Why Traditional English Backsword is better than Military Sabre 

he doesn't have a reply for that now does he

Patrick Dixon Well not until I've had chance to make one no. Matt, I didn't realise you had cheerleaders...

its just a joke lighten up

Sorry I couldn't tell it apart from all the other times when you've clearly been insulting.

scholagladiatoria I think it's quite interesting that no-one has picked up on the fact that I am quite pruposefully wearing a t-shirt with the Schola Logo on it.

***** You should do a webchat with these guys on your channel Skall, would be very interesting.

I think it can be assumed, that all cut fencing is based on the same principles and modified to fit the needs of the weapon at hand. If someone gave me a backsword, I think I could handle it, because of my Messer experience. There are techniques that are very similar.

+Skallagrim I want a duel, please. Moderated by you and Lindybeige as Matt's and Martin's seconds. And video naturally. :DDDDDDDD PLEAAAAAASSSSEEEE

Dude... you're missing a lot. Roworth system is plain, simple and maybe the best... at least for a noob for me.

Notrollhere That will only show whether I am better than Matt at that point in time, or vice versa. It doesn't show anything about the quality of the system. We'd need to be more scientific about it. A good sample size, isolate variables, that kind of thing.

It was a jest. And I agree with you. If one system is to be proven superior to the other your sample size should include numerous fighters from both systems and a very large number of matches.

We've fought quite a few times over the years. Right now he's definitely better than me. I've been struggling with a bad back for the last year or so. Swordwork sets it off, but I tried some sparring last ngith and managed, so give me a few months and I might be up for a re-match. :D

Notrollhere Let's settle this like gentlemen, armed with heavy sticks, on a rotating plate with spikes like Flash Gordon.

+Henry Wang Nothing yet. Sadly. I say use lindybeige and skall as their seconds!!!!!! YASSS

Sifuben Well said!

Corey Andrews It's a nice soundbite, but it really hold water when you look at it closely. If the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times has practiced a crap kick he isn't going to be a good fighter. If he finds himself on dodgy footing then any kicks could be a bad idea however good they normally are, if the other person is good at blocking kicks then being good at kicking is really disappointing (as my buddy Chi Lewis Parry showed in Glory 20 against a TKD champion last weekend). The fact is that sabre is a brilliant system if you want to get good at a very limited number of techniques in a short space of time. If you actually want to get good at fighting and accept that there are no shortcuts to developing real skill then it is close to useless.

EnglishMartialArts thank you for the fast and thoughtful reply. I really wasn't expecting that. I think what this ends up boiling down to is likely the old argument, "What is better, focus or options?" and that's an argument where it's pretty difficult to determine beyond a shadow of a doubt which is better. If you'll forgive a bit of abstraction, I unfortunately do not have as much HEMA experience or knowledge as I would like to discuss through that lens, then perhaps 2 of the most highly noted chess players of all time might be able to shed some more accurate light on my opinion than the soundbite I used. Bobby Fischer is probably the best example you'll find for focus. Unless he was trying to catch his opponent off guard, he was playing one of a small set of openings. As a result, he knew these openings better than anyone else in the world, even purportedly, after a match, telling his opponent about his previous analysis of what his opponent had thought to be a novelty. On the other hand, it left him rather famously weak to a few openings, the French Winawer in particular. And to this day, he is still acknowledged as a top contender for the best player to have ever played the game. On another hand, there is Capablanca, a player who tended to suggest using creativity and logic to play the opening as opposed to rigorous study. As a result, he played very solid chess which he beautifully guided to the game toward middle and end game positions that played to his strengths. On the other hand, this left him a little vulnerable to people who did favor committing that focus. And once again, he is acknowledged as one of the best players to have ever played the game. Thank you to anyone who took the time to read my ridiculous wall of text on an only mildly related topic, and obviously, this isn't an exhaustive analysis of both of these players, but I think it makes the point that both the style that focuses in on making you the best you can at a small set of skills and the style that leaves you more creatively open have their individual merits and can both produce equally outstanding results even at the highest levels. Your comments on the other hand seem to suggest that a focusing method lets you get to a sort of mid level of ability and then no longer allows for improvement, which I think is strictly false.

Corey Andrews Thanks for taking the time to reply in detail, I suppose the basis for the argument is how we define the word "better" a specialist will always be better at the specific thing they specialise in than a generalist. But that doesn't make them "better" overall. Plus it's always going to be impossible to take a single example and use that as proof. For me there are a number of different skills that comprise swordplay; sabre excels one of them but not in others. Hence my assertion that an Art that covers them all is superior, even if a sabreur can be shown to have beaten a backsworder.

Corey Andrews Something I've heard around is "Being a generalist is a shortcut to being a specialist." With the concept of diminishing returns, where one has to work ever slightly more to achieve ever slightly less, a generalist backswordsman might in practise have more skill with swords than a specialist sabreur, assuming equal time spent. An example of diminishing would be the use of bows, it takes much more effort to use a 200 lb bow than a 100 lb bow, but the distance and perhaps even force transferred isn't twice the result of a 100 lb shot. The physics of bows isn't completely analogous to the reliability of skill execution of swords, I know, but I'm just throwing this out here.

