Random Thoughts and Miscellaneous Questions about blade based combats

[Morgoth136]

i would guess defensive. one of my friends is amazing with a reverse grip. he holds it a bit higher than most and has a great circle of protection. it is pretty hard to get around it sometimes. my main dueling partner says it is a crazy near useless technique but if you haev the massive forearms to swing it then you are something special on the battlefield.

[Master Seblaise]

Depending on your technic, it could very efficient ... but really wondering when it appears

[wandering-seeker]

With longer weapons it's not something I'd advise, you surrender reach and power to do it as well as range of motion. That being said, for knife fighting it's actually preferable as a grip. Difference between knife fighting and sword fighting being that in a knife fight, much like in a fist fight, the goal is to get as close as possible to your enemy and do as much damage as quickly as possible.

[Master Seblaise]

With longer weapons it's not something I'd advise, you surrender reach and power to do it as well as range of motion. That being said, for knife fighting it's actually preferable as a grip. Difference between knife fighting and sword fighting being that in a knife fight, much like in a fist fight, the goal is to get as close as possible to your enemy and do as much damage as quickly as possible.

Me too, i imagine that reverse grip was firstly related to weapon based close combat ... i imagine it existed in coliseum during the Roman Empire ... but i do not have any evidence

[Master Althalus]

I know of no european style using a reverse grip (except medieval dagger), only of some forms in Krabbi Krabbong and Viet Vo Dao. And, of course, when you carry a sword in those (and most chinese) styles, as the blade is kept safe from accidentally touching someone.

i would guess defensive.

Actually, defense is extremely weak - at least against a really determined opponent. When you parry close to your hilt, you expose a lot of your body, and the farther down the blade you parry, the better the attackers leverage. This results in getting your own blade driven into your body - not very advisable with a plasma blade ... 
When you fight with less intent, it may suffice, but I wouldn't count on it. Pure physics.

If memory serves me right, most asian forms utilize the reverse grip as a first respond action. You carry your sword and someone attacks - you don't have time to draw your sword in the conventional way, so you snap it forward, unsheathing and parrying in one motion. Then you make room to get it in a more useful grip.

[wandering-seeker]

I know of no european style using a reverse grip (except medieval dagger), only of some forms in Krabbi Krabbong and Viet Vo Dao. And, of course, when you carry a sword in those (and most chinese) styles, as the blade is kept safe from accidentally touching someone.Actually, defense is extremely weak - at least against a really determined opponent. When you parry close to your hilt, you expose a lot of your body, and the farther down the blade you parry, the better the attackers leverage. This results in getting your own blade driven into your body - not very advisable with a plasma blade ... 
When you fight with less intent, it may suffice, but I wouldn't count on it. Pure physics.

If memory serves me right, most asian forms utilize the reverse grip as a first respond action. You carry your sword and someone attacks - you don't have time to draw your sword in the conventional way, so you snap it forward, unsheathing and parrying in one motion. Then you make room to get it in a more useful grip.

Tae Kwan Do and Kempo are big fans of draw-strikes like that.

[Benji]

You are right ... my question was wrongly asked

I thought about 2 BLADES style

There are various accounts of a style known as Genuise (Spelling?) that was used in ship to ship combat when boarding or being boarded. It consisted of a sword used in conjunction with a short sword.

[Master Seblaise]

A very impressive video that illustrates longsword fighting during the 15th century ...

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn36Pb8z3yI" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn36Pb8z3yI</a>

[Maestro]

Reverse grip as you are thinking of it originates in various sword ryu in japan. The reverse grip is a tactic and like any other there are a variety of factors to consider if you want to be viable with it. If used the right way in the right circumstances it is a perfectly viable technique. There is no right and wrong in combat, divest yourself of that idea immediately. There is only appropriate and inappropriate.

Check a vid on reverse grip youtube
https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=bZNaO-6vc4A

[Master Seblaise]

I think that we are all agree that there is no ultimate fighting style ... as you say it is only appropriate or not.

However, are you sure that it is the good vid? I watched it but there is no reverse grip move

[Vivectius]

First, I'm quoting myself in a response to a post from another thread that the reverse grip is 99% ineffective. The quotes in the points being addressed were made in the post I was responding to.

When I started practicing tameshigiri with the reverse grip (using a katana) well, 10 out of 10 cuts were fails.  Like REALLY badly embarassing fails.

Now, a few years later, 4 out of 10 are 'correct', meaning they are straight and cut cleanly all they way through, without knocking the stand over, another 4 of the 10 are 'incorrect, but successful' meaning the cut was not straight, but I still managed to cut all the way through, and the other 2 were 'failures' usually meaning I didn't manage to complete the cut.

The practical ramifications of this are that I can probably take your arm off with a reverse grip cut.  However, most of the time, using that method of combat, my main target is going to be your legs, which an astounding  number of people fail to protect.  And the femoral artery tends to be a very easy target.

However, to paraphrase, "very good, but tatami mats not cut back."

So, in actual combat I would use whatever I needed to at the time.  I doubt I would ever use it exclusively in combat, but it certainly has its place.  I will note than when I fight with a sword in each hand, usually I tend to favor a reverse grip in whichever hand I'm using more defensively (and I've learned most all of what I know sword combat wise to an equal degree with each hand).

To address your point "it is a weak grip for a longer blade."  How long of a blade are you referring to?  The katanas I'm used to using with have a handle length of about 11.5 inches, and a blade length of about 28.5 inches.  Shorter than a European long sword, but still not that short of a sword. 

To address your point "you generally have to hold it in a way that your body is not guarded by the sword."  If I'm standing around not doing anything with it, then yes.  Otherwise, the blade is in front of me, and the sword being held in a reverse grip does nothing to hinder or prevent that. "The majority of stances have the blade in between you and your opponent for a reason."  Yes, and a stance, by definition, is static. If you're standing still in a sword fight, it had better be after your oponent is dead, otherwise you're in trouble.

To address your point "the reverse grip limits your range severely" I measured, and the difference in reach between an overhand grip and a reverse grip for me is about 1.5 inches.  If you're going to say that an inch and a half can mean the difference between life and death in a sword fight, I'm going to agree with you 100%.  But, one, I would not call that a severe range reduction, and two, if you're going into combat not knowing how far your reach is with whatever weapon you're using in all possible manners of its use, then you deserve to lose.  And having a longer weapon does not in any way guarantee victory either.

To address your point "it also limits the power you can put behind behind the cut" see my tameshigiri comments above.

To address your point "basically it's an all around bad idea in a real fight" is only true if it's something you haven't been trained in, and had practice with.  But that's pretty much true for any weapon.  Using an English long sword, or Scottish claymore, or Italian dueling saber, or Roman gladius, is a very bad idea if you don't have the proper training and practice with them.

Honor isn't in the weapon, it's in the one who wields it.  Skill isn't in the technique, but in the one who practices it.

As to right and wrong in combat, from my point of view there is most definitely a right way and wrong way in combat.  The right way enables you to win, the wrong way causes you to lose, including being in a fight that you have no chance of winning in the first place.

[Maestro]

I posted the wrong vid link in my earlier post.
 sorry!
Heres the real one

https://youtu.be/jnDERlcLR3c

[Master Seblaise]

I posted the wrong vid link in my earlier post.
 sorry!
Heres the real one

https://youtu.be/jnDERlcLR3c

Thanks for this new link

[Ander]

One thing has to be made clear: The sword (any kind) was never a weapon for the battlefield. It was a weapon of status, for settling disputes and personal self-defence, but was often left deliberately at home when going to war. On the battlefield, bows, crossbows and pole-arms rule. Most often, falchions are depicted in battles, being cheap choppers. Sabres and epées where sidearms mainly for officers who weren't meant to enter actual combat.

Not quite. The roman legionnaire fought with his gladius (and scutum) after his pilum (or two) had been thrown at the enemy. And the roman legion ruled the european battlefields for several *centuries*. The gladius was fairly short, because it was meant to be used in a close formation, everybody holding a scutum as well as the gladius. Archers and cavalry were present but not dominant.

[Master Althalus]

As you said: after his pilum (or two) had been thrown at the enemy (and irc, one was for throwing, the other a pole-arm used with the scutum). The sword is a side-arm, like a pistol is today, useful only in close quarters (especially the gladius). But you forgot the Spatha of the cavalry - on horseback, the sword is usually used more often throughout the ages than on foot (in battle). But there seem to be not many accounts of mounted Jedi or Sith using a lightsaber. 

And the roman legion ruled the european battlefields for several *centuries*.

Though that was more for their superior training, discipline and logistics (being the only professional army at the time).

@Maestro: I'd like to see those techniques (especially the parries) employed under full speed, against a determined blow. Given the slippery polycarbonate and the angle you have to turn your wrist with them, I'd would not bet my safety on those, but I'd be glad to be proven wrong.