple of those people, but I'm especially aware of the beef between Wing Chun schools.  It's also over an inch thick.  When I compare it to the next nearest best work on Wing Chun, that old one doesn't come close.

The "critics" here said first it was all based on Leung Ting.  That was easily falsified by anyone holding the book in hand.

Then it was all from one book about Foshan.  That was a lie, but I don't even believe all those accounts are different people.  Either one person, or several people who know each other and also, don't read (you can tell these trolls right away, he challenged my own reading comprehension.  Bad move, I read the book, it's right here in my pile).

The truth is the people commenting about Judkins in such a hyperbolic and fact-deficient way, don't like the fact that it exposes a lot of their strongly held "truths" about Wing Chun.  And it was co-written by someone whose Wing Chun credentials are impeccable.

Cornell history scholar+Wing Chun master = your argument is invalid.

I'm well attuned to being a hated messenger, but I love the job man.  Sincerely.


----------



## Eric_H (May 28, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> One of them basically said "I only log in once a month to troll you".


I mean, at least you have fans? (kidding)


Oily Dragon said:


> The book's bibliography contains over 150 sources.  A know a couple of those people, but I'm especially aware of the beef between Wing Chun schools.  It's also over an inch thick.  When I compare it to the next nearest best work on Wing Chun, that old one doesn't come close.
> 
> The "critics" here said first it was all based on Leung Ting.  That was easily falsified by anyone holding the book in hand.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I can see why you hold the work in high esteem. As I said, I recommend people to read it and form their own opinion. Thoguh admittedly I'm not through it yet, it is something of a dry read.


Oily Dragon said:


> Cornell history scholar+Wing Chun master = your argument is invalid.


That's not true, depending on which argument you are directing this at of course. You yourself have said that all WC masters lack any credibility when it comes to history.


Oily Dragon said:


> I'm well attuned to being a hated messenger, but I love the job man.  Sincerely.


I hope you do, but it does feel as though you are quite put out by it the way that you write.


----------



## jlq (May 28, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> That's debatable.
> 
> I think I reacted to it the same way I'd react to any flash mob of kung fools who show up online to spread lies about scholarly literature.  Those "people" are wrong, and a lot of them are for sure Wing Chun student trolls.  One of them basically said "I only log in once a month to troll you".  Uh huh, I see you bud.  Some other dude in a different thread pretended to know me, and used the same "Greasy Dragon" reference.  Play on, playa.
> 
> ...



Playing the victim, huh?



One more time:

1. Judkin's book does not in any way challenge any beliefs I have about Wing Chun - to me it states absolutely nothing new or particularly insightful. I just pointed out that it is limited by its sources - like it or not, but even though the bibliography appears impressive, the sources it draws on to provide information about Wing Chun, its masters, its development in Mainland China is actually very, very limited.

2. The fact, which is easy for anyone who bothers to open the book and actually read the bibliography to verify is that the bulk of that information is drawn primarily from "Fatsaan Martial Culture" and secondarily from Leung Ting's "Roots and Branches of Wing Chun". I even counted the number of references for you and gave you the pages on which they can be found - in both the printed and ebook editions. But did you even bother to check this? Apparently not, since you kept insisting that a) I haven't read the book and b) I don't even own a copy. 
If memory serves me right, I even offered that we set up a video call so I can show you on live video that I own a hardcopy of the book, if giving you specific pages and numbers still would not convince you that I own and have read the book. 
But you just ignored that and kept insisting that I hadn't read the book, you didn't even bother to check the pages I listed and check the numbers I provided - instead you simply continue telling yourself that I am telling lies about the book - which I surely do not, as can very easily be found out by looking up the relevant pages.
You shouldn't be insisting that people are lying, when you don't even bother to disprove or argue any evidence to the contrary. 
Reading your comment above, one cannot but think that there is a problem somewhere, be it in terms of willingness to actually read what is being posted, or indeed with reading comprehension.

3. Speaking of reading comprehension... Unfortunately, your above post really corroborates the point I made. You took offense that I wrote somethin to the effect of "that book is of no better quality that a high school paper" because you somehow read this as if I was referring to Mr. Judkin's book, but it should be pretty clear to anyone reading carefully what I wrote that I was referring to the book "Fatsaan Martial Culture", he draws so heavily on. I even pointed out the misunderstanding EXPLICITLY in a seperate post, but you STILL didn't concede that you had misread something and got it in your head that I questioned Mr. Judkin's scholarly method. 
And now, based on the post above, you seem to think that I questioned your ability to read Mr. Judkin's book! Where do you get that from? I never did such a thing, and even explained your misunderstanding to you...
If the problem is not your reading comprehension, no offense, what is it?

4. You seem to be imagining quite a bit, there is no one after you or Mr. Judkin's book because of "lineage beef" - once again, I just pointed out its limitations to you. It has nothing to do with lineage or "beliefs", as you seem to interpret the criticism. 
You seem to be quite imaginative, thinking that people - say me - trolll you under different profiles. I can tell you for sure that this is my only profile on this forum, and that I am not "hunschuld". For example, based on what he wrote in past threads, he is in the US, while I am in China. I offered you before to clear this matter up on a video call, in real time, face to face. Would a troll with multiple trolling accounts do that? Just send me a PM and we are on.

5. Are you sure that Mr. Judkins is a "historian"? He has a Ph.D. in Political Science but not in history... And the co-writer being a "Wing Chun Master"? By whose standards? How is mastery defined - and how is having mastery of a physical skill in any way relevant to being knowledgable on certain things such as the evolution of Wing Chun? Anyway, whatever knowledge people have, whether they are indeed the finest martial arts historian or the greatest, most accomplished Gung Fu master around, depends on the number and quality of the sources they have access to. 

6. You ignored the questions I asked multiple times:
- how long have you practiced Wing Chun and with whom?
- how long have you practiced Hung Ga Kuen in the Lam Sai Wing lineage and with whom?

To round this off, please allow me to quote what Eric H wrote:



Eric_H said:


> Though I have issues with it, Judkins work is worth a read, his effort is to be commended. It is only as good as its sources, and for some people some of the sources aren't considered very good. YMMV.



This is exactly how I feel about the book - and, as I already stated in the thread referred to, it is definitely the best book of its kind and should be on every Wing Chun enthusiast's bookshelf. Just don't take it as the ultimate, or authoritative say on things. Critical thinking is a must at all times.

Sincerely.


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 28, 2022)

Eric_H said:


> That'ss not true, depending on which argument you are directing this at of course. You yourself have said that all WC masters lack any credibility when it comes to history.


It's going to be true for almost every argument I can think of, and I've thought long and hard about Wing Chun.

I'm mostly directing it at the lies being told about the book on MT.  That seems to be the root problem (of a handful of people showing up MT to cause trouble with respect to scholarly Wing Chun research.  Note that in today's age, trolls do the same thing with COVID information.


Eric_H said:


> I mean, at least you have fans? (kidding)


It's no coincidence that I reference the leading scholarly work on Wing Chun, and suddenly several trolls show up questioning my reading ability, lineage, all while dropping false accusations about a book. 

It's one thing to read a book and be a critic, it's another to start claiming things about a book that just don't add up.



Eric_H said:


> I hope you do, but it does feel as though you are quite put out by it the way that you write.


When it comes to Wing Chun, only deal with honest students.  The dishonest students are going to have a long, hard time.


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 28, 2022)

jlq said:


> Playing the victim, huh?


Speak of the Devil, the Wing Chun Mafia has returned right on schedule.

If I find time to read your _entire _post this weekend, I'll do by best not to bring up your past lies about the book but it's hard, because you tried too hard to conceal your deception.  Maybe next time, assume you're responding to someone who's read the book.

If you continue to claim the book is a "high school" level project, or largely based on one or two sources that happen to be fringe and controversial, everyone here will know the real deal, and I won't be bothered.

For everyone's record (again) this book is the most well researched scholarly attempt on Wing Chun in history, and its been published in part in peer reviewed sports journals.  The co-author has trained with over a dozen well-known Wing Chun instructors.

Gong Sau Wong, the topic is this thread, is about as marginally relevant to Judkins as Leung Ting is, based on the number of dedicated pages (<30 total pages devoted to both combined).


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 28, 2022)

jlq said:


> 1. Judkin's book does not in any way challenge any beliefs I have about Wing Chun - to me it states absolutely nothing new or particularly insightful. I just pointed out that it is limited by its sources - like it or not, but even though the bibliography appears impressive, the sources it draws on to provide information about Wing Chun, its masters,* its development in Mainland China is actually very, very limited.*
> 
> 2. The fact, which is easy for anyone who bothers to open the book and *actually read the bibliography to verify is that the bulk of that information is drawn primarily from "Fatsaan Martial Culture" and secondarily from Leung Ting's "Roots and Branches of Wing Chun".*


2 more lies, repeated.

Now, you're trying to nail your previous false claims about the "bulk of the information" to the 2 sources you showed up to complain about in the first place.

You're attempting the old double bind man.  Praise the scholar, make up stuff about his work.  That way, you can't keep seen as attacking the researcher.  But you are.

Do you think the audience reading your posts is generally dumb?  You seem to write your posts that way.


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 28, 2022)

jlq said:


> Now, when it comes to the information on Wing Chun, its practitioners, and its development in Mainland China, *he mainly draws on two sources*, *one being Leung Ting's "Roots and Branches of Wing Chun", the other one being a locally published work (in Fatsaan, that is) called "Fatsaan Mo Sat Man Faat" or "Foshan Martial Arts Culture*". The greater part of this book is actually about Choi Lei Fat


But let's take a deep breath, internal Dragon styled, and step back to examine the broader context behind your actual prior claims about Judkins.

_"Now, when it comes to the information on Wing Chun, its practitioners, and its development in Mainland China,* he mainly draws on two sources, one being Leung Ting's "Roots and Branches of Wing Chun", the other one being a locally published work (in Fatsaan, that is) called "Fatsaan Mo Sat Man Faat" or "Foshan Martial Arts Culture". *The greater part of* this book is actually about Choi Lei Fat* (Mr. Judkin's brings quite a bit of information about that style into his book), *a lesser part is actually about Wing Chun. This book is not actually a serious scholarly work*, in fact it looks and reads like a high school project, or one of those obligatory papers certain research or study faculties/organizations have to produce on a regular bases, and since it is more about just getting them done than producing actual quality content, not too much work and effort is put into it. Most of the information about Wing Chun in that book was from"_




Oops.  Pretty sure that's a _bold faced_ lie because you just tried to claim you weren't talking about Judkins, but you were.  What you're really attempting to is to discredit the work by trying to tie to it other less credible sources.

That's because you're trying to poison the discussion, and I believe it's on purpose.  It's not like you've shown up for any previous, detailed Wing Chun discussions.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 28, 2022)

wckf92 said:


> Anyone read this yet? Any thoughts on it?
> 
> View attachment 28398
> 
> ...


My only thought is that it looks like those butterfly knives are made from single-piece cast aluminum.  Which disappoints me.


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 28, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> My only thought is that it looks like those butterfly knives are made from single-piece cast aluminum.  Which disappoints me.


Me too.






						Welcome to KungFuMagazine
					

KungfuMagazine




					www.kungfumagazine.com


----------



## jks9199 (May 28, 2022)

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful.  Failing to do so will result in the thread being locked and points liberally distributed.

Jks9199
MT Admin


----------



## wckf92 (May 29, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> My only thought is that it looks like those butterfly knives are made from single-piece cast aluminum.  Which disappoints me.


Perhaps they are just training knives(?)


----------



## jlq (May 29, 2022)

Let's take a few bits at a time...



Oily Dragon said:


> But let's take a deep breath, internal Dragon styled, and step back to examine the broader context behind your actual prior claims about Judkins.
> 
> _"Now, when it comes to the information on Wing Chun, its practitioners, and its development in Mainland China,* he mainly draws on two sources, one being Leung Ting's "Roots and Branches of Wing Chun", the other one being a locally published work (in Fatsaan, that is) called "Fatsaan Mo Sat Man Faat" or "Foshan Martial Arts Culture". *The greater part of* this book is actually about Choi Lei Fat* (Mr. Judkin's brings quite a bit of information about that style into his book), *a lesser part is actually about Wing Chun. This book is not actually a serious scholarly work*, in fact it looks and reads like a high school project, or one of those obligatory papers certain research or study faculties/organizations have to produce on a regular bases, and since it is more about just getting them done than producing actual quality content, not too much work and effort is put into it. Most of the information about Wing Chun in that book was from"_
> 
> ...