Lee was the ultimate reductionist.

R Decline I think he refers to 'better' as 'more options presented'. Perhaps an analogy would be an artillery piece and a tank. With the artillery piece, one would want to remain exclusively afar and hidden to make use of it, but with a tank, one may do combat in a closer distance while providing cover for infantry, or still remain afar and out of sight. Complexity requires more time, but the additional options ideally off sets that, and that's what he seems to be highlighting.

R Decline The main thing I disagree with here is that manual is better than automatic for control, which comes into play on some steep hills as well as certain types of weather or terrain. However, I agree with the parts about military making things more streamlined and easier to learn. The average soldier is taught to fight as a unit and to continue on in adverse conditions, some of the individual skills are not as detailed. This is partly for efficiency and speed of training, but also because when fighting as a unit it is not required as much. I think this actually points to why I am hesitant to fully agree with this video, as this means that it is an easy system to become proficient at. Sounds like a selling point to me. Now, could some one who is fully proficient at back sword beat some one at sabre, well, I am not an expert at either, so sure, I will assume from it having more dynamics that it can. But if you do not have the time to commit required to learn back sword, it sounds like sabre is a good option.

Jack Traveller You have of course found the obvious flaw in my argument. If I set the definition of the word "better" then I get to pick which system is "better".

Jack Traveller Hutton's system is more complex than military sabre and is not representative of it. Indeed Hutton rails against the reductionist approach and offers Cold Steel as a solution to it. Much of what is found in Cold Steel is smallsword and backsword reworked for sabre.

My mistake Sifuben, as I mentioned, Im not a student of military sabre, & Cold Steel is the only sabre manual Im passingly familiar with. I stand corrected :)

Upon re-reading that, that is incredibly poorly written. I'm tired, that is my excuse and I'm sticking with it!

Jack Traveller That's kind of the point :D

EnglishMartialArts so you made a video to antagonise him, very clever and mature hey

Patrick Dixon Hi Patrick. You should know that I have known Matt for nearly 20 years, he is my brother in law and we spend most of our time together having debates like this. I thought it might be fun to do it on RU-vid instead of in my front room.

its just a bit to in your face for me, maybe be a but more resigned in the way you say things, matt may not care but as a viewer it is to much

I'm sorry I offend you simply by exisiting. I'd say itt's probably better for us both if you don't watch my videos in future.

Kenneth Pryde It really isn't staged, but Matt and I are very well practiced at arguing with each other.

Ha! You wish...

kokofan50 Shhh, don't spoil it! Of course Im comparing things that can't really be compared, but that doesn't make it less fun.

James Grant Repshire I agree, it is allcontextual at the end of the day, but lets not spoil the fun. Sabre sucks right? :)

EnglishMartialArts I guess what I'm really trying to start a conversation on is: What is the difference between the two forms in terms of battlefield use? From my experience so far, backsword has the edge (hey-o) over sabre in that context, but as I noted, my sabre experience is limited so it stands to reason that I might favor backsword. Got any sources talking about battlefield use of the backsword in the 17th c.?

James Grant Repshire Well that's an interesting topic. I think that in any environment over which you have little control a more generalised approach is going to be more effective. On a battlefield I suspect the chances of someone closing is a lot higher so an art that covers how to deal with someone closing would be advantageous. On a related note, I can't think of an art more suited to friendly fencing bouts in protective gear, in a decent sized sports hall than military sabre. Which may well go some way to explaining the sudden explosion in HEMA groups training it. If you had to pick a system to train in to stand a chance of winning a tournament it would certainly be Sabre. But if you actually wanted to improve your chances of surviving in a violent world where swords were commonplace I suspect it wouldn't be quite so popular.

EnglishMartialArts no it doesn't and stop being so childish

Patrick Dixon Childish? How so?

Ryan Zaybekian You could indeed. So essentially whether backsword or sabre is "better" depends entirely on how you define "better".

EnglishMartialArts More efficient perhaps, while a mastery of the more complex techniques will have some diminishing returns based on the time put in to them. While I haven't studied HEMA, I have studied Tae Kwon Do and Karate for a while, and some BJJ. 2 personal observations: 1- Mastery of the basics and understanding fundamentals, and their application in a fight, will get you farther than advanced techniques. 2- When put in a situation you haven't trained for, you're SOL. For me it was ground fighting (hence BJJ), here it may be closing and grappling or open ward. Also, what is open ward? Sounds interesting

Lukos0036 It would definitely be possible. The length of the blade tends to be longer in English Backsword,but not so much that it would make a massive difference.

EnglishMartialArts I see, thank you.

Lukos0036 Something you need to consider when doing sabre with a basket-hilt is that some sabre styles like you to put your thumb up the back of the grip. Basket hilts don't really have the space to do that.

Ferdie Schaller I think you can adjust your approach to favor cut a bit more though, and adopt a more medieval thrust grip if I'm not mistaken. It alters the style a bit but still fits within the application.

Lukos0036 Yeah absolutely, we use the Rawlings nylon backsword trainers for sabre at Matt's club and they work fine. I've personally cut the bottom bars off mine so that, although I tend to use the hammer grip, I have the option of going thumb-up if I want to get stabby.

Will nonya I think you're mistaken in your Silver. He states that Rapier is dangerous because it does not have any knowledge of the Four Governors and that because of their lack of understanding of the Pinciple grounds they fight upon false times. They also have weapons that have open hilts, and their blades are too long. I'll try to dig out the exact reference.

EnglishMartialArts There are four special marks to know the Italian fightis imperfect, & that the Italian teachers and settersforth of books of defence, never had the per-fection of the true fightThe first mark is, they seldom fight in their own country unarmed, commonly in this sort, a pair of gauntlets upon their hands, and a good shirt of mail upon their bodies. The second mark is, that neither the Italian nor any of their best scholars do never fight, but they are most commonly sore hurt, or one or both of them slain.The third mark is, they never teach their scholars, nor set down in their books any perfect length of their weapons, without which no man can by nature or art against the perfect length fight safe, for being too short, their times are too long, and spaces too wide for their defence, and being too long, they will be upon every cross that shall happen to be made, whether it shall be done by skill or chance, in great danger of death, because the rapier being too long, the cross cannot be undone in due time, but may be done by going back with the feet, but that time is always too long to answer the time of the hand, therefore every man ought to have a weapon according to his own stature, the tall man must have his sword longer than the man of mean stature, else he has wrong in his defence, & he man of mean stature must have his weapon longer than the man of small stature, else he has wrong in his defence, & the man of small stature must beware he does not feed himself with this vain conceit, that he will have his weapon long, to reach as far as the tall man, for therein he shall have great disadvantage, both with the making of a strong cross, and also in uncrossing again, and in keeping his point from crossing, and when a cross is made upon him, to defend himself, or in danger his enemy, or to redeem his lost times. Again, rapiers longer than is convenient to accord with the true statures of men, are always too long or too heavy to keep their bodies in due time from the cross of the light short sword of perfect length, the which being made by the skillful out of any of the four true times, upon any of the four chief actions, by reason of the uncertainty & great swiftness in any of these times, they are in great danger of a blow, or of a thrust in the hand, arm, head, or face, & in every true cross in the uncrossing, in great danger of a blow upon the head, or full thrust in the body or face, and being taken in that time & place, the first mover in uncrossing speeds the rapier man of imperfect length, whether it is too long, too short or too heavy, and goes free himself by the direction of his governors.The fourth mark is, the crosses of their rapiers for true defence of their hands is imperfect, for the true carriage of the guardant fight, without which all fights are imperfect.Of six chief causes, that many valiant men thinkthemselves by their practices to be skillful in theirweapons, are yet many times in their fights sorehurt, and many times slain by men ofsmall skill or none at all.3The first and chief cause is, the lack of the four governors, without which it is impossible to fight safe, although a man should practice most painfully and most diligently all the days of his life.The second cause is, the lack of the knowledge in due observance of the four actions, the which we shall call bent, spent, lying spent, and drawing back. These actions every man fights upon, whether they are skillful or unskillful, he that observes them is safe, he that observes them not, is in continual danger of every thrust that shall be strongly made against him.The third cause is, they are unpracticed in the four true times, neither do they know the true times from the false, therefore the true choice of their times are most commonly taken by chance, and seldom otherwise.The fourth cause is, they are unacquainted out of what fight, or in what manner they are to answer the variable fight, and therefore because the variable fight is the most easy fight of all others, most commonly (they)do answer the variable fight with the variable fight, (at) which (they) ought never be but in the first distance, or with the short sword against the long, because if both or one of them shall happen to press, and that in due time of either side's fight be changed, the distance, by reason of the narrowness of space, is broken, the place is won and lost of both sides, then he that thrusts first, speeds (it home). If both happen to thrust together, they are both in danger. These things sometimes by true times, by change of fights, by chance are avoided.The fifth cause is, their weapons are most commonly too long to uncross without going back with the feet.The sixth cause is, their weapons are most commonly to heavy both to defend and offend in due time, & by these two last causes many valiant men have lost their lives.

You have way more than katana range with a typical 19th century sabre. One handed weapons have greater reach by default and sabres typically have blades that are comparable to katanas. Also, as we can see from sparring and mixed weapon tournaments, sabres can more than hold their own even against longswords, and everybody loses against a rapier, no matter their weapon (unless it's a giant ass montante, I guess).

*controversy

Paul O'Toole Boxers are very dangerous when boxing rules are enforced. A good wrestler will always beat a good boxer. And there is no way you can claim wrestlers only know two or three techniques.

Dear lord am I late to the party

Adam Catney Thanks, I hope I don't disappoint.

BurroDeLasTinieblas Lol! Good catch.

Patrick Dixon Care to provide any evidence, or shall we just take your word for it?

how about not be so brash ans immature then maybe people will listen

Clearly people are listening. Else you wouldn't be here insulting me.

correction on your comment, harsh advice

Also the sabre grip is also bs it's a trusting grip not a cutting one. I don't like cutting with the wrist.