The Matador Thrust

[lklawson]

Oh yeah, I'm sure you are correct! But there is no denying that through-out most of the 1800's in the US a Bowie knife was a common sidearm and saw plenty of action in hand-to-hand exchanges. Probably most didn't have any kind of training. But there was also a segment that DID have training and were pretty deadly with it! A lot of it was likely figured out from "rough and tumble" exchanges. But a lot of it was derived from western swordsmanship. Plenty of people in the era would have had some military background and have learned the use of a military saber. Others very likely had background in european fencing that was directly descended from the use of the rapier. And a cross-guard wouldn't be necessary for butchering and skinning animals.

Quillions get in the way of butchering.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Yep! That is the "pendulum step" or called "Lutang" in Kali Ilustrisimo. I consider the "Hip Hike" more of an "oh crap!" move than the pendulum step. In other words, something to do when you don't have much else you can do! ;-)

I haven't seen it represented in any western system. But now I'm curious. I'll have to keep an eye out for it in the old manuals. Maybe in the Navaja manual? I'll have to go reread it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[KPM]

I haven't seen it represented in any western system. But now I'm curious. I'll have to keep an eye out for it in the old manuals. Maybe in the Navaja manual? I'll have to go reread it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

I'm very familiar with the Highland Broadsword system, though when I study it, I prefer the John Gaspard Le Marchant system. This is slipping the front leg on a parry or guard, which I completely agree with in the context, it is not rocking back the lead leg on its heel as you illustrate. I don't recall seeing that implementation of a leg slip in any western system. But, like I said, I'm curious now and will be watching for it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[KPM]

I'm very familiar with the Highland Broadsword system, though when I study it, I prefer the John Gaspard Le Marchant system. This is slipping the front leg on a parry or guard, which I completely agree with in the context, it is not rocking back the lead leg on its heel as you illustrate. I don't recall seeing that implementation of a leg slip in any western system. But, like I said, I'm curious now and will be watching for it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Ah! I thought you meant the leg slip. The rocking back on the heel when doing the "Hip Hike" is from Kali Ilustrisimo and is done to give that extra 6 inches or more of rearward movement to get those soft squishy parts out of range as much as possible. I practiced it and it made sense to me! You said "I don't recall seeing that implementation of the leg slip in any western system." But is not Angelo's Highland Broadsword a western system? There is an artist painting of two highlanders fighting with broadswords that specifically shows the leg slip to avoid a cut to the leg....if that is what you mean.

 

[Martial D]

That is probably the most inaccurate statement about knives that I've ever read.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Everyone has an opinion, including manufacturers of kitchen knives,machetes, scythes sycles...etc.

 

[Martial D]

Everyone has an opinion, including manufacturers of kitchen knives,machetes, scythes sycles...etc.

Ok, that was a bit snide..no need for two of us to play that game. I'll explain the physics here.

The narrower the blade, the more force there is on the edge. The wider the blade gets tapering out from the edge, the more of the force is transferred from the tip, meaning it becomes blunt force rather than cutting force, slowing the blade as it penetrates.

This means more force is required to achieve the same slashing penetration.

 

[lklawson]

Ah! I thought you meant the leg slip. The rocking back on the heel when doing the "Hip Hike" is from Kali Ilustrisimo and is done to give that extra 6 inches or more of rearward movement to get those soft squishy parts out of range as much as possible. I practiced it and it made sense to me! You said "I don't recall seeing that implementation of the leg slip in any western system." But is not Angelo's Highland Broadsword a western system? There is an artist painting of two highlanders fighting with broadswords that specifically shows the leg slip to avoid a cut to the leg....if that is what you mean.

no, I mean walking the lead leg back onto the heel and lifting the toe. I haven't seen that that I recall. Slipping the whole leg back is very common and shows up in more than one system but is a Hallmark of the highland broadsword system and its derivatives.

Peace favor your sword (mobile)

 

[lklawson]

Everyone has an opinion, including manufacturers of kitchen knives,machetes, scythes sycles...etc.

sorry friend, but that's not an opinion, it's a fact. You wrote, "Big knives are actually less dangerous for slashing than small ones." that statement is factually inaccurate. Everything from katanas and sabers and wakizashi and all manner of large blades are excellent at slashing. Even straight blades can slash pretty well if the user knows how to slash. And Bowie knives typically have a fair amount of belly which is fairly easy to slash with. Sorry, but the claim is just wrong.

slashing is usually about technique. Some blade shapes can make it easier to slash or harder. But most of the time almost any blade shape and size can be used to slash perfectly well.

Peace favor your sword (mobile)

 

[Martial D]

sorry friend, but that's not an opinion, it's a fact. You wrote, "Big knives are actually less dangerous for slashing than small ones." that statement is factually inaccurate. Everything from katanas and sabers and wakizashi and all manner of large blades are excellent at slashing. Even straight blades can slash pretty well if the user knows how to slash. And Bowie knives typically have a fair amount of belly which is fairly easy to slash with. Sorry, but the claim is just wrong.

Peace favor your sword (mobile)

I see you skipped over the post where I explained the physics. Ok then.

 

[lklawson]

I see you skipped over the post where I explained the physics. Ok then.

look friend, the statement was just wrong. And your attempt at physics doesn't change that.

 

[Martial D]

look friend, the statement was just wrong. And your attempt at physics doesn't change that.

Ok so..you have no argument or reason to put up against known physics. Just..LK says so.

Your opinion is noted.

