Is there a difference, in free-play, between jian and dao?

[SwordzenMaster]

Dear Scott,

How are you? I was away for business trip.

I am not trying to criticize any one. They are all great on the competition floor. I mentioned about sword with spirit and without spirit because of the design of the swords. Not the students. I have seen the video. They are all great.

Maybe my style is too much different than Taichi. My style is one of the oldest and the most difficult style in Chinese swordsmanship. My master does not allow me to show anything until he past away. Because of his knowledge, I realize that sword has (八面威風), eight fierce points . sword does not only have double sharp blade as its main killing tool. It has eight.

For the dimension of sword, there is certain way to fit the length of blade and length of handle for each individual. Our style was not allowed to show in public until my master die. It was requested by him. He also expected me to show it to the world after he died. That is what I　ａｍ　ｄｏｉｎｇ　ｎｏｗ．　　Ｉ　ｅｎｊｏｙ　ｔｏ　ｋｎｏｗ　ｔｈａｔ　ｍａｎｙ　ａｒｅ　ｉｎｔｅｒｅｓｔｅｄ　ｉｎ　Ｃｈｉｎｅｓｅ　ｓｗｏｒｄｓｍａｎｓｈｉｐ.

Regarding the competition, please let me know more about it, including rules and other information. I tried to construct a competition event, but not able to do it. Because I cannot eliminate the danger to damage others. From my knowledge, it is hard to make a standard one size sword for competition, since the heights and palm size are different for each one. For a sword play to reach the highest performance, No pouring water can wet your cloth. You need correct blade length and correct handle length.

I will try to make time for the competition. Let's keep in touch.

Best Regards,

Kevin

... the sword play in your competition. From my linkage, sword is categorized into two types basically. One is dead Jian, the other is call Jian with spirit. It is very hard for me to explain it without illustrations. Most of sword used in competition is called dead sword. I am too far from you. I would like to share my experience with you, if we can meet in the future...

You are welcome to visit any time, I am always happy to qie cuo with another serious practitioner... I hope this also means you will be sending students to the next TCSL Tournament, it is planned for June 2009.

As for the Competition, I would be cautious in describing the play as dead, or without spirit. Certainly, there was a good deal of sloppy technique, there were poorly executed techniques, & there were moments of excellence. Being up on a platform in front of a crowd with another serious practitioner who is really trying to hit you with a pound & a half of oak is not like the training hall. It is easy for us to sit at home at our computers & philosophize & criticize the players errors, but we should respect them for getting up on that platform in public to test their skills. Not many philosophers are willing to do that.

[Philip Tom]

In my experience over many years involving examination and restoration of many hundreds if not thousands of antique jian and dao, some patterns can be discerned in the population of historical weapons still in existence. Here are some random thoughts for readers to pick up on and apply to their particular analyses of sword design in relation to fighting style, and what makes a weapon "ideal" for any given person.

A. MASS PRODUCTION. Contrary to the common notion that swords were individually fitted to the user is the fact that China in each of its dynasties maintained large armies whose regular forces were equipped with weapons which were made in considerable quantities to standard designs. Crossbow mechanisms from the Qin and Han Dynasties have interchangeable bronze trigger components. The HUANGCHAO LIQI TUSHI of the 18th cent. provides measurements and weights for regulation-pattern weapons. And so forth and so on. There are enough military-issue sabers and falchions from the latter Qing that are still around for the astute observer or collector to note several distinct models. In my experience of handling so many of these, it's easy to see that for each pattern they are practically identical in proportions, balance, and style of manufacture.
It would be impractical for government arsenals or contractors to "tailor" swords to individual rank-and-file troops (officers for the most part had to buy their own weapons but there were far fewer of them than common soldiers). Considering the size of the military population relative to that of sword-owning civilians (the ability to own and carry a sword was often subject to social-status and economic restraints) one can see that a huge slice of the weapons-output pie at any given time was in the form of what we would call mass-produced regulation patterns.

B. CRAFT PRODUCTION: BLADE DIMENSION. Swordmakers also catered to the non-military market, expecially for jian, from the latter Ming onwards. They also made sabers to order for officers. But even here, I notice that many of the weapons (especially jian) have a certain commonality as regards to blade cross-sections and tip shapes, and rates of taper. Blade thicknesses at the forte for jian and peidao is a surprisingly consistent 1/4 in. for the lion's share of examples, with a few going about 1/16 upward of that. Most long-bladed jian, for example, tend to cluster in the 28-30 in. range. Full length sabers tend to fall into two groups, the longer ones averaging between 29 to 30 in., and the slightly shorter ones being around 27 in. Considering that sabers (notably yanmaodao and liuyedao) were primarly purchased by military men, the difference may well be due to the fact that horsemen needed a bit more "reach" in their blades than infantry.

Note: Slight variations in length of surviving examples can be atributed to battlefield damage to blade tips, and subsequent re-shaping.

BALANCE: Some years ago I did a study of several jian in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. I broke the group down into several classes, and this is what I found.
JIAN WITH HILTS OF TYPICAL MING/QING TYPES (3 examples):
blades 24 1/2, 27, 29 1/2 in., point of balance varied between 5 1/4 and 6 1/2 in.. The shortest of the group in terms of length and POB is a Taoist ritual sword with a nonetheless-functional blade. I have handled many other jian of this class, in private collections, and their POBs all fall around 6 in. give or take a quarter inch or so.
JIAN WITH ATYPICAL HILTS (jade and all-over cloisonne metal, 2 examples): a duanjian with 22 3/4 in. blade, a changjian at 28 3/4 in, with POB of 4 3/4 and 4 in. respectively. The "livelier" balance is due to the heavier material of the hilts on these swords which were probably meant to be more decorative or ceremonial than combative).
VIETNAMESE SWORDS OF JIAN SHAPE (KIEM): 2 examples, one a double set in one scabbard, blades 25-26 in., POB 2 3/8 to 3 3/4 in.
I've handled dozens more which fall within the same range with no notable "outlyers", indicating that the culture had different expectations as regards to how a d.e. blade should "play".
TIBETAN VERSION OF A JIAN: 30 1/4 IN. blade, POB 8 3/8 in. Quite tip heavy which is along the lines of the common Tibetan long backsword "dpa-dam".

FITTINGS: In many cases, the fittings on non-regulation Chinese swords and sabers fall into recognizeable classes, distinguished by style, material, and workmanship. Consistency in dimensions and decor indicate production in considerable quantity. Relatively few appear to be "one-off" creations. In the case of non-military blades of average or workaday quality, they appear to come in a pretty narrow range of sizes when mounted up in fittings of common type, which indicates that a considerable market for "off-the-shelf" products existed.

SO WHAT'S THE POINT OF ALL THIS? Some ideas to consider.
1. We can expect blade lengths to fall into several clusters depending on what they were to be used for: fighting on horseback, combat on foot in open ground, fighting on boats or in cramped alleys/indoors, etc.
Also, in the case of sabers, the degree and rate of curvature plays a huge role in their suitability for certain styles of swordplay, but I won't go into this here because the discussion thread seems to revolve around jian.

2. For those weapons not mass-produced in batches or lots of identical models, we can expect some variations in size because people do come in various sizes. If you shop for a dress shirt and are faced with a number of collar and sleeve measurements, you can imagine the choice that a sword or saber purchaser in China had. Keep in mind, though, that the vast majority of shoppers buy their shirts ready-made, off-the-shelf and thus the range of sizes is in fact limited and defined.

3. I think that BALANCE is an even more important a factor to consider than length when analyzing swords within the context of fencing technique. No matter if you're tall or short, if your system of swordsmanship requires that a blade do certain things, then POB is crucial.
It all has to do with physics and biomechanics, there's nothing mystical or arcane about it. And if you PRACTICE your system diligently -- all of it: forms, drills, CUTTING, freeplay -- under the guidance of a skilled teacher, you should after awhile be able to figure out "in your gut" what works for you and what doesn't.
Just like a carpenter develops a preference for a particular hammer or saw based on his years of effort in mastering his craft. He doesn't need to consult a guru or self-styled "master" under a fig tree to tell him what will enable him to do his job better and with less fatigue.

Despite the notable differences in average height and physique between northern and southern Chinese, I find that the surprising consistency in BALANCE within the various types sabers and swords, despite differences in weight and length, to be significant.
The laws of physics apply to everyone on Earth, and human bodies come with the same basic musculo-skeletal structure the world over.

4. This subject is multi-faceted and you need to get the big picture when looking at a sword and deciding "what's what". But it's all based on some pretty common-sense principles.

[tennytigers]

swordmaster.
what happens if you get hit by a bus before your master dies.

[SwordzenMaster]

I totally agree with you. Balance is very important on maneuvering a sword. But I mean that you totally misunderstand what I meant. A sword without spirit in Chinese. It means that when you use the sword you hurt yourself before you hurt someone else. There are some Chinese sword that is used as decoration. There are some Chinese swords used as fighting purpose. The main part to distinguish sword with spirit or without spirit is from the design of the hand guard. Length of the handle is important on maneuvering sword. I believe that some practitioners have experience that the long sleeve tangled with the end of the handle.

Sword with spirit or without spirit is not created by me. It is past down by many masters from the design of swords. It is like what you mentioned at the end, "get the big picture when looking at a sword and deciding "what's what". But it's all based on some pretty common-sense principles". When I talk about sword with spirit or without spirit, please think from Chinese way. Then you will understand. The words and sentence are