On 1 Mar 1995, Anand Chelian wrote:

> In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.950227173816.21952A-100000@access.mbnet.mb.ca>,
> Hitomi Ichinohei  <ranma@usagi.jrd.dec-j.co.jp> wrote:
> >On Mon, 27 Feb 1995, Briareos Hecatonchires (SSL) wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 25 Feb 1995, Hitomi Ichinohei wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Date: Sat, 25 Feb 1995 14:14:31 -0600 (CST)
> >> > From: Hitomi Ichinohei <Hitomi_Ichinohei@MBnet.mb.ca>
> >> > To: ranma@usagi.jrd.dec.com
> >> > Subject: Re: Character Power Ratings
> 
> >> This is true. I should have chosen my words more carefully, since the 
> >> entire Shaolin style was made to protect the monastaries, rather than for 
> >> any need of a -fighting- style. 
> >> Actually, I cna't really think of any martial art that was made to 
> >> provoke fights, and allow the fighter to win, offhand. Can anyone else 
> >> think of one? (OTher than anything Ranma does. His style doesn't seem all 
> >> that defensive to my. That is to say, he doesn't use his martial arts for 
> >> self -defense-, as such. (Picking my words -very- carefully now, see? ^_^))
> >> I bet I still said something weird, though. :)
> 
> Actually, Ranma's fighting style is meant to finish fights as quickly as
> possible, and emphasises mobility and speed.  Attacking a person is easy, but
> I haven't actually seen him step up to the attack very often.  Simply because
> a martial art does not have many parries or blocks, and instead relies on
> dodges, does not make it an offensive art.  His art emphasizes neutralizing
> the opponent, not preventing damage per se (though he is good at it).
>

True.

> There are three ways to do martial arts: 1) take the opponent out, if he/she
> is unconscious, dead, or otherwise hurt, he won't be bothering you, 2) don't
> get hit, simply dodge and block, and it is possible to hurt a person who is
> trying to hit you when you block, and 3) neutralize using throws or locks, if
> the person isn't particularly hurt, but cannot hurt you without hurting them-
> selves, you are safe.
> 

There is only one method:

Avoid the confrontation
if the confrontation is unavoidable, then talking
if talking does not work then appologize
if appologizing does not work then persuasion
If persuasion does not work then dodging
if dodging does not work then misdirection
if misdirection does not work then redirection
if redirection does not work then demostration of ability
if demonstration does not work then hit a vital nerve centre
If hitting a nerve centre does not work, then physical damage
death is the ultimate, and least desired result.

If extreme harm or death befalls your opponent without the opponent 
wanting such, then it is you who are dushonoured and have to offer your 
life in recompense.

> >The only ones that come to mind are the studies of the western swords.  
> >These include the "Longsword", "Shortsword","Bastardsword", and others.  
> >The start of swordsmanship for defensive purposes in western civilization 
> >was starting with the advent of the sabre and epee's.  One bit of 
> >information.  According to the group I trained with, members of a set 
> >of clubs known as the Society for Creative Acronisms, Western swords were 
> >not made to use the tip, and were used as sort of a glorified club.  This 
> >is not true.  Having used, and TRAINED, with western weapons, I can tell 
> >you that, while they may not match the strength, sharpness, and 
> >suppleness of Eastern swords, their use is not limited by the 'locked 
> >wrist' techniques thought by that society.  And in case anyone asks, yes, 
> >I was trained how to use those swords properly.
> 
> Actually, Eastern swords are far less defensive than Western swords.  They
> usually have 1 or 2 cutting edges, and you have to be very careful not to
> ruin the blade when parrying.  Western swords (at least the heavy ones) are
> meant to be able to go through armor and other things, as well as block
> various blows.  They had to be able to.  If a long sword got to the armor
> with out being blocked or parried, bruises are the very least you could hope
> for.  And, yes, there was, and is an art to using the swords... Never let it
> be said that the Europeans were necessarily less skilled, their heavy swords
> were simply much slower than the lighter blades of eastern cultures.. This is
> again a function of being a very metal rich society, and being able to do
> heavy metal armor.  And yes, the tip is used as much as the edge.

Eastern swords are a lot more defensive than western swords,  The sword 
blade is not ruined when parying, and they are designed to be strong yet 
flexible.  In a comparison between the swords, the eastern swords of the 
same time period were used againts western swords.  The western swords were
broken, cut, or destroyed.  The eastern swords barely had a nick on 
them.  Since this demonstration came out of my pocket, it was a very 
expensive demonstration.

I have used the heavy swords, the ones from the 10 to 13 centuries, and I 
can tell you that very few of them have a tip, and the edge does not hold 
its sharpness well.  Only in later centuries was the tip extensively 
used, and that was after learning the techniques of the 'paynim' or 
muslims.  At that point, the style of fighting changed, but only slightly.

> Actually, the reason that the Society for Creative Anachronisms doesn't train
> to use the tip is due to the ease of really hurting someone when using the
> tip of the weapon, the edge is much easier to render less lethal.

I never trained with the society, since they considered what I said about 
sword use historically inaccurate.  Strange thing is that I learned my 
information and techniques from sword masters in Japan, Scotland, France, 
Germany, and Spain.  If they are right, then people using swords for all 
their lives must bow down to someone who has only used them for two years 
at most, and as a sport, not the real usages.  I commented on their 
promotion of the 'locked wrist' techniques, which was never used in real 
life.

> There isn't a single weapon, or weapon style that allows for simple offense,
> a weapon is meant to hurt, maim, or kill the opponent.  The best you could do
> for straight offense is to ride them down on a warhorse in armor, and this
> has it's own vunerabilities.

If that is what you believe, fine.  I will not argue the point with you, 
I will point out that the use of the sword by European men at arms and 
knights were used more to destroy an opponent rather than meet and defend 
oneself.  As for the running a person down while rifing a warhorse, 
perhaps you've forgotten the lessons thought to some men at arms on how 
to redirect the force of a charging horse.

> I think you are confusing a "more subtle" style, that uses more complicated
> defenses and relies on parrying with defense.

I'm afraid I did not, the more subtle styles occure with sabre and epee 
and have come down to the modern, less technique laden sport of 
fenceing.  I did comment on them, but only as an advancement on the basic 
techniques of sword usage that continued in western europe until about 1635.

Ichinohei Hitomi

Hitomi_Ichinohei@MBnet.mb.ca