 

[lklawson]

So this

slashes better than this?

 

[lklawson]

Ok so..you have no argument or reason to put up against known physics. Just..LK says so.

Your opinion is noted.

don't get snarky. You're the one that said something factually inaccurate and easily disproven.

 

[Martial D]

don't get snarky. You're the one that said something factually inaccurate and easily disproven.

Ok, let me try again. Are you familiar with the concept of drag co-efficient?

Drag co-effiicient applys regardless of whether an object is passing through water, air, wood, or flesh.

This is why wood axes taper outwards(to pass the force outward and spit the object) and why machetes have a wide yet narrow blade( to concentrate the force on the edge and minimize drag).

But the narrower blades come at a cost of stability , which as it turns out is quite important for swords...less so for machetes. So with swords there is a ballance between the two. A little more force required to make the cut, but also your blade isn't bowing sideways as it might with a machete, as well as making it functional for parrying.

The inverse is true for thrusting. When a blade is thicker and tapered to the tip, the force is concentrated on the tip during a thrust, wheras with a wider thinner blade the force is more dispersed over a wider area..making stabbing with a machete not the best idea.

What exactly do you disagree with?

 

[KPM]

Ok, let me try again. Are you familiar with the concept of drag co-efficient?

Drag co-effiicient applys regardless of whether an object is passing through water, air, wood, or flesh.

This is why wood axes taper outwards(to pass the force outward and spit the object) and why machetes have a wide yet narrow blade( to concentrate the force on the edge and minimize drag).

But the narrower blades come at a cost of stability , which as it turns out is quite important for swords...less so for machetes. So with swords there is a ballance between the two. A little more force required to make the cut, but also your blade isn't bowing sideways as it might with a machete, as well as making it functional for parrying.

The inverse is true for thrusting. When a blade is thicker and tapered to the tip, the force is concentrated on the tip during a thrust, wheras with a wider thinner blade the force is more dispersed over a wider area..making stabbing with a machete not the best idea.

What exactly do you disagree with?

Ok. I follow what your are saying, but what does that have to do with the length of the blade? What you are talking about is the thickness of the blade, not the length. Even if you want to bring up "drag" as a factor, you will have a cut/slash with a long blade that will initially be the equivalent of a cut with a short blade, but then you have the whole REST of the blade STILL cutting regardless of the effect of any drag. So getting cut by a long blade stills seems just as bad or worse as getting cut by a short blade to me!

Now....my argument....which brings me close to agreeing with your original statement....is that a shorter blade is harder to control when in close. If you are in close and about to be the victim of a blade-wielding attacker, you have a better chance of stopping a longer blade simply because you might be able to get ahold of it to stop it or slow it down, or to knock it aside. You are going to obviously take some damage, but maybe better than being dead. But with a short blade....it can cut you up just as badly as a long blade and you have little chance of getting ahold of it or parrying against it because it is short. So I would come close to agreeing with your original statement, but for reasons of practicality and not physics!

 

[punisher73]

By "him?" You mean Jim Bowie? Crap, we know next to nothing about his knife-fighting skills or technique. His dad (and brother) were military men and likely were taught saber or short sword styles which might have been passed on to Jim. Beyond that we know for an absolute FACT that standard european fencing methods were directly applied to bowie knife training, particularly in New Orleans. It is also highly likely that Spanish Navaja methods were applied. In most cases, when there were big knife fighting styles "from the Old World" available for instruction they were directly applied to the bowie knife.

And yet the Maestros in New Orleans applied european Cut-and-Thrust methods directly to the bowie knife when they taught. Apparently so did El Rubio Bravo, at least according to his own writings. But he was kinda a douche.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

No, I was referring to John Styers knife method when I made that comment.

 

[Martial D]

Ok. I follow what your are saying, but what does that have to do with the length of the blade? What you are talking about is the thickness of the blade, not the length. Even if you want to bring up "drag" as a factor, you will have a cut/slash with a long blade that will initially be the equivalent of a cut with a short blade, but then you have the whole REST of the blade STILL cutting regardless of the effect of any drag. So getting cut by a long blade stills seems just as bad or worse as getting cut by a short blade to me!

Now....my argument....which brings me close to agreeing with your original statement....is that a shorter blade is harder to control when in close. If you are in close and about to be the victim of a blade-wielding attacker, you have a better chance of stopping a longer blade simply because you might be able to get ahold of it to stop it or slow it down, or to knock it aside. You are going to obviously take some damage, but maybe better than being dead. But with a short blade....it can cut you up just as badly as a long blade and you have little chance of getting ahold of it or parrying against it because it is short. So I would come close to agreeing with your original statement, but for reasons of practicality and not physics!

Yes, the reason a shorter blade is more dangerous irl is because you can weild it faster and it's going to be hard to get ahold of! I totally agree with that.

I may have gotten caught up with the one aspect.easy to do when you are arguing against a one liner statement with no supporting premises or arguments, as I was.

 

[lklawson]

No, I was referring to John Styers knife method when I made that comment.

OK

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[lklawson]

Yes, the reason a shorter blade is more dangerous irl is because you can weild it faster and it's going to be hard to get ahold of! I totally agree with that.

I don't agree. Again the conclusion is that an Xacto-Knife is more dangerous than a Machete because it is faster and hard to get a hold of. Go ask any Illustrimo if, given the choice, he'd rather have an Xacto than a machete and tell him that the Xacto is more dangerous because it's smaller. Report back on what he says.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk