PDA

View Full Version : Point vs. Edge



Bob Steinkraus
11th July 2000, 18:02
Are the Japanese sword arts as edge-oriented as they seem to an outsider?

I speak based mainly on ignorance, but the best part of my experience with swordsmanship comes from Western style foil and epee fencing. Most fencers are emphatic that the point will beat the edge in most direct competition, given the greater range of the thrust and greater difficulty in parrying as opposed to blocking.

I am also understand that a penetrating wound from a thrust is more likely to be fatal than a slash, which produces superficial damage unless it hits an artery close to the surface or is delivered with great force.

I also remember a discussion I had with a gentleman who was handling a Western style cavalry sword from the 18th century with little regard for the sharpness of the edge. He was asked about this, and he said that fencers of the period did not want their edges too sharp for a couple of reasons. One was that a sharp edge was more liable to breakage or blunting when struck forcibly against bone or armor. The other reason was that a sharp edge tended to stick in bone and be more difficult to withdraw than a blunter edge.

Does Japanese iajutsu or kenjutsu address either of these concerns?

I look forward to learning from any of you.

Kevin Geaslin
12th July 2000, 04:19
I think the Western emphasis on the thrust has alot to do with sword design. Most Western swords were single-handed, even slashing weapons like cavalry sabres and Scandanavian swords. Although lethal, they cant match the power of a two handed cut from a katana. Most fencers dont realized that many kenjutsu cuts are targeted to the wrist, probably because of movies (everybody gets decapicated with one stroke). A fencer with a single handed sword would have to parry a cut from a two handed sword, he could not hope to block it. Anyone who studies Japanese sword knows how incredibly fast and powerful kesagiri or shomengiri is.

As to the point vs. edge debate, I've heard it all. The most common tradeoff seems to be: thrust causes organ damage and induces shock faster, a cut causes faster blood loss and can sever limbs (except maybe in knife attacks). When practicing knife defense, you may notice how much easier it is do defend thrusts to the body than to avoid cuts to the hand and forearms.

FastEd
12th July 2000, 07:13
Well this debate goes back almost 500 years, and has been argued well by better men then me. George Silver comes to mind from the later 1500's I believe. Also check out C. Amberger's book "Secret History of the Sword" (if you have not already) for some interesting duel documentation.
From my review of the literature, point attacks if they penetrated the torso were almost always fatal due to infection (sepsis), with death occuring a few days after a duel. Cuts were more survivable, if they were shallow, or only removed the outer limbs (hands, feet), the closer you get to the body the less survivable. However in a duel its the first incapcitated indivdual that's lost. Puncture wounds do not appear to have been effective in dropping opponents quickly, while the opposite is true of cuts. So which is better..? (shrug..) I guess it depends on what you define as "better".

Tim Atkinson
12th July 2000, 07:19
I believe that due to the curve of the blade, be it a Nippon or Euro blade, it becomes a cutting blade. However in many Kenjutsu ryu the thrust (tsuki) is very common and with a curved blade a thrust is only a push cut. In the ryu in which I train we use the tsuki to the throat. The ha (cutting edge) is turned out to the right. Due to the curve of the blade, and the straight path of the thrust, the resulting cross-section, or the area of the throat to be cut, is three to four times than that of a straight blade. When thrusting to the stomach the blade is "layed down" on the side to allow better alignment with the ribs, and a cleaner thrust results. The curve of the blade allows for a push or pull cut (basicly a thrust) that results in incredible damage. If a straight blade is held out in front of you and you push it through a sheet of paper suspended in front of you, the cut will only be as wide as the widest section of the blade. If a tachi is held in the same manner and the motion is repeated then the width of the cut will be the depth of the blades' curve (sori).
So from what I have learnt from this and other styles, the Nippon blade lends itself to both a thrust and cut.

All the best,

Jason Backlund
12th July 2000, 07:44
Bob,

Originally, the Japanese used straight, two edged swords for thrusting and parrying. However, in close combat, the parrying motion lends itself more easily to a follow up cut than a thrust. Remember that on the battlefield, armor played an important role. The quick thrusts that we see in European fencing and Nihon suhada kenjutsu (Japanese sword techniques without armor) wouldn't penetrate the armor. Therefore, after parrying a powerful thrust, the sword is already lined up for a cut. These straight swords, however, were prone to break and lose their edges, which led to the development of the Nihonto (Japanese sword/katana-tachi).

With regards to the edge breaking, Nihonto are constructed in such a way that the core and rear steel is flexible and able to withstand shock, while the edge is tempered to be harder and hold a good edge. Nihonto are able to cut through bone, metal helmets and various other types of armor, and therefore don't suffer the drawbacks you mentioned.

As for the point, although it may appear that kiri (cutting) is the mainstay of Japanese sword techniques, the tsuki (thrust) is just as often used. On the battlefield, the thrust was used in the suki (openings/chinks) in the armor. When not on the battlefield (suhada kenjutsu), the thrust was even more likely to occur, as any little jab can pierce the skin without the protection of armor.

One other point I'd like to make is that there is a technical aspect that also lends itself to cutting. Kenjutsu uses more circular and angular footwork than European fencing and other thrusting arts. Although it is difficult to adequetly explain this in this forum, the basic idea is that the footwork also makes cutting more useful in certain circumstances.

Jason Backlund
Kobushin Kai
Yamagata Ryu Bujutsu, Matsubara Ryu Bujutsu

hyaku
12th July 2000, 11:51
One was that a sharp edge was more liable to breakage or blunting when struck forcibly against bone or armor. The other reason was that a sharp edge tended to stick in bone and be more difficult to withdraw than a blunter edge.

Does Japanese iajutsu or kenjutsu address either of these concerns?

I look forward to learning from any of you.

[/B][/QUOTE]

As Mr Atkinson mentions thrusting with a curved blade inflicts a very wide cut. Also there is the added advantage that the curved weapon will penetrate at an angle inflicting damage to areas that perhaps could not be reached with a straight edged weapon

The areas to thrust at are usually unprotected ones, into the throat, under the chin into the head. A side thrust under the armpit of an opponent with arms raised, an upward thrust into the groin etc. Thusts between the ribs are usually made sideways to facilitate the blade passing between the ribcage.

In the past I have been instructed that in thrusting deep the muscles contract and that it is difficult to extract the blade with one hand

This technique has been perhaps somewhat neglected over the years, as it is difficult to use tsuki in combat practice without inflicting severe injury, particularly if the opponent is moving towards you at the time. For example in Kendo this sometimes happens by accident. However a deliberate attempt at tsuki as an opponent as he is moveing in is a foul. Before the modern day Kendo. Target areas were not specified

Oishi Susumu, founder of the Oishi Shinkage Ryu used a Yon Shaku Fukuro Shinai and specialized in this technique.


Also the kihon of the Hyoho Niten Ichiryu is based upon this very technique.


Regards Hyakutake http://www.bunbun.ne.jp/~sword

Earl Hartman
13th July 2000, 01:42
In modern kendo, one of the most potent and powerful techniques is the thrust (tsuki) to the throat. The reasons are quite simple: it is faster than a cut and it stops the opponent in his tracks.

However, in kendo, the THREAT of the thrust is just as potent a weapon as the thrust itself, and the use of the point is vital in setting up all sorts of attacks and defenses. A kendoka with a strong kensen ("sword line", for want of a better term) is well nigh unassailable, since his opponent knows that any move on his part not preceded by some maneuver to induce the other man to move his point off line will result in him impaling himself on the point as he attacks. Kendo then becomes a battle of wills and a contest of courage and nerve: who will move his point off line first? The man who keeps his resolve and keeps his point on line generally wins, since he cows the enemy with his resolve. This is all made possible by the proper use of the point.

Also, all good cutting attacks in kendo must threaten the enemy with the point as a prelude to the attack itself. Nothing will nail a man to the floor faster than the point boring in on him. Once that happens, the attack can be made alsmost with impunity, since the fear of the point has temporarily immobilized the enemy. Thus, one of the most important things in kendo is to lose your fear of the point and learn to induce fear of the point in others.

Hyakutake-san, kendo must have changed since I was in Japan. I was never aware that delivering a thrust while the opponent was movingn toward you was a foul. People did it all the time where I practiced.

Earl

ghp
13th July 2000, 02:20
http://www.trifox.com/aux/kenshinkan/ph_military.html

Both thrusts and cuts are addressed in Gunto no Soho oyobi Tameshigiri -- the 1944 manual from which I traced the sketches shown above. [The manual was published four times from 1940~1944]

Note that the anatomy is not correct -- the pancreas and certain other internal organs were not accurately depicted. Also, I slightly [prudishly?] modified the very explicit "anatomically correct" sketch.

[Edited by ghp on 07-12-2000 at 09:33 PM]

Tim Atkinson
13th July 2000, 06:09
Guy,
I agree whole heartedly with you, both are important!

But due to the sori of a nihonto, a thrust is in fact a cut.

I am sorry that I was unable to meet up with you while I was in the states this last three weeks, but I was only in your neigbourhood for a day and I knew that you have a busy schedule.

Great sketches, between yourself, John and others this forum is a great source of rare martial material.

ghp
13th July 2000, 07:03
Hello Tim --

Yes, too bad we couldn't meet; perhaps at another time. How was the rest of your visit?

And thanks for the compliments about e-budo and all its participants. I agree that we all have something to learn, and this site is one of the best.


But due to the sori of a nihonto, a thrust is in fact a cut.

I understand what you are saying -- however, may I humbly express dissenting opinion?

The broadhead of an arrow will slice skin and meat as it hits its target -- the resultant wound is not considered a "cut" -- it is correctly called a "puncture wound" because of the method in which the wound was delivered (arrow "thrust" into the target).

Regardless of the wound created, the mode of attack classifies the wound. Therefore, even though a thrust will "slice" as it penetrates, that slice is only the secondary result of a sharp point piercing the target. The razor edge merely facilitates entry (of both sword and arrow) by slicing the target during penetration.

Thrusts make puncture wounds -- except when you entirely miss your target and end up accidentally slicing the outside of the neck, arm, torso, etc.

[I suppose that if you thrust and strike the throat at center mass (horizontal blade attack) with enough momentum allowing you to penetrate completely -- and your weight & direction of travel caused the cutting edge of the blade to sever the neck through to the outside....perhaps then one could say a thrust was in fact a cut.]

Cuts produce linear, slicing wounds -- or, separate body parts from the body.

Sorry if I am sounding argumentive (I do, you know?)-- but I think calling a puncture wound a "cut" will confuse.

Regards,
Guy ("over-react mode off") Power

p.s. How's it feel to be back home, away from E. Timor?

Tim Atkinson
13th July 2000, 08:31
Guy,

You are correct, it comes down to terminology, and your word express my thoughts better.

It is great to be back home! I have been able to get back into by university studies as well as starting Shinto Muso ryu Jo. It was a very quite time for me over there, most time spent surfing the net so you see how hard I had it. I guess that is what comes of being a POGUE. Most interesting thing I did was to form part of a security patrol for the RAAF on a air feild survey. The unit I first started my army life with saw some sickening sights and were involved in recovering bodies from wells etc. So I guess I am glad that my jumping days are over.
The money was good too. I feel sorry for your guys over there as they got no extra money, while I got about $20,000 on top of my normal wage for the three month stint.

The states were great, and when the majority of the trip was payed for by prize winnings it is all the better.

You have seen those prize promotions in the shops and you think that no one you know ever wins one, well now you do. About $5500 all said. I won a ski trip to Jasper, Canada for two. However neither Lorraine (wife) nor myself ski, so we were able to turn it into a three week tour of BC and the West Coast, San Fran. LA and San Diego as well as a stop over in Hawaii on the way back. Great trip and I have found a few spots I would like to re visit.

Bye for now,

Kit LeBlanc
14th July 2000, 03:39
All,

On the sharp edge. I remember reading a piece in a recent Aikido Journal where they had quotes from a past kenjutsu master. I cannot remember who it was, but it was Edo period or earlier. He mentioned that he kept the blade on his katana dull, I think the reason was sometimes you have to hack through wood, etc. and a too sharp blade gets stuck, and will stick in armor, 'cause it bites. The argument seemed to be that a somewhat duller blade will still cut if used with power. Not sure what you all think about that.

This same swordsman kept his kodachi sharp as possible, in case he needed it for seppuku.

Kit LeBlanc

hyaku
14th July 2000, 16:44
Originally posted by Kit LeBlanc
All,

On the sharp edge. I remember reading a piece in a recent Aikido Journal where they had quotes from a past kenjutsu master. I cannot remember who it was, but it was Edo period or earlier. He mentioned that he kept the blade on his katana dull, I think the reason was sometimes you have to hack through wood, etc. and a too sharp blade gets stuck, and will stick in armor, 'cause it bites. The argument seemed to be that a somewhat duller blade will still cut if used with power. Not sure what you all think about that.

This same swordsman kept his kodachi sharp as possible, in case he needed it for seppuku.

Kit LeBlanc

A sword smith friend of mine who now has a small group doing tameshigiri hardly ever takes his blades to a polisher. The finish is still very basic and you can see the files marks all over them. He always says that a well polished blade tends to slide too much and that his semi polished ones really bite into the target.
.................

Hyakutake http://www.bunbun.ne.jp/~sword