So, here you demonstrate exactly where the root of the problem is: you didn't actually understand what I wrote. I even explained it to you in a seperate post to clarify, yet you go on.
 I think, if I had left out the sentence in the parenthesis, you should get the meaning... But again, let me spell it out, and leave out the part which seems to cause you confusion, to hopefully clear up the matter for you:

"Now, when it comes to the information on Wing Chun, its practitioners and its development in Mainland China, he mainly draws on two sources, one being Leung Ting's "Roots and Branches of Wing Chun", the other one being a locally published work (in Fatsaan, that is) called "Fatsaan Mo Sat Man Faat" or "Foshan Martial Arts Culture". The greater part of this book is actually about Choi Lei Fat, a lesser part about Wing Chun. This book is actually not actually a serious scholarly work, in fact it looks and reads like a high school project...

So, what exactly is unclear about this? 

Is it not OBVIOUS that I was not referring to Mr. Judkin's book, especially seen within the context of what I wrote in other posts?

As I said, I even explained it to you, since you were confused about what I meant.

Any piece of academic work is only as good as the sources it draws on, so I pointed out the limitations of Mr. Judkin's book based on a critical analysis of the source he drew on, in this particular point the "Fatsaan Martial Arts Culture" book. This source is neither complete, not of a particularly high academic standard.

Critical thinking and analysis is not "discrediting", I just pointed out that due to its limitations, it is not as authoritative or definitive as you think.



Oily Dragon said:


> 2 more lies, repeated.
> 
> Now, you're trying to nail your previous false claims about the "bulk of the information" to the 2 sources you showed up to complain about in the first place.
> 
> ...



Instead of keeping telling yourself and others that I am lying when said that when it comes to the chapter on Mainland China Wing Chun and its development Mr. Judkin's, why don't you simply verify whether or not I was correct and show it? Just take a look at how many works were referenced for that chapter and how many times each of these was quoted and provide the numbers you find. I did that in the other thread... If you want to insist I am lying, at least you should prove and demonstrate that the numbers I gave are wrong. So, what is it going to be? Since you have the book, it is a matter of a few minutes to simply count, as I did. 

I don't think the audience is generally dumb as you put it, but unfortunately some people seem to have a problem with reading comprehension, so it appears spelling out things in the most simple possible way is necessary it s.




Oily Dragon said:


> For everyone's record (again) this book is the most well researched scholarly attempt on Wing Chun in history, and its been published in part in peer reviewed sports journals. The co-author has trained with over a dozen well-known Wing Chun instructors.



The co-author has trained with "over a dozen well-known" Wing Chun instructors? Let's have a look:

Coach Nielson has an eclectic background in Wing Chun training:

Jon Nielson - Jerry Gardner - Duncan Leung - Ip Man

Jon Nielson - Malcolm Lee - Eddie Chong - Kenneth Chung and Ben Dur - Leung Sheung - Ip Man

Jon Nielson - Malcolm Lee - William Cheung - Ip Man

Jon Nielson - Eddie Chong - Kenneth Chung and Ben Dur - Leung Sheung - Ip Man

Jon Nielson - Ron Heimberger - Jim Fujitsu - Bruce Lee - Ip Man

Jon Nielson - Ron Heimberger - Leung Ting - Ip Man

Jon Nielson - Ron Heimberger - Francis Fong - Jason Lau - Ju Wan - Ip Man and Ju Chao - Chan Wah Shun

Jon Nielson - Ron Heimberger - Ip Ching - Ip Man

Jon Nielson - Ip Ching - Ip Man

Source: Wing Chun Hall.


So, what we can ascertain from this is that the co-author basically had 5 teachers, and they are all Yip Man lineage people. Does that make him a "master" of anything? Or does that mean he has some special insights into the history and development in Wing Chun, especially in Mainland China? The answer should be pretty clear...  You claimed he learnt from some well-known people? That is pretty relative... In Europe, or in Mainland China, only one person is what could be considered well-known, and that is Yip Ching. 

It might hurt your feelings, but there is actually a mistake in that lineage "chart", which undermines your faith in this gentleman as being an expert in Wing Chun history and development and your logic. It doesn't say anything about the gentleman's skills or mastery of the art.

Maybe you can consult your "bible" to spot it, if you can't already tell...



So, who are these more than a dozen teachers, and what does "train with" entail? Having a long term student-teacher relationship, with regular classes, or having a few private lessons over the course of a decade or just going to a seminar? Sure sounds impressive, but is it? And is it of relevance to the question at hand?

I am curious...

Which "peer reviewed sports journals" has it been reviewed in and who are those "peers"? At first glance it would seem quite a bit odd to have a socio-cultural study be peer reviewed in a sports magazine.

As far as well researched, that is another key issue: when it comes to actual sources on Wing Chun and its development in China, it is not at all well-researched as you think, given the paucity of the actual sources it draws on that particular subject. 

This statement is what you are having trouble with, but doon't look at the total bibliography, but at which books are quoted when it comes to Wing Chun and its develpment in Mainland China specifically. 

I mentioned which ones in the other thread, but for some reason you closed your eyes to it. 

Listing 300 sources with only 4 (fictive numbers to make a point) relating to a specific subject and one of these quote 60 percent of the time is not "well researched".

Again, it is not that fault of Mr. Judkin's, it is just that not many sources are available, which limits the validity of certain suppositions made in the book. It should be taken for what it truly is, no more, no less.



Oily Dragon said:


> That's because you're trying to poison the discussion, and I believe it's on purpose. It's not like you've shown up for any previous, detailed Wing Chun discussions.



I do not comment here to poison any discussion, just to rectify your misconceptions which you keep repeating. If you feel bringing up this subject poisons the current discussion, you should bring it up.

As far as me not having shown up for previous, detailed Wing Chun discussions, I would suggest you better check my posting history before making any such claims. Respectfully, I have seen a lot of what you post, but in terms of Wing Chun, most of it is not worth discussing, from my perspective.


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 29, 2022)

jlq said:


> , what exactly is unclear about this?
> 
> Is it not OBVIOUS that I was not referring to Mr. Judkin's book, especially seen within the context of what I wrote in other posts?


It's pretty obvious you were referring to Judkins et al, and now you are backpedaling hard.

You showed up just to discredit the work, remember?  Several Wing Chun threads ago, backing up the first Wing Chun troll, Hunschuld.  Do you remember what his beef with Judkins was?

The rest of your post is troll bait. OBVIOUSLY.

Now you're trying to discredit the co-author, who has definitely trained with more than a dozen Wing Chun masters.  Glad to see you Googled the list.

Care to triple down?  You haven't even tried to challenge a specific claim in the text.  You're trying to smear a whole work.

If that work were Leung Ting's you'd have some fun with that.  Judkins is unassailable so far.  Even the editors of the Journal of Sports History agreed when they published a sliver of it.  It's not largely based on either the two sources you keep claiming.  And around we go.


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 29, 2022)

Now that we've cleared the air, ahem.

Why do you keep trying to discredit an academic work on Wing Chun, in a thread about Gong Sao Wong, bro?

Curious!


----------



## Callen (May 29, 2022)

wckf92 said:


> Perhaps they are just training knives(?)


Yes, most likely. The picture is from a photoshoot so it's hard to say, but WSL did not advocate live-edge training in general.

I  have a pair of aluminum trainers that are great, IMO. The handles and D-guards are made of steel for weight and durability and the blade and tang are aluminum. They do well for solo training, forms and some knife to pole work.

Knife-to-knife training is more demanding, all steel construction has the best performance and safety. From my experience there aren't many solid knife-to-knife BJD trainers on the market, the majority of them fall apart fairly quickly and become projectiles. That's why most quality BJD trainers are custom made.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 30, 2022)

wckf92 said:


> Perhaps they are just training knives(?)


Most definitely.  As someone who recently stabbed myself in the leg with a live dao, I can certainly appreciate the need for safety weapons.  

The problem is, a steel blade handles very differently from an aluminum blade.  A steel or bronze or brass guard contributes to that realism as well, where it looks in the picture like the guard is part of the cast aluminum.  A steel blade can be blunt and safe(er) than a sharp, and get a more realistic feel for the handling.


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 30, 2022)

My personal "live" training dao is a steel-aluminum mixed alloy that allows for a sturdy blade that doesn't bend or shard, but it's a lot better than springsteel or straight up aluminum (which won't survive much blade-on-blade sparring contact because it's too malleable, even wood is safer imho).

The two on the cover of Judkins are legitimate 19th century _hudiedao _used during the Opium Wars and the Red Turban Revolt, and other fun times.

I'll have to dig into the metallurgy to see what these might have been made of, but it probably wasn't steel.  Probably mostly iron.  China is the oldest civilization to cast it.

It's hard to tell by the cover illustration but see below as to what a 19th century version actually looked like.  A standard dao would be between 24-28 inch blade, these things are barely 23 inches end to end (about 60 cm).

_

_


----------



## Gerry Seymour (May 31, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Now that we've cleared the air, ahem.
> 
> Why do you keep trying to discredit an academic work on Wing Chun, in a thread about Gong Sao Wong, bro?
> 
> Curious!


"Discrediting" is more about shaming, proving false, showing as worthless, etc. Given jlq has said more than once that it's worth a read, it doesn't seem to fit the description. He's pointing out weaknesses, which is just about understanding the limitations of a work/study - a common practice in science, as well (even, and perhaps especially, with published studies).

Rather than reacting like you're being attacked, why not refute each point? For instance, he asked a while back about the co-author's "mastery". You responded with (IIRC) a statement that he'd studied with more than a dozen WC masters (which feels circular, but that's a different question). He replied with a list of - if I counted correctly - 11, as listed on some WC list. If that's incorrect, why not simply correct it? If 11 is the correct number, then maybe the focus should be that 11 seems plenty for the point at hand (I know many people I consider highly knowledgeable in their art, who have studied with far fewer).

Focus on making good points, and you'll need less back-and-forth.


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 31, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> "Discrediting" is more about shaming, proving false, showing as worthless, etc. Given jlq has said more than once that it's worth a read, it doesn't seem to fit the description. He's pointing out weaknesses, which is just about understanding the limitations of a work/study - a common practice in science, as well (even, and perhaps especially, with published studies).
> 
> Rather than reacting like you're being attacked, why not refute each point? For instance, he asked a while back about the co-author's "mastery". You responded with (IIRC) a statement that he'd studied with more than a dozen WC masters (which feels circular, but that's a different question). He replied with a list of - if I counted correctly - 11, as listed on some WC list. If that's incorrect, why not simply correct it? If 11 is the correct number, then maybe the focus should be that 11 seems plenty for the point at hand (I know many people I consider highly knowledgeable in their art, who have studied with far fewer).
> 
> Focus on making good points, and you'll need less back-and-forth.


Sorry Gerry, but Jlq is not acting in good faith, it's impossible to have a civil discussion with someone who is making up their own "facts" about something.

I don't feel attacked but I'm not going to play games with such a person about a serious subject.  If he lies, he lies and I'll call it out.

If this were Shakespeare, Jlq would be trying to convince everyone that the Tragedy of Macbeth was largely based on the works of Rosencrantz and Gildenstern.

He's not pointing out weaknesses, he's making them up and wrapping them in long essays.  If Judkins (peer reviewed) work has any weaknesses, sources aren't one of them.

The only point I should have to make is to point out the work is not based on anything Leung Ting wrote, or "Foshan Martial Arts Culture".

And it's very odd to anyone who knows the Wing Chun scene, to attempt to link a book about all of Wing Chun to a very controversial, somewhat fringe figure (Leung Ting).

He just made a new lie about "anybody looking at the bibliography can see...", Taunting me to post screenshots of the book, which is of course a copyright violation that could get YOU (not I) in trouble.


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 31, 2022)

Gerry Seymour said:


> Given jlq has said more than once that it's worth a read


Are you getting Eric H and jlq mixed up?

Geezer and Eric H have said it's worth a read, but neither has made the claims about the book being based on just two sources.

Jlq on the other hand, showed up within hours of hunschuld (who is a more overt troll) to repeat the same false claim in a more conciliatory tone.  Anybody with the book in their hands will know their claims are fabricated.  It's hard to believe anyone could do this by accident.

But I'm willing to start listing references, I'll be here all week doing it due to the size of the mountain of sources (over 150) involved in crafting "The Creation of Wing Chun", since it was formatted for academic publication.

_Acevedo, William and Mei Cheung. 2014. “Republic Period Guoshu Periodicals.” Classic Fighting Arts. Vol 2. No. 26 Issue 49. pp. 56-68._

For those curious cats still wondering what we're talking about, the claims that the highest water mark for academic publication in the Wing Chun Universe is based on two crappy sources, and somehow that negates my previous discussions about the relationship between Wing Chun's ancestor arts such as southern Dragon, Crane, and Crane.

Oh and that my reading comprehension sucks!



			Project MUSE - <i>The Creation of Wing Chun: A Social History of the Southern Chinese Martial Arts</i> by Benjamin N. Judkins and Jon Nielson (review)


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 31, 2022)

Now that we've cleared the air again, let's see what jlq has to say about what Judkins wrote about Gong Sau Wong, the subject of this thread. 

9 pages, go.  It's fascinating stuff (if you have the book that is).

None of it comes from Leung Ting or "Foshan Martial Arts Culture", again because the former is mentioned on fewer than 20 pages of a 350 page book (along with 9 of his relatives who are given about the same coverage), and the latter can hardly been found mentioned anywhere in the book.


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 31, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> The only point I should have to make is to point out *the work is not based on anything Leung Ting wrote, or "Foshan Martial Arts Culture".*





Oily Dragon said:


> and* the latter can hardly been found mentioned anywhere in the book.*


I want to clarify these particular statements, to try to be as transparent as possible (remember I was accused of having "an agenda" here).

Ma Zineng's 2001 work IS referenced in the book in a couple places, particularly Chapter 4, "The Public Emergence of Wing Chun". The first quote of the chapter is from Huang Xiao Hui and Huang Hong found in Ma's Foshan Wushu Wenhua.  They are sparse and hard to find (thankfully Judkin's meticulously noted his chapters).

But those are from the Notes section on one chapter of the book.  There is a separate Notes section  per chapter in the appendix.  There are around 20 little bits of information pulled into Chapter 4 from Ma Zineng's work (this is stuff like "So and so died in year XXX" or direct quotations of other people).  The actual number of sources used to support Chapter 4 is pretty large.  By the time you get to it you've covered everything from the dawn of Chinese martial arts to Foshan and Hong Kong and beyond, and then Jackie Chan is the face of Ip Man on airlines.






As far as Leung Ting, again his work is _mentioned_ here and there, but not used as a basis for any chapter, especially 4.  References such as "Leung Ting's own research" are made here and there, in an objective manner.  I believe this is a big part of why people have a problem with an actual historian poking around lineage wars, along with a leading American Ip Man figure.  Maybe somebody in Hong Kong got angry at this?  Who knows.

I'd like to get back to Gong Sao Wong now, since he's a far more interesting character, and better looking.


----------



## Tony Dismukes (May 31, 2022)

I'm going to make an effort to chime in as a neutral 3rd party here. I have only a small amount of WC background and no particular concerns with anyone's lineage, but I do have a copy of Judkin's book and pretty good reading comprehension.


jlq said:


> Speaking of reading comprehension... Unfortunately, your above post really corroborates the point I made. You took offense that I wrote somethin to the effect of "that book is of no better quality that a high school paper" because you somehow read this as if I was referring to Mr. Judkin's book, but it should be pretty clear to anyone reading carefully what I wrote that I was referring to the book "Fatsaan Martial Culture", he draws so heavily on. I even pointed out the misunderstanding EXPLICITLY in a seperate post, but you STILL didn't concede that you had misread something and got it in your head that I questioned Mr. Judkin's scholarly method.





Oily Dragon said:


> _"Now, when it comes to the information on Wing Chun, its practitioners, and its development in Mainland China,* he mainly draws on two sources, one being Leung Ting's "Roots and Branches of Wing Chun", the other one being a locally published work (in Fatsaan, that is) called "Fatsaan Mo Sat Man Faat" or "Foshan Martial Arts Culture". *The greater part of* this book is actually about Choi Lei Fat* (Mr. Judkin's brings quite a bit of information about that style into his book), *a lesser part is actually about Wing Chun. This book is not actually a serious scholarly work*, in fact it looks and reads like a high school project, or one of those obligatory papers certain research or study faculties/organizations have to produce on a regular bases, and since it is more about just getting them done than producing actual quality content, not too much work and effort is put into it. Most of the information about Wing Chun in that book was from"_
> 
> 
> 
> ...





jlq said:


> So, here you demonstrate exactly where the root of the problem is: you didn't actually understand what I wrote. I even explained it to you in a seperate post to clarify, yet you go on.
> I think, if I had left out the sentence in the parenthesis, you should get the meaning... But again, let me spell it out, and leave out the part which seems to cause you confusion, to hopefully clear up the matter for you:
> 
> "Now, when it comes to the information on Wing Chun, its practitioners and its development in Mainland China, he mainly draws on two sources, one being Leung Ting's "Roots and Branches of Wing Chun", the other one being a locally published work (in Fatsaan, that is) called "Fatsaan Mo Sat Man Faat" or "Foshan Martial Arts Culture". The greater part of this book is actually about Choi Lei Fat, a lesser part about Wing Chun. This book is actually not actually a serious scholarly work, in fact it looks and reads like a high school project...
> ...


Despite your contrasting claims about the "obvious" meaning of jlq's original post, it's actually quite ambiguous. The subject in the sentence _"This book is actually not actually a serious scholarly work..."_ could easily be read as referring either to Judkins book or to "Foshan Martial Arts Culture". A little bit of initial editing could have clarified that. However, jlq has repeatedly clarified his intent in subsequent posts. I've reviewed all of his posts on the subject and can't find any other comment he has made which could be interpreted as suggesting that Judkin's book is not scholarly. To the contrary, I've found comments by him stating that Judkin is an excellent scholar.

Part of maintaining this forum as a place for friendly martial arts discussion involves giving each other the benefit of the doubt and not attempting to mind read and assume someone else's intent without evidence. You have a perfect right to believe that jlq is for some reason lying about the intent behind his original ambiguous paragraph. However making that accusation publicly without evidence is neither helpful to the discussion nor within the bounds of civility.

What might be productive is engaging with his claim as clarified - that "Foshan Martial Arts Culture" is one of Judkin's primary sources and is not itself a scholarly work.


jlq said:


> Instead of keeping telling yourself and others that I am lying when said that when it comes to the chapter on Mainland China Wing Chun and its development Mr. Judkin's, why don't you simply verify whether or not I was correct and show it? Just take a look at how many works were referenced for that chapter and how many times each of these was quoted and provide the numbers you find. I did that in the other thread... If you want to insist I am lying, at least you should prove and demonstrate that the numbers I gave are wrong. So, what is it going to be? Since you have the book, it is a matter of a few minutes to simply count, as I did.





Oily Dragon said:


> Sorry Gerry, but Jlq is not acting in good faith, it's impossible to have a civil discussion with someone who is making up their own "facts" about something.
> 
> I don't feel attacked but I'm not going to play games with such a person about a serious subject. If he lies, he lies and I'll call it out.
> 
> ...


Okay, so here we have an objectively testable claim, i.e. in the section of Judkin's book which focuses on the development of Wing Chun in mainland China he draws primarily from two sources: Leung's _Roots and Branches_ and Ma's _Foshan Martial Arts Culture_.

To clarify this claim, I should point out that Judkin's book contains five chapters and an epilogue. The first three chapters are primarily concerned with the general history of the Guangdong province from 1800 - 1949, with an emphasis on martial culture. There are some passing mentions of Wing Chun, but not a lot of specific focus on the art. That is reserved for chapter 4, which is about the development of Wing Chun in mainland China. Chapter 5 is focused on Ip Man, but is mostly about his time spent in Hong Kong. The epilogue briefly covers the spread of Wing Chun as a worldwide art.

My interpretation of jlq's claim is that at least the majority of Judkin's citations for chapter 4 are from Leung's _Roots and Branches_ and Ma's _Foshan Martial Arts Culture. _I'm prepared to go ahead and count up those citations right now. However, if anyone else has a reasonable interpretation of what jlq might be stating or ideas of what I should check with regard to those citations, go ahead and let me know. Otherwise I'll report back with my findings once I've finished my lunch and had a chance to count up the citations.


----------



## geezer (May 31, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> My only thought is that it looks like those butterfly knives are made from s*ingle-piece cast aluminum.*  Which disappoints me.


They _are._ I have an identical set. Decent dimensions and weight (for my lineage) and OK for practice. 

I have a nice pair of sharp, high carbon steel ones too. They're better weapons but downright dangerous in training. The ones I use the most are a crappy set of thick plastic ones. Lousy dimensions but you can spar with them!


----------



## Callen (May 31, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Now that we've cleared the air again, let's see what jlq has to say about what Judkins wrote about Gong Sau Wong, the subject of this thread.





Oily Dragon said:


> I'd like to get back to Gong Sao Wong now, since he's a far more interesting character, and better looking.


From what I remember, Judkins didn’t really write anything all that profound about Wong Shun Leung in his book. Everything that Judkins included on WSL in _The Creation of Wing Chun_ was already well-known public knowledge for decades prior to the book’s 2015 release.


----------



## Callen (May 31, 2022)

geezer said:


> The ones I use the most are a crappy set of thick plastic ones. Lousy dimensions but you can spar with them!


Yes! We have a few sets of those too. They're truly horrible, but fun for going ham during sparring!


----------



## Tony Dismukes (May 31, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> My interpretation of jlq's claim is that at least the majority of Judkin's citations for chapter 4 are from Leung's _Roots and Branches_ and Ma's _Foshan Martial Arts Culture. _I'm prepared to go ahead and count up those citations right now. However, if anyone else has a reasonable interpretation of what jlq might be stating or ideas of what I should check with regard to those citations, go ahead and let me know. Otherwise I'll report back with my findings once I've finished my lunch and had a chance to count up the citations.


And I'm back! I recounted a few times to make sure my numbers are correct. If they're off, it shouldn't be by much.

Judkins has 90 footnote references for chapter 4. However some of those footnotes cite multiple sources and a few just refer the reader back to earlier chapters. I counted a total of 105 actual citations of source material.

Out of those 105, 26 were of Ma's _Foshan Martial Arts Culture_ and 20 were of Leung's _Roots and Branches_. They are definitely the most cited sources, but combined they only account for 44% of the total citations, so jlq is incorrect if he means to indicate that they make up the majority of citations. He would have been just barely correct if he did the math by measuring against the total number of footnotes, but I think that counting the total number of actual citations is the more reasonable approach.

I will note that majority of the citations do come from a relatively small number of sources. If you include Ip and Tse's _Wing Chun Kung Fu_ (with 14 citations), then that would show 57% of citations from the chapter coming from 3 sources. I count a total of 28 distinct sources cited, but about 80% of the citations come from about 5-6 sources.

So, from a fact-checker standpoint, how do I rate jlq's claim? Well, first I went back to his previous posts to review what he actually wrote. The most relevant quote is this:


jlq said:


> To put this in perspective: of 90 citations, 29 are from "Fatsaan Martial Culture" (Ma Zineng), 19 from "Roots and Branches of Wing Chun" (Leung Ting), 11 from Yip Chun and Tse, 10 from Yip Ching and Heimberger and 6 from Chu, Ritchie and Yu's "Complete Wing Chun". The rest are cited just once, mostly.


Our counts are slightly off from each other, but pretty close. If he believes that I've miscounted, then I'm willing to go back and count again, but I don't think the slight discrepancy affects the overall conclusion. The main disagreement is that he is counting up the citations for the various sources and comparing them to the total number of footnotes, rather than considering that some of the footnotes list 2 or 3 sources. As I stated above, I think the proper approach is to compare the number of citations for the sources he is concerned with to the total number of source citations, not the total number of footnotes.

As I noted, including the additional sources that he mentions in the quote above do represent a solid majority of the total citations.

He has also stated that "the bulk" of the information in chapter 4 comes from Leung and Ma. This is actually harder to measure than just counting up citations. It would certainly be possible for a majority of the paragraphs written in the chapter to be based on a minority of cited sources. I'm not going to spend the time to try analyzing that.

Overall, if I were a fact-checker site, I would give jlq's claims a rating of "partially true". His count of citations in the quote above is approximately correct, but if he wants to claim that a majority of the citations come from Ma and Leung, then I think he is applying the math incorrectly. His broader point that most of the information in chapter 4 comes from a small number of sources is valid.


----------



## geezer (May 31, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I'm going to make an effort to chime in as a neutral 3rd party here. I have only a small amount of WC background and no particular concerns with anyone's lineage, but I do have a copy of Judkin's book and pretty good reading comprehension.
> 
> 
> My interpretation of jlq's claim is that at least the majority of Judkin's citations for chapter 4 are from Leung's _Roots and Branches_ and Ma's _Foshan Martial Arts Culture. _I'm prepared to go ahead and count up those citations right now. However, if anyone else has a reasonable interpretation of what jlq might be stating or ideas of what I should check with regard to those citations, go ahead and let me know. Otherwise I'll report back with my findings once I've finished my lunch and had a chance to count up the citations.


Thanks for providing as outside perspective, Tony. 

I don't care to get drawn into this argument myself. The real problem is the lack of verifiable documentation from the mid 19th century and earlier. So Judkins is forced to make some a lot of assumptions, and coming from a western, academic background he is generally cautious and conservative in these respects.

Others here give more weight to the essence of the folklore and oral martial arts traditions, once corrected for obvious historical errors. Scholars do not have the luxury of such factual generosity without compromising their research in the eyes of their peers. Traditional martial artists have the opposite problem. Different audiences.


----------



## geezer (May 31, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> My personal "live" training dao is a *steel-aluminum mixed alloy* that allows for a sturdy blade that doesn't bend or shard, but it's a lot better than springsteel or straight up aluminum (which won't survive much blade-on-blade sparring contact because it's too malleable, even wood is safer imho).
> 
> The two on the cover of Judkins are legitimate 19th century _hudiedao _used during the Opium Wars and the Red Turban Revolt, and other fun times.
> 
> I'll have to dig into the metallurgy to see what these might have been made of, but it probably wasn't steel.  *Probably mostly iron*.  China is the oldest civilization to cast it.


Honestly, Oily, I believe you need to re-examine your basic knowledge of knife and sword-smithing. Perhaps Kirk can weigh in here?

First of all I doubt that you have any kind of dao or other blade made of an aluminum-steel alloy. The melting points and other properties of those two metals are so different that they are never alloyed together in blades!

Secondly, The long, slender 19th Century _hu die dao_ pictured would certainly have been made of steel. Cast iron was not used for blades and would have been unsuitable compared with steel or layered iron and steel laminates. So steel was used for dao going all the way back to the Warring States period some four centuries BCE.


----------



## wckf92 (May 31, 2022)

Dang...I miss the good ol days of this forum when OP's were allowed to delete their threads if they got de-railed or other shenanigans were steering it off course haha. I would have deleted this a LONG time ago.


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 31, 2022)

Tony Dismukes said:


> I'm going to make an effort to chime in as a neutral 3rd party here. I have only a small amount of WC background and no particular concerns with anyone's lineage, but I do have a copy of Judkin's book and pretty good reading comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That about sums it up, however keep in mind what a citation is versus a source.

A citation can be "Joe said this" in something.  In the case of Judkins, practically every specific mention of Leung Ting or Ma Zineng is basically circumstantial stuff (like Ma Zineng quoting other sources).  The chapter notes are references to specific things.  They are not the totality of source material for any chapter.

Why aren't we talking about Robert Chen's works influence on Judkins?  It weighs in heavily here, like so many other works.

Also ask yourself why a book co-authored by an Ip Man lineage disciple would be heavily based on Leung Ting?  That dude has been a pariah in Ip Man schools for decades.

Does not compute, and talk about stuff I don't want to get mired in.  Already feel dirty.  Maybe I really am Greasy Dragon like Hunschuld said before Jlq showed up to back him up.


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 31, 2022)

Callen said:


> From what I remember, Judkins didn’t really write anything all that profound about Wong Shun Leung in his book. Everything that Judkins included on WSL in _The Creation of Wing Chun_ was already well-known public knowledge for decades prior to the book’s 2015 release.


It's only about 9 pages and quite frankly the book is absolutely full of history on Gong Sao types.  He just happens to be a notable one.

If you actually mapped out the family trees you could not fit them on one page.

But a funny thing happens when historians start piecing things together.  People get upset especially those behind the inner door.  This is a kung fu trusim, partner.


----------



## geezer (May 31, 2022)

wckf92 said:


> Dang...I miss the good ol days of this forum when OP's were allowed to delete their threads if they got de-railed or other shenanigans were steering it off course haha. I would have deleted this a LONG time ago.


Dunno... I've been on here since 2007 and a fair amount of topic "drift" was always tolerated. "Shenanigans" not so much. 

In any case, we are better moderated than most forums ....without being put in a straight jacket ....which I _have_ been, literally, by the way. You know the really heavy canvas ones with closed-off sleeves ending in leather straps that cross your chest and buckle behind your back.


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 31, 2022)

geezer said:


> Honestly, Oily, I believe you need to re-examine your basic knowledge of knife and sword-smithing. Perhaps Kirk can weigh in here?
> 
> First of all I doubt that you have any kind of dao or other blade made of an aluminum-steel alloy. The melting points and other properties of those two metals are so different that they are never alloyed together in blades!
> 
> Secondly, The long, slender 19th Century _hu die dao_ pictured would certainly have been made of steel. Cast iron was not used for blades and would have been unsuitable compared with steel or layered iron and steel laminates. So steel was used for dao going all the way back to the Warring States period some four centuries BCE.


Do you think it's full aluminum?  It's a relatively sturdy practice blade I bought off WLE.


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 31, 2022)

wckf92 said:


> Dang...I miss the good ol days of this forum when OP's were allowed to delete their threads if they got de-railed or other shenanigans were steering it off course haha. I would have deleted this a LONG time ago.


It's all my fault, I referenced an academic work about Wing Chun in some threads about Wing Chun, and some people went buck wild, myself included.

I'm sorry.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 31, 2022)

geezer said:


> Honestly, Oily, I believe you need to re-examine your basic knowledge of knife and sword-smithing. Perhaps Kirk can weigh in here?
> 
> First of all I doubt that you have any kind of dao or other blade made of an aluminum-steel alloy. The melting points and other properties of those two metals are so different that they are never alloyed together in blades!
> 
> Secondly, The long, slender 19th Century _hu die dao_ pictured would certainly have been made of steel. Cast iron was not used for blades and would have been unsuitable compared with steel or layered iron and steel laminates. So steel was used for dao going all the way back to the Warring States period some four centuries BCE.


In relatively recent years, some success has been reached with alloying steel and aluminum.  It apparently creates a significantly lighter steel that is comparable in strength to titanium alloys, or something (I confess I don’t recall specifically) and I believe has similar resistance to corrosion as stainless steel.  Apparently this has been a challenge, but success is being realized.

I haven’t read anything about it being used in blades.  It seems that at this point perhaps it’s uses are potentially structural.  I’ve seen no information on its ability to be tempered and take and hold an edge, which can mean different things for a scalpel vs. a sword, etc.  at any rate, I agree, I am skeptical that a dao exists that is made from this material, at least as a live blade and not as a practice trainer.

Also, yes, iron would be an unlikely material for a blade.  It cannot be tempered and does not take an edge like the proper selection of steel does. So any real and/or historic weaponry of this type would be a steel blade.


----------



## geezer (May 31, 2022)

In God's name, _Why_? you ask.

No, not involved in kinky bondage.
No, not committed to an asylum.
Worse.
Volunteer extra in a 1980s performance art piece.


----------



## geezer (May 31, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Do you think it's full aluminum?  It's a relatively sturdy practice blade I bought off WLE.


Most likely spring steel? That's what most of the modern wushu demo stuff is made of ...or stainless? Generally, a better material for swords intended for combat use is high carbon steel. Cast aluminum is only usable for decorative wall hangars and short practice blades like the _bart cham do_ pictured on the WSL book, or decorative spear and halberd heads like on a _kwan do_. At least that would be my, non-expert understanding.


----------



## geezer (May 31, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> It's all my fault, I referenced an academic work about Wing Chun in some threads about Wing Chun, and some people went buck wild, myself included.
> 
> I'm sorry.


Don't be sorry. These kinds of discussions are way better than not having anybody post for weeks at a time. IMO It's all good as long as nobody gets too angry and carried away.


----------



## geezer (May 31, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> In relatively recent years, some success has been reached with alloying steel and aluminum.  It apparently creates a significantly lighter steel that is comparable in strength to titanium alloys, or something (I confess I don’t recall specifically) and I believe has similar resistance to corrosion as stainless steel.  Apparently this has been a challenge, but success is being realized.


You know, I think I recall reading something about that. My shallow knowledge of metal work dates back to the 80s and early 90s. Pretty dated!


----------



## Flying Crane (May 31, 2022)

geezer said:


> You know, I think I recall reading something about that. My shallow knowledge of metal work dates back to the 80s and early 90s. Pretty dated!


Honestly, I only became aware of it from this thread, I did a Google search.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 31, 2022)

geezer said:


> Most likely spring steel? That's what most of the modern wushu demo stuff is made of ...or stainless? Generally, a better material for swords intended for combat use is high carbon steel. Cast aluminum is only usable for decorative wall hangars and short practice blades like the _bart cham do_ pictured on the WSL book, or decorative spear and halberd heads like on a _kwan do_. At least that would be my, non-expert understanding.


Actually, spring steel can mean many things, and can make for a very good sword.  Some flexibility is important to avoid brittleness, and is more important in longer weapons like swords.  I believe much of what makes it springy is in how it is tempered, and is a type of high carbon steel that can take and hold a good edge.  5160 spring steel is used to make flat leaf springs for truck suspensions, and makes for an excellent sword or big knife.  It takes a good edge and is very tough. 

The modern wushu blades are typically either a very thin spring steel, unsharpened, or is some other metal that is inappropriate for a real blade, cannot be tempered, does not take or hold an edge.  I don’t know what metal that is.

Stainless is usually avoided for big blades like swords because the nickel alloyed in the steel to resist rust can make it brittle.  Great for scalpels that need to be free of rust, but not to be trusted on long blade that undergo higher stress.  But there are different types of stainless steels and from what I understand some kinds can be used to make a good sword.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 31, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> My personal "live" training dao is a steel-aluminum mixed alloy that allows for a sturdy blade that doesn't bend or shard, but it's a lot better than springsteel or straight up aluminum (which won't survive much blade-on-blade sparring contact because it's too malleable, even wood is safer imho).


That seems unlikely. Aluminum and steel do not mix well. The alloy is VERY brittle. Not something you want in a blade. It's edge characteristics will be laughable (not an issue for blunt training weapons) and it will dent and break easily. A properly tempered and annealed high carbon steel blade would be much better.
There IS a method for creating steel/aluminum alloys, and there are applications for it's use in things like auto manufacturing. But as far as blades go, it's utter crap.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 31, 2022)

geezer said:


> Most likely spring steel?


That's a common but mostly meaningless term.


geezer said:


> That's what most of the modern wushu demo stuff is made of ...or stainless?


I despise stainless. Not because it's no good - it can be very good - but because it is SUCH a pain to work with. Heat treating is a nightmare, compared to a good high carbon steel or even a pattern welded steel.


geezer said:


> Generally, a better material for swords intended for combat use is high carbon steel.


Absolutely. Or a pattern welded steel. 
Titanium can be excellent as well, in specialized cases. I have several. It takes about 20 years to get one sharp. But they're the only decent blades that don't corrode when I am diving.


geezer said:


> Cast aluminum is only usable for decorative wall hangars


Yup. Decorative only.


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 31, 2022)

geezer said:


> Most likely spring steel? That's what most of the modern wushu demo stuff is made of ...or stainless? Generally, a better material for swords intended for combat use is high carbon steel. Cast aluminum is only usable for decorative wall hangars and short practice blades like the _bart cham do_ pictured on the WSL book, or decorative spear and halberd heads like on a _kwan do_. At least that would be my, non-expert understanding.


Definitely not spring steel.  This is very well crafted weapon.  The edge is full from (at this point) 10 years of practice, but still can be sharpened.  Not that I would ever dare, I've already put holes in many places with it that were not on my body.

Maybe I can find the old listing on an archive somewhere, these were high quality practice blades from my early Hung Kuen years.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 31, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Definitely not spring steel.


How do you know?


Oily Dragon said:


> This is very well crafted weapon.


That makes it more likely that it is, in fact, something that would fall into the broad category of spring steel. That includes pretty much any low-manganese, medium- or high-carbon content steels. Which is pretty much all the best blade steels.


----------



## Callen (May 31, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> It's only about 9 pages and quite frankly the book is absolutely full of history on Gong Sao types. He just happens to be a notable one.
> 
> If you actually mapped out the family trees you could not fit them on one page.
> 
> But a funny thing happens when historians start piecing things together. People get upset especially those behind the inner door. This is a kung fu trusim, partner.


Partner? You made me laugh with that one.

I have to be honest, I don't have too much interest in the assumptions made on forums about what is or isn't considered a "kung fu truism". Likewise, the narrative of whether some people may or may not be upset about what is written in a book is tangential to my responses or participation in this thread. I'm not going to get mixed-up into any of that drama, or góng sih fēi ( 講是非 ).

I was simply responding to your comments about wanting to see what jlq had to say about what Judkins wrote about Wong Shun Leung; and also your desire to stay on the subject of the thread and get back to Wong Shun Leung.



Oily Dragon said:


> Now that we've cleared the air again, let's see what jlq has to say about what Judkins wrote about Gong Sau Wong, the subject of this thread.





Oily Dragon said:


> I'd like to get back to Gong Sao Wong now, since he's a far more interesting character, and better looking.



Just thought I could chime-in, offer my perspective and contribute to the discussion. So to reiterate, I have read the book and I have also spoken with Ben; and in all honesty there's just not that much revealing about Wong Shun Leung in his book that hasn't already been previously available. IMO, the frequency of which WSL is referenced in the book (pages 212, 237, 239, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 274) is irrelevant because it does not add to the uniqueness of the information being shared.

None of that is meant as a critique to you or Judkins' research, it's just an honest observation based on my review. You and I can still be online friends, promise.


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 31, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> How do you know?
> 
> That makes it more likely that it is, in fact, something that would fall into the broad category of spring steel. That includes pretty much any low-manganese, medium- or high-carbon content steels. Which is pretty much all the best blade steels.


I think you're thinking of "sprung steel" spring steel.

In kung Fu springsteel is slang for crappy fake blades.  This is is an old kung Fu topic.  Wushu springsteel is the kind that flaps around like tinfoil and used for performance.

Here's a good old thread on it, Gene Ching himself weighed in.





__





						what's the difference between wushu and spring steel?
					

no message



					www.kungfumagazine.com
				




Mine is basically a blue collar version of this one (not spring steel in the modern Wushu sense), and can kill a man pretty easy, especially when sharpened.  Which I avoid for obvious reasons.

As stiff and we'll balanced as the blade is, its got the slightest flexibility, which I always assumed was some metallurgic additive other than steel.  But I could hit a brick wall with this and it would be fine.









						Three Kingdom Broadsword
					

Our newest arrival, Three Kingdom Broadsword featuring a very stiff high carbon steel blade. Blade lengths available in 28", 29", 30", 31", 32", 34", and 35.5". This Three Kingdom Broadsword is made by the legendary Long Quan Shen Family Forge in China. Now you can practice your Kung Fu with an...




					wle.com


----------



## Flying Crane (May 31, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> How do you know?
> 
> That makes it more likely that it is, in fact, something that would fall into the broad category of spring steel. That includes pretty much any low-manganese, medium- or high-carbon content steels. Which is pretty much all the best blade steels.


Agreed.  A shorter blade like a butterfly sword could be thick enough that it does not flex, but is made from a steel with a springy temper.  I have some kukhri made from 5160 spring steel, but are thick and do not flex.


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 31, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Agreed.  A shorter blade like a butterfly sword could be thick enough that it does not flex, but is made from a steel with a springy temper.  I have some kukhri made from 5160 spring steel, but are thick and do not flex.


The issue is that in modern Wushu performance, springsteel has a very specific connotation, often referred to as "Wushu steel".

That connotation with people who train with real dao is "that's a fake sword".  It's slang that came about to differentiate real swords used for sparring and the flashy tinfoil fake ones we've all seen in performances.

I won't sully this wonderful Wing Chun thread with a fake Wushu tinfoil sword.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 31, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> The issue is that in modern Wushu performance, springsteel has a very specific connotation, often referred to as "Wushu steel".
> 
> That connotation with people who train with real dao is "that's a fake sword".  It's slang that came about to differentiate real swords used for sparring and the flashy tinfoil fake ones we've all seen in performances.
> 
> I won't sully this wonderful Wing Chun thread with a fake Wushu tinfoil sword.


True, especially in more recent years.  Some of the modern wushu items are swords in shape only, the quality of materials and construction are abysmal.  In some cases I am unable to determine what kind of metal the blade is made of, I am doubtful it is steel at all, could be cut from a sheet of aluminum with a chrome plating or something.   

However, some of the older items that are light, wushu pieces, are a different animal.  They probably date from the 1960s and 1970s before the truly atrocious stuff became the norm.  They are made from a real spring steel, which is probably high carbon steel with a spring temper.  They are simply thin and light, but could take a real edge and could be genuinely dangerous weapons.  I have rebuilt a couple of them, trimmed the blade a bit to narrow the oxtail which gives it a better balance, lined up the point with the grip so they stab more efficiently, then gave it a functional and strong hilt with a solid steel pommel and 1/4 inch steel plate for a guard.  I cleaned up and polished the blade and put an edge on them.  They are still flexible but having trimmed the blades a bit they are somewhat less flexible than they were, and they balance and handle better.  Those are real weapons, just on the lighter side.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 31, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I think you're thinking of "sprung steel" spring steel.




No. I am not. There is one blade in this picture that I did not make. As a result, I know something about steel as it applies to blades.


Oily Dragon said:


> In kung Fu springsteel is slang for crappy fake blades.  This is is an old kung Fu topic.  Wushu springsteel is the kind that flaps around like tinfoil and used for performance.


You may find that sticking to standard definitions aids in communication.



Oily Dragon said:


> Mine is basically a blue collar version of this one (not spring steel in the modern Wushu sense), and can kill a man pretty easy, especially when sharpened.  Which I avoid for obvious reasons.
> 
> As stiff and we'll balanced as the blade is, its got the slightest flexibility, which I always assumed was some metallurgic additive other than steel.  But I could hit a brick wall with this and it would be fine.


It's all about the heat treat. Blades with no spring in them bend and stay bent. Or they just snap.


----------



## Dirty Dog (May 31, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Agreed.  A shorter blade like a butterfly sword could be thick enough that it does not flex, but is made from a steel with a springy temper.  I have some kukhri made from 5160 spring steel, but are thick and do not flex.


They will if you apply enough pressure... A blade that will not flex will snap. A short, thick blade will certainly be more difficult to bend, but if it's been properly heat treated, it will definitely flex.


----------



## Oily Dragon (May 31, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> You may find that sticking to standard definitions aids in communication.


What's the proper term for "Wushu springsteel" blades?

I guess they're not even technically "Blades" then?  Or are they?  (I imagine a reasonable sharp performance Wushu blade is still pretty dangerous from a slashing POV).

Is it just really, really thin springsteel vs reasonably thickly crafted like the quality training sabers?  End of day one of them will stop another weapon, the other won't have a chance.


----------



## Flying Crane (May 31, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> They will if you apply enough pressure... A blade with that will not flex will snap. A short, thick blade will certainly be more difficult to bend, but if it's been properly heat treated, it will definitely flex.


Yeah, I guess it should say I cannot get them to flex and they won’t flex under normal use, it just won’t apply enough pressure.  Meaning: they seem like they are not spring steel, but they are.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jun 1, 2022)

Just for comparison I measured the flex of my dao, it's about 15-20 degrees applying significant pressure.  It could probably go more, but I'm not going to test that with this old hunk of (apparently) springsteel (not to be confused with "Wushu spring steel").

Also giving a brief shout out to Wing Lam who sold me this weapon..don't mind the ripped up poster, it's a long story.

The blade has about 20 odd years of experience.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 1, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> What's the proper term for "Wushu springsteel" blades?


From the description, I'd suggest "junk" would be a good choice. Or "demo" if you like. 


Oily Dragon said:


> I guess they're not even technically "Blades" then?


That is correct. Although common usage uses the word "blade" to refer to the whole thing, technically "blade" refers specifically to the cutting edge. No cutting edge, no blade.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 1, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Just for comparison I measured the flex of my dao, it's about 15-20 degrees applying significant pressure.  It could probably go more, but I'm not going to test that with this old hunk of (apparently) springsteel (not to be confused with "Wushu spring steel").
> 
> Also giving a brief shout out to Wing Lam who sold me this weapon..don't mind the ripped up poster, it's a long story.
> 
> ...


On close look at this photo it appears to me that the blade was manufactured without a tang, and the tang was attached as a separate piece with the sleeve that appears to be bolted onto the base of the blade.  If my observation is correct, then this sleeve could be a weak point that might work loose and detach, which could be hazardous.  It also appears that the tang is not fully hidden under the guard and grip.  My instinct tells me that the exposed bit of the tang could also represent a weak spot that could be more likely to break.  When I build a new hilt, I actually cut a slot in the face of the guard so that the bottom “shoulders” of the blade fit into it, encasing the entire tang under the grip.  I feel it creates a stronger attachment.  

Just a word of caution, based on what I am seeing in that photo.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jun 1, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> On close look at this photo it appears to me that the blade was manufactured without a tang, and the tang was attached as a separate piece with the sleeve that appears to be bolted onto the base of the blade.  If my observation is correct, then this sleeve could be a weak point that might work loose and detach, which could be hazardous.  It also appears that the tang is not fully hidden under the guard and grip.  My instinct tells me that the exposed bit of the tang could also represent a weak spot that could be more likely to break.  When I build a new hilt, I actually cut a slot in the face of the guard so that the bottom “shoulders” of the blade fit into it, encasing the entire tang under the grip.  I feel it creates a stronger attachment.
> 
> Just a word of caution, based on what I am seeing in that photo.


Here's the stamp in case you can identify it.

I think there a full tang based on the handling and weight.  You can feel it, one piece.

What looks like a sleeve is actually 2 separate pieces bolted on either side of the blade.  So more of a supporting element for the blood cup.

For a practice blade it's not bad.  And yes I always consider it dangerous.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 1, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> On close look at this photo it appears to me that the blade was manufactured without a tang, and the tang was attached as a separate piece with the sleeve that appears to be bolted onto the base of the blade.  If my observation is correct, then this sleeve could be a weak point that might work loose and detach, which could be hazardous.


More likely, since this attachment is not solid, moisture will collect between the blade and the sleeve, leading to rust. It can be done if it's welded together, and the screws added as decoration. 


Flying Crane said:


> It also appears that the tang is not fully hidden under the guard and grip.  My instinct tells me that the exposed bit of the tang could also represent a weak spot that could be more likely to break.


For a short slashing weapon (like a small-medium Kukri) you can get away without  full tang. I don't know the dimensions of this blade, but by eye, I wouldn't trust it without a full tang. For waving in the air for demo purposes, sure. But not actually hitting anything.


Flying Crane said:


> When I build a new hilt, I actually cut a slot in the face of the guard so that the bottom “shoulders” of the blade fit into it, encasing the entire tang under the grip.  I feel it creates a stronger attachment.


Pretty much standard. For a strong blade, round off the junction of the blade and tang. Slot the guard. Drill and pin the guard in place. For the best result, braze the guard to the blade.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jun 1, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> More likely, since this attachment is not solid, moisture will collect between the blade and the sleeve, leading to rust. It can be done if it's welded together, and the screws added as decoration.
> 
> For a short slashing weapon (like a small-medium Kukri) you can get away without  full tang. I don't know the dimensions of this blade, but by eye, I wouldn't trust it without a full tang. For waving in the air for demo purposes, sure. But not actually hitting anything.
> 
> Pretty much standard. For a strong blade, round off the junction of the blade and tang. Slot the guard. Drill and pin the guard in place. For the best result, braze the guard to the blade.


I pretty sure it has a full tang, based on the handling, and it's survived decades of practice against identical blades so I think it's proven itself.  Never seen one break.

Would more pictures help the analysis?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 1, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I think there a full tang based on the handling and weight.  You can feel it, one piece.


It is not a full tang. A full tang is the full width of the blade. You can SEE the tang. The grips on a full tang are pinned or screwed to it along the flat.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 1, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I pretty sure it has a full tang, based on the handling, and it's survived decades of practice against identical blades so I think it's proven itself.


You're also pretty sure it's aluminum alloyed with non-spring steel...


Oily Dragon said:


> Would more pictures help the analysis?


Not really. It would need to be disassembled, hardness tested, etc.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jun 1, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> It is not a full tang. A full tang is the full width of the blade. You can SEE the tang. The grips on a full tang are pinned or screwed to it along the flat.
> View attachment 28485


I think it's a full tang, full width of the blade too.

I don't think this one is visible, it's encased in a leather hilt and a steel pommel.

Hard to tell either way without taking it apart.  I agree.  But based on weight and handling, it's a full tang, and I base that on my dao training.

This is getting off topic but it's been enlightening thanks Dog.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 1, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I think it's a full tang, full width of the blade too.
> 
> I don't think this one is visible, it's encased in a leather hilt.
> 
> Hard to tell either way without taking it apart.  But based on weight and handling, it's a full tang.


Can you post a picture of the handle and a bit of the blade, showing the flat side of the blade?
The weight and handling don't tell you anything at all about the tang construction.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jun 1, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> Can you post a picture of the handle and a bit of the blade, showing the flat side of the blade?
> The weight and handling don't tell you anything at all about the tang construction.


Let's do it in a different thread.  I'm genuinely curious.  I've always considered it one of my higher quality training pieces, and I've used a buttload of them.

Honestly I'm much more of a short staff dude.  Sword crafting dudes are very particular, I know you dudes well.

Wing Chun is largely based on bits and pieces of southern Shaolin Dragon, Mantis, Tiger Crane, and White Eyebrow, and other influences (Judkins et al., 2015).

Gong Sao Wong was legit (ibid.)


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 1, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> More likely, since this attachment is not solid, moisture will collect between the blade and the sleeve, leading to rust. It can be done if it's welded together, and the screws added as decoration.
> 
> For a short slashing weapon (like a small-medium Kukri) you can get away without  full tang. I don't know the dimensions of this blade, but by eye, I wouldn't trust it without a full tang. For waving in the air for demo purposes, sure. But not actually hitting anything.
> 
> Pretty much standard. For a strong blade, round off the junction of the blade and tang. Slot the guard. Drill and pin the guard in place. For the best result, braze the guard to the blade.


I’m actually slathering the entire tang in JB Weld, sliding up the guard, sliding up the grip, screwing a 1/4 inch hex nut behind the grip, putting the pommel behind the grip (space cut in pommel to receive the nut), then a final recessed nut behind the pommel, cut of level with tue back of the pommel and polished smooth.  All underneath is covered I. JB Weld, including hex nuts and threading.  Nothing will take thato apart without destroying it.   No moisture will get inside.  Photos taken From the sword I am working with right now, I interrupted training to respond to this.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 1, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I pretty sure it has a full tang, based on the handling, and it's survived decades of practice against identical blades so I think it's proven itself.  Never seen one break.
> 
> Would more pictures help the analysis?


I suspect the tang runs the full length of the grip, which is important, and probably held on with a hex nut on the end.  But since part of the tang is exposed where it enters into the guard, I feel that exposed portion may represent a weak spot.  The fit to the guard should be tighter and closer. 

Photos showing the edge view at the guard, as well as closeup of the flat at the guard would be helpful.  If those pieces were bolted onto the blade and the tang was single-piece construction with the blade, meaning it was not welded on separately but is all one continuous piece, then it might be ok in that aspect.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 1, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> I’m actually slathering the entire tang in JB Weld, sliding up the guard, sliding up the grip, screwing a 1/4 inch hex nut behind the grip, putting the pommel behind the grip (space cut in pommel to receive the nut), then a final recessed nut behind the pommel, cut of level with tue back of the pommel and polished smooth.  All underneath is covered I. JB Weld, including hex nuts and threading.  Nothing will take thato apart without destroying it.   No moisture will get inside.  Photos taken From the sword I am working with right now, I interrupted training to respond to this.


So it's threaded allllll the way to the quillion? For a sword, that concerns me. If I chose not to go full tang, I'd leave the tang at least 3/4 of the width, and cut down just the last inch to thread on a pommel. I'm partial to non-threaded pommels though. Slot the pommel. Cut the tang to length, so it protrudes just a bit. Heat. Hammer. Polish. This does mean your pommel needs to be of a material that matches the appearance of the rest of the sword, though. It would look terrible if you did it with a brass pommel on a steel tang.
The JB weld will fill the gaps, the same as brazing. And no doubt is easier.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 1, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> So it's threaded allllll the way to the quillion? For a sword, that concerns me. If I chose not to go full tang, I'd leave the tang at least 3/4 of the width, and cut down just the last inch to thread on a pommel. I'm partial to non-threaded pommels though. Slot the pommel. Cut the tang to length, so it protrudes just a bit. Heat. Hammer. Polish. This does mean your pommel needs to be of a material that matches the appearance of the rest of the sword, though. It would look terrible if you did it with a brass pommel on a steel tang.
> The JB weld will fill the gaps, the same as brazing. And no doubt is easier.


Nope, it’s threaded to the back of the grip.  Sometimes they are only threaded to the pommel.  I’ve done them both ways, one hex nut behind the pommel, or that plus one hex nut behind the grip.  I also slot the back of the grip so it slots slightly into the pommel, and I JB Weld on all surfaces that contact, as well as the tang.  So where the guard and grip meet, where the grip and pommel meet.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 1, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Nope, it’s threaded to the back of the grip.  Sometimes they are only threaded to the pommel.  I’ve done them both ways, one hex nut behind the pommel, or that plus one hex nut behind the grip.  I also slot the back of the grip so it slots slightly into the pommel, and I JB Weld on all surfaces that contact, as well as the tang.  So where the guard and grip meet, where the grip and pommel meet.


Gotcha. That makes more sense. I've never known anyone to use JB Weld like this, but I don't see any reason it shouldn't work. I pretty much always use a two-part epoxy. But I'm not leaving any of it visible, since I braze the quillon.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 1, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> Gotcha. That makes more sense. I've never known anyone to use JB Weld like this, but I don't see any reason it shouldn't work. I pretty much always use a two-part epoxy. But I'm not leaving any of it visible, since I braze the quillon.


Yeah, it leaves a very thin grey line, but it is minimal.  I get it really tight, the excess squeezes out and I get it cleaned up right away.  It’s essentially unnoticeable unless you are looking for it. 

I’ve thought about peening the tang, but never gave it a try.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 1, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Yeah, it leaves a very thin grey line, but it is minimal.  I get it really tight, the excess squeezes out and I get it cleaned up right away.  It’s essentially unnoticeable unless you are looking for it.


That sounds like less work. After brazing, I use a worn belt on the grinder and offset it so it overlaps the platen. That lets me grind in a nice radius where the steel and brass meet. It's beautiful, but it's also functional. For example, if the knife is ever used for food prep, you don't want even the tiniest space for food and gyuck to collect.


Flying Crane said:


> I’ve thought about peening the tang, but never gave it a try.


It's the same process for pinning the quillon. Done poorly, its practically invisible. Done well, you're essentially forge welding the joint, so there's no joint left to see. The trade off is that it can never be disassembled without destroying stuff. I could save the sword, but the quillon, and grips would be trashed.
I guess if it were a museum piece, it might be possible to disassemble it with minimal destruction, but that would be incredibly labor intensive, since you'd be working with tiny files and such.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 1, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> That sounds like less work. After brazing, I use a worn belt on the grinder and offset it so it overlaps the platen. That lets me grind in a nice radius where the steel and brass meet. It's beautiful, but it's also functional. For example, if the knife is ever used for food prep, you don't want even the tiniest space for food and gyuck to collect.
> 
> It's the same process for pinning the quillon. Done poorly, its practically invisible. Done well, you're essentially forge welding the joint, so there's no joint left to see. The trade off is that it can never be disassembled without destroying stuff. I could save the sword, but the quillon, and grips would be trashed.
> I guess if it were a museum piece, it might be possible to disassemble it with minimal destruction, but that would be incredibly labor intensive, since you'd be working with tiny files and such.


Once I started to put JBW on the threads, and over the hex nuts and in every nook and cranny, I realized there was no going back, no way to disassemble afterwards.  I don’t make the blades, I just put new hilts on existing blades.  Those coming from China typically have a single hex nut on the end, some have the second one under the pommel behind the grip.  Ive got a few made by Angus Trim and he was also using a tang nut slotted into the back of the pommel.  So I work with what I have.  I am terrified of a sword coming apart and the blade flying off.  I like the idea of being able to disassemble and replace a part, but I like the idea of it being secure even better.  I would be infinitely annoyed if a tang nut rattled loose in the middle of carving my way through a horde of zombies in the apocalypse.  So I just went for a permanent attachment.  

I suppose if the hilt was damaged to the point of being unusable, one solution might be to chop off the hilt altogether and shape a new tang from the base of the remaining blade.  Turn a sword into a short sword.  It might work, but might also be a lot of work and maybe time to buy a new blade.  It if ever becomes necessary, I’ll give it a shot.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 1, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> I suppose if the hilt was damaged to the point of being unusable, one solution might be to chop off the hilt altogether and shape a new tang from the base of the remaining blade.  Turn a sword into a short sword.  It might work, but might also be a lot of work and maybe time to buy a new blade.  It if ever becomes necessary, I’ll give it a shot.


The grips will come off with a bit of cutting and a chisel. Ruined beyond hope, but off. If that's all you need, you can make a two-piece handle, fit it carefully, and reassemble with epoxy. I'd also drill and pin it.
If you need the pommel off, you can saw through the tang at the base of the pommel. Slot the remaining tang and weld in new metal to restore the length. This would be a pretty minimal distance, and its not at a high stress area. You can probably drill and file the pommel and salvage it.
JB Weld is rated to a temp of 500F, so it should be possible to heat the quillon and break the JB Weld  loose with a hammer. 
Obviously there's going to be some grinding involved to clean things up before putting on a new hilt.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 1, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> The grips will come off with a bit of cutting and a chisel. Ruined beyond hope, but off. If that's all you need, you can make a two-piece handle, fit it carefully, and reassemble with epoxy. I'd also drill and pin it.
> If you need the pommel off, you can saw through the tang at the base of the pommel. Slot the remaining tang and weld in new metal to restore the length. This would be a pretty minimal distance, and its not at a high stress area. You can probably drill and file the pommel and salvage it.
> JB Weld is rated to a temp of 500F, so it should be possible to heat the quillon and break the JB Weld  loose with a hammer.
> Obviously there's going to be some grinding involved to clean things up before putting on a new hilt.


If I hear it to break the JBW will it damage the temper?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 1, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> If I hear it to break the JBW will it damage the temper?


That's a more complex question...
When you're heat treating a sword or knife, it involves multiple steps.

Normalizing is heating a metal and then allowing it to cool slowly sitting in the open. This is done to remove internal stress caused by forging and such. If this is done, it's often done 2-3 times.

Hardening is the step most people are familiar with from TV and movies. Get the metal to the proper temperature, and then quench it, usually in water, brine, or oil. I like canola oil. It works well on many steels and makes the shop smell like someone baked cookies. For stainless steels, this often requires liquid nitrogen. For Hollywood, it requires a person you can stab, quenching it in the Blood of Your Enemy. This would result in a terrible and uneven heat treatment, so I do not recommend it. Hardening makes the blade, well... hard. And brittle. So then you need to take some of the hardness out, especially in the spine of the blade.

So the next step is to either temper or anneal the steel. Many people, even knife people, don't get that these two are not synonymous. 

Tempering involves bringing the steel back up to the right temperature, and then allowing it to cool in the air. The edge will cool faster, resulting in it keeping more hardness. The thicker spine will cool slower, resulting in a tougher, more durable end result.

Annealing is essentially the same as tempering with the single significant difference that it's slower. You bring the metal up to temp and then turn off the heat source and let the steel and oven/furnace/forge cool together. Ovens/furnaces/forges are, as you might expect, pretty insulated. So the cooling is slower. 

Most knifemakers harden and anneal their blades, but there are lots who mistakenly refer to the annealing process as tempering.

So, back to your question. 

If you indiscriminately heat the sword, then yes, you will screw up the heat treating. 

What I would do is wrap the sword in wet cloth,  leaving just the ricasso exposed. I would use a torch to apply the heat *to the quillon* and let it soak inwards. In an ideal world, I'd have someone holding the torch in place, and I would intermittently  put blunt chisel against the quillon and give it a couple whacks. When it breaks lose, get the torch out of there.

Temps vary depending on the specifics of the metal. But it is likely that you will be bringing the metal of the ricasso up to around the temperature used for tempering or annealing. And the ricasso, like the spine, needs less hardness. So if you keep the blade covered and soaked, it will stay cool. Your best bet after the hilt comes loose is to keep the wrapping cool and wet, and let the ricasso cool slowly. Just as should have been done when it was originally tempered.

The steel will be discolored. Depending on the temperature reached it may be dark yellow, brown, or purple. This is just the surface. It's always like that after hardening, tempering, or annealing. A bit of work will grind it off. You can do it by hand, if you don't have a grinder. Just wrap sandpaper around a block and go to town. 

I bet that's more answer than you expected...


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 1, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> That's a more complex question...
> When you're heat treating a sword or knife, it involves multiple steps.
> 
> Normalizing is heating a metal and then allowing it to cool slowly sitting in the open. This is done to remove internal stress caused by forging and such. If this is done, it's often done 2-3 times.
> ...


Not too much at all.  I can completely visualize what you are describing.  

I do some silver and bronze working, casting and fabrication so I am very familiar with annealing as a concept and as a process with those metals, but recognize that the process is different with steel.  I am also familiar with the hardening and tempering as concepts, but again do not have expertise with the processes for steel.  So I can follow your description, I understand the terms, and the steps you suggest make sense to me.  Thank you!

I will also say that I have used a hammer and chisel to cut off some hilts on some Chinese imports that I believe were fixed with JBW.  The difference is that the guard and pommel were made from cheap brass sheet and wood and I could simply cut those off easily.  The blobs of JBW on the tang, that were under the wood grip, cut off pretty easily.  The difference with mine is that my guard and pommel are thick steel and I cannot simply cut those with a chisel, and the JBW in the threading and covering the hex nuts, and the fact that the last hex nut is also recessed and cut even with the pommel, there is nothing to grab it with a pliers to try and get it moving.  So everything is tougher.  I suppose I could cut off the wood grip and clear away as much as possible, then go to work on the guard as you describe above. But the pommel might simply need to be severed because of the interlocking hex nuts and pommel and JBW on everything, including threads.  

But your suggestions seems workable and gives me some ideas.  Again, my pieces are in fine condition, none of them are damaged so I have no interest in messing with them.  But if it ever happens, I can consider it.  Thanks!


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jun 1, 2022)

Since the Wing Chun Wars well has dried up for the moment, I figured why not.  Let's take a closer look.

From this angle you can see the blade has a tang and these two side supports are bolted on and somehow run along each side of it into the hilt. 

It also looks like there is some kind of epoxy in there, or something, between the tang and these supports (pretty thick and seem much denser than the blade itself.

I haven't ever been able to figure out what "RONS" on the stamp means.  Any ideas?


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 1, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Since the Wing Chun Wars well has dried up for the moment, I figured why not.  Let's take a closer look.
> 
> From this angle you can see the blade has a tang and these two side supports are bolted on and somehow run along each side of it into the hilt.
> 
> ...


I don’t know what the stamp means.  I assume it is the manufacturer, but it isnt familiar to me.  

The first picture, it almost looks like the central blade has no tang, only the side patches do.  Can you confirm if the blade has a tang?

Do you have a magnet?  Does it stick to blade, guard, and pommel?  Is there a hex nut on the back of the pommel?  Picture of back of pommel?


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jun 1, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> I don’t know what the stamp means.  I assume it is the manufacturer, but it isnt familiar to me.
> 
> The first picture, it almost looks like the central blade has no tang, only the side patches do.  Can you confirm if the blade has a tang?
> 
> Do you have a magnet?  Does it stick to blade, guard, and pommel?  Is there a hex nut on the back of the pommel?  Picture of back of pommel?


Here's a closeup of the central tang, with a better filter.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jun 1, 2022)

The Dao isn't even big in Wing Chun.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 1, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> Here's a closeup of the central tang, with a better filter.
> 
> View attachment 28493


That’s just weird, I can’t tell what I’m looking at.  Any chance of taking it apart?  Is there a hex nut on the back?  That might be the only thing holding it, remove the nut and slide the pieces off.  Sometimes it is a tight fit and you gotta work it.  Sometimes there is a second hex nut under the pommel, behind the grip, so remove the pommel by itself first.  If it is glued, you can’t remove it.  Keep track of how the parts align, so you put them on the same way.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 1, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> The Dao isn't even big in Wing Chun.
> 
> View attachment 28494


I’ve never seen a pommel like that.  Can I get a straight view?  Looks like it might be fit on like an end-cap, could be glued on and maybe cannot be removed without damaging it.  

How about a magnet?

I know dao isn’t used in wing Chun, we are way off subject here, but it’s flowing.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 1, 2022)

Most stuff from China looks like this.  See hex nut on end.  Pommel fits on back. Threaded end of tang pokes thru the back, hex nut screws on and holds it all together.  Pommel is hollow sheet metal.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jun 1, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> I’ve never seen a pommel like that.  Can I get a straight view?  Looks like it might be fit on like an end-cap, could be glued on and maybe cannot be removed without damaging it.
> 
> How about a magnet?
> 
> I know dao isn’t used in wing Chun, we are way off subject here, but it’s flowing.



I don't have a magnet handy, sorry.

What I do know is that the techniques of the Dao aren't that different from the butcher knives of the Red Boats.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jun 1, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Most stuff from China looks like this.  See hex nut on end.  Pommel fits on back. Threaded end of tang pokes thru the back, hex nut screws on and holds it all together.  Pommel is hollow sheet metal.


My pommel is 100% metal.  There's a nut, but it's been literally metaled upon.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 1, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> My pommel is 100% metal.  There's a nut, but it's been literally metaled upon.


Yes it’s metal, but is probably hollow.  Not sure what kind of metal.  Sounds like that nut cannot be removed?   This might be permanently assembled,  no way to know what is underneath.  Just trying to get a feel for what this dao is, I’ve never seen one like it.

Something about the look of it makes me think it’s aluminum, not steel.  Magnet would tell.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jun 1, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Yes it’s metal, but is probably hollow.  Not sure what kind of metal.  Sounds like that nut cannot be removed?   This might be permanently assembled,  no way to know what is underneath.  Just trying to get a feel for what this dao is, I’ve never seen one like it.
> 
> Something about the look of it makes me think it’s aluminum, not steel.  Magnet would tell.


While I hunt for a magnet, here's comparison to a wooden dao.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 2, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> While I hunt for a magnet, here's comparison to a wooden dao.
> 
> View attachment 28497


Yeah, I’ve got that same wooden dao.  Red oak, splinters on impact.  Ok for forms but not contact drills.  I’m making them out of hickory, much more durable for contact.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jun 2, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Yeah, I’ve got that same wooden dao.  Red oak, splinters on impact.  Ok for forms but not contact drills.  I’m making them out of hickory, much more durable for contact.


I like to use the wooden dao at the park.  

It attracts a lot less attention than the steel one.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 2, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I like to use the wooden dao at the park.
> 
> It attracts a lot less attention than the steel one.


This is true.  I am teaching in a park, I have permission from the city park and recreation department so they know I am doing it, but still would not bring a live weapon.  Those stay at home.  Would probably attract negative attention, and an injury from one would probably prompt the city to shut me down. 

I lived in San Francisco for a long time, and kung fu training in the parks was common.  Weaponry was a common thing, and I routinely practiced with my live weapons in the park.  Never had a problem.  But the culture in San Francisco is kinda of unique in that way.  It was just accepted.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 2, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> View attachment 28491


So I'm going to mostly be replying to the pictures...
100% NOT a full tang. There is a tang visible where it enters the guard, but it is SMALLER than even the side pieces.



Oily Dragon said:


> I don't have a magnet handy, sorry.


You must be the only person in America without a magnet on their fridge. 

Couple red flags...
The fitment is... sketchy. The fact that the tang is visible in front of the guard is one. On a non-full tang weapon, the shoulders where the blade transitions into the tang should be rounded (those cannot be seen in your photos) and covered by the guard. The guard should be flush against the blade, or overlap it a bit. @Flying Crane talked about this as well.

Those side bits are not fitted any better than the blade-to-guard. All those little gaps are rust points. If you have no rust, there is a very high probability that it's not even steel. It could be stainless or aluminum, but those do rust too, eventually.

And rivets??? If this is something traditional in China, ok... I guess... but from a functional standpoint, this is horrible. You're drilling holes near the tang. Which weakens it, in the area that is already most prone to breaking, especially with a partial tang weapon. You cannot loosen rivets, but they can loosen over time. You cannot tighten them. If I wanted to put bits like that on a weapon, they'd be part of the blade. Not tacked on. If there as a reason (tradition or something) that required them to be tacked on afterwards, they'd need to fit the blade better. I'd like to assume that those were fitted properly and have bent over time. That's possible, but given the poor fitment of the blade and guard, I suspect this is how they've always been.

I'd like to see what the magnet test shows. 

Having said all that, I have to admit that it's pretty difficult to find a really well made sword these days. And the issues with yours are not the sort of things most people would ever think of, or notice.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 2, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> So I'm going to mostly be replying to the pictures...
> 100% NOT a full tang. There is a tang visible where it enters the guard, but it is SMALLER than even the side pieces.
> 
> 
> ...


Most of the stuff coming in from China, for the purposes of kung fu training, has poorly fitting and poorly assembled components.  That is very standard.  

Some items are being made better, but it is still very hit-and-miss.  For example, Instead of a guard made of thin sheet brass, or thin sheet brass over a wood core, you might find a guard made of thicker brass but still not substantial the way I would like it, and while perhaps it is better fitted, still not up to my standards.  This is the whole reason why I began rebuilding hilts.  I was tired of poorly constructed items that at best I was afraid might come apart, and at worst felt like a mockery of a sword.  I stopped playing with toy swords when I was about eleven years old and I wasn’t willing to do it for my kung fu training.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jun 2, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> So I'm going to mostly be replying to the pictures...
> 100% NOT a full tang. There is a tang visible where it enters the guard, but it is SMALLER than even the side pieces.


I'm thinking the pictures suck and if you held it in your hands you'd really give me a great take.  But I appreciate this one.

The central tang is actually a little thicker than the side supports,  I measured. It's exactly 1/8th inch thick, each side strut is more like 1/12th.

As far as it's length, I'm feeling either a central tang, the side supports, or all three all the way to the pommel.  The fact that I'm feeling it makes me wonder if this sword is a little loose from all the wear and tear, still it feels perfectly sturdy (and it's taken a lot of hard strikes).  Not so much nowadays, this one only gets used for drills.

It's definitely not a rat tail tang (based on what I can see the tang and struts are about 1 inch wide).  Was wondering if these struts are there for supporting the heavier part of the blade at the end, because the blade fans out to a lot wider than 1" (1.5" at the guard, 2.5" at the fattest part of the saber).  It's not a straight sword, but overall the whole length its about 1/8" except for the tip, about half that.


Dirty Dog said:


> You must be the only person in America without a magnet on their fridge.


I'm not that sharp.


Dirty Dog said:


> I'd like to see what the magnet test shows.
> 
> Having said all that, I have to admit that it's pretty difficult to find a really well made sword these days. And the issues with yours are not the sort of things most people would ever think of, or notice.


Like I said, it's a practice blade for learning forms like Single Moon Flowing Saber, and basic fencing at a slow pace.  Wing Lam Enterprises is known for relatively better quality gear than most "from China", probably one of the best sites online for decent Chinese weapons.  Wle.com

This is not "Street Sword quality" for sure.  That was a joke at Phil Elmore's expense.  Hiya Phil.

I did end up pulling the strongest magnet off my fridge (a Gilley's Boot, mind you, the best I have).  There's slight magnetic stick along the blade (not a lot), there's a noticeable increase around the struts and tang.  The hilt and pommel, nothing but I think that's because the magnet isn't that strong, and the hilt is very thickly crafted leather (at least 1/2" around, which imho is of decent craftwork, and it's survived decades of sweaty palms).


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 2, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> I'm thinking the pictures suck and if you held it in your hands you'd really give me a great take.  But I appreciate this one.
> 
> The central tang is actually a little thicker than the side supports,  I measured. It's exactly 1/8th inch thick, each side strut is more like 1/12th.


I'm not talking about the thickness. I'm talking about the width. From the edge of the blade to the spine, for single edged weapons.


Oily Dragon said:


> As far as it's length, I'm feeling either a central tang, the side supports, or all three all the way to the pommel.  I'm wondering if this sword is a little loose from all the wear and tear, still it feels perfectly sturdy (and it's taken a lot of hard strikes).


If you can feel them through the leather, then the sword lacks grips. If they took that three-piece sandwich and just wrapped leather around it.... YIKES!


Oily Dragon said:


> It's definitely not a rat tail tang (based on what I can see the tang and struts are about 1 inch wide).  Was wondering if these struts are there for supporting the heavier part of the blade at the end, because the blade fans out to a lot wider than 1" (1.5" at the guard, 2.5" at the fattest part of the saber).  It's not a straight sword.


They're almost certainly purely decorative. You don't strengthen that part of the blade by drilling holes in it and cold riveting slabs that don't fit.


Oily Dragon said:


> Like I said, it's a practice blade for learning forms like Single Moon Flowing Saber, and basic fencing at a slow pace.  Wing Lam Enterprises is known for relatively better quality gear than most "from China", probably one of the best sites online for decent Chinese weapons.  Wle.com
> 
> This is not "Street Sword quality" for sure.


Clearly. And for anybody but a huge nerd, I'm sure that's fine.


Oily Dragon said:


> I did end up pulling the strongest magnet off my fridge.  There's slight magnetic stick along the blade (not a lot),


That's not good. Any decent quality blade is going to grab that magnet at least as well as your fridge does. Titanium isn't magnetic, but it would be absurd to think that your sword is titanium. Stainless steels are mostly magnetic. There are a few non-magnetic variants, but those are austenitic, which means they CANNOT be hardened, and would be absolute **** for a sword. Aluminum is not magnetic...


Oily Dragon said:


> there's a noticeable increase around the struts and tang.  The pommel, nothing but I think that's because the magnet isn't that strong,


Like the blade, unless it's aluminum or some such, it should grab that magnet at least as well as your fridge.


Oily Dragon said:


> and the hilt is very thickly crafted leather (which imho is of decent craftwork, it's survived decades of sweaty palms).


Or it's something like vinyl.

So your sword has a partial tang with further details unknown. The blade and pommel are non-magnetic and likely aluminum. The slabs are something ferrous, but exactly what is unknown. The fitment of the hardware could definitely be better. If you were saving it for the Zombie Apocalypse, I'd encourage you to find a better sword. But for forms and that sort of thing, I'm sure it's fine.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 2, 2022)

Oily Dragon said:


> The fact that I'm feeling it makes me wonder if this sword is a little loose from all the wear and tear, still it feels perfectly sturdy (and it's taken a lot of hard strikes).


I would be very careful about using this sword for any kind of contact training.  Even a non-steel, non-sharpened blade can be thin enough to still be sharp enough to do some serious damage if you impact a finger or a hand or a leg.  It happens in an instant and always when you are certain you are being absolutely careful.  And then it’s too late to undo it. 

Wood trainers can be a lot safer if the blade is thick enough and the edge is thickly rounded, to be genuinely not sharp.  They can still break fingers though, and can be a dangerous impact weapon.  But they need to be made from wood that does not splinter and break on impact, which red oak does and is commonly used for wooden weapons coming from Asia.  Those can have flying splinters and sharp shards that are dangerous.


----------



## Oily Dragon (Jun 2, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> I would be very careful about using this sword for any kind of contact training.  Even a non-steel, non-sharpened blade can be thin enough to still be sharp enough to do some serious damage if you impact a finger or a hand or a leg.  It happens in an instant and always when you are certain you are being absolutely careful.  And then it’s too late to undo it.
> 
> Wood trainers can be a lot safer if the blade is thick enough and the edge is thickly rounded, to be genuinely not sharp.  They can still break fingers though, and can be a dangerous impact weapon.  But they need to be made from wood that does not splinter and break on impact, which red oak does and is commonly used for wooden weapons coming from Asia.  Those can have flying splinters and sharp shards that are dangerous.


Careful is my middle name.


----------



## hunschuld (Jun 2, 2022)

Dirty Dog do you or does anyone have a really Good Knife Smith you could recommend. I have detailed photos and drawings of the Dao used  by a 1880's  wing chun practitioner and I would love to have 6 pair of quality knives made based on the photos and drawings.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 2, 2022)

hunschuld said:


> Dirty Dog do you or does anyone have a really Good Knife Smith you could recommend. I have detailed photos and drawings of the Dao used  by a 1880's  wing chun practitioner and I would love to have 6 pair of quality knives made based on the photos and drawings.


There are literally thousands. One of the absolute best anywhere is not too far from you. His name is Jay Fisher and you can see his stuff HERE. Another is Jim Hrisoulas. He's a bit further from you, not that it matters today. You can see his work HERE. Jim's personality can seem a bit...abrasive (see what I did there?) at times. But both are brilliant smiths.
Both of these men are full time bladesmiths with decades of experience. But you might want to prepare yourself for sticker shock. Twelve hand made swords made by world class smiths are not going to be cheap.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 2, 2022)

These would be butterfly swords I’m thinking, so short, blade length maybe 14 inches, with a D guard.  I’m guessing $24k for twelve of them.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 2, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> These would be butterfly swords I’m thinking, so short, blade length maybe 14 inches, with a D guard.  I’m guessing $24k for twelve of them.


Sounds reasonable.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 2, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> Sounds reasonable.


Yup, that’s a chunk of money.  Would hate to spend so much that I’m afraid to use them for fear of damaging them or having them stolen.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 2, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Yup, that’s a chunk of money.  Would hate to spend so much that I’m afraid to use them for fear of damaging them or having them stolen.


Very true. But those guys both make museum quality weapons. That takes a ton of skill and experience. And Jim is THE man when it comes to damascus and pattern welded blades.He literally (re)invented the wootz casting process, and has a PhD in Metalology. He will be quick to correct you if you say Metallurgy...


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 2, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> Very true. But those guys both make museum quality weapons. That takes a ton of skill and experience. And Jim is THE man when it comes to damascus and pattern welded blades.He literally (re)invented the wootz casting process, and has a PhD in Metalology. He will be quick to correct you if you say Metallurgy...


Oh I don’t mean to imply they wouldn’t be worth every penny.  Just that, at that price I would hate to damage one.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 2, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Oh I don’t mean to imply they wouldn’t be worth every penny.  Just that, at that price I would hate to damage one.


I'd be terrified. And honestly, I think you might be underestimating the price...


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 2, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> I'd be terrified. And honestly, I think you might be underestimating the price...


Yeah, that did occur to me.  I can see the value in these things, but for most of us anything in that price range becomes an investment that sits in a vault and never sees light of day.  Fear of damaging it, fear of losing it, fear of getting it stolen, all leads to non-use.  

At the end of the day, a weapon is a tool and is meant to be used.   Being used means it can be damaged or lost or stolen.  How much are you willing to lose if that happens?  A friend of mine sells high-end pocket knives on his website, from various makers.  Some of them are priced in the $1800 range.  That seems like a whole lot of money for something I might need for cutting some packaging material in the course of my day.  Again, I would be afraid to take it out of the house, or even out of the vault.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 3, 2022)

Flying Crane said:


> Yeah, that did occur to me.  I can see the value in these things, but for most of us anything in that price range becomes an investment that sits in a vault and never sees light of day.  Fear of damaging it, fear of losing it, fear of getting it stolen, all leads to non-use.


I think that is a common concern. I see the same thing with some car folk. How many people buy a Corvette or a Porsche or whatever and leave it parked in a garage all the time, and never touch it except to wipe it down with a cloth diaper.

Me? I'm building the 3rd engine for my Corvette. Bent a valve in the original LS1 racing. Had about 100K on it. Swapped in a heads/cam/blower LS3. Put another 65K on that engine, including at least 400 passes at the drag strip, a couple hundred laps around the local road course, and a couple 4000 mile road trips.

I think the point of having something functional is to use it. Others disagree. Maybe I'd feel differently if it was a $2,000,000 Koenigseggggggggggggg. But I doubt it. If I could afford it to own it, I'd use it.


Flying Crane said:


> At the end of the day, a weapon is a tool and is meant to be used.   Being used means it can be damaged or lost or stolen.  How much are you willing to lose if that happens?  A friend of mine sells high-end pocket knives on his website, from various makers.  Some of them are priced in the $1800 range.  That seems like a whole lot of money for something I might need for cutting some packaging material in the course of my day.  Again, I would be afraid to take it out of the house, or even out of the vault.


I've never spent that much on a knife, in large part because I think at some point, the added cost isn't providing any added functionality. My EDC is usually a Benchmade Auto stryker (~$300), a Benchmade Infidel (~$450) or a Microtech Ultratech (~$400). There's also a pattern welded Ultratech that I have been tempted by, but do not own. It's ~$1000. I'm not convinced the pattern welded blade adds $550 worth of functionality.

I don't have the capability of manufacturing the mechanism for an automatic knife. I've made a couple spring-assisted opening knives, but they do not function anywhere nearly as smoothly as the Benchmade spring assisted knives I own. Even something like the locking mechanism for a liner lock is difficult.

So that seems to be my price limit for knives.

Which is one reason I make my own. I make kitchen knives, folders, skinners, that sort of thing, and give them to my family and friends. They're not up to the standard of the best makers, by any means. But they're better than the inexpensive sets most people buy.


----------



## hunschuld (Jun 3, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> There are literally thousands. One of the absolute best anywhere is not too far from you. His name is Jay Fisher and you can see his stuff HERE. Another is Jim Hrisoulas. He's a bit further from you, not that it matters today. You can see his work HERE. Jim's personality can seem a bit...abrasive (see what I did there?) at times. But both are brilliant smiths.
> Both of these men are full time bladesmiths with decades of experience. But you might want to prepare yourself for sticker shock. Twelve hand made swords made by world class smiths are not going to be cheap.


 Thanks, while I will keep one pair for myself the others will be gifts. I expect a high price for high quality.Since I can't take it with me I might as well enjoy it and hopefully others can enjoy it too!


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jun 3, 2022)

hunschuld said:


> Thanks, while I will keep one pair for myself the others will be gifts. I expect a high price for high quality.Since I can't take it with me I might as well enjoy it and hopefully others can enjoy it too!


I'd love to see the finished product.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 3, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> I think that is a common concern. I see the same thing with some car folk. How many people buy a Corvette or a Porsche or whatever and leave it parked in a garage all the time, and never touch it except to wipe it down with a cloth diaper.
> 
> Me? I'm building the 3rd engine for my Corvette. Bent a valve in the original LS1 racing. Had about 100K on it. Swapped in a heads/cam/blower LS3. Put another 65K on that engine, including at least 400 passes at the drag strip, a couple hundred laps around the local road course, and a couple 4000 mile road trips.
> 
> ...


Yeah, at the end of the day do they get the job done?  I think some makers go down the rabbit hole of looking for the absolutely perfect exotic steel and minutiae in the design, and they create beautiful works of art that demand a high price, but like you said, does it actually function any better to justify that price?  The exercise becomes somewhat academic and I do appreciate the refinement of the technique and materials.  But at some point it just doesn’t make sense anymore, in my opinion.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jun 3, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> I'd love to see the finished product.


@hunschuld Me too!


----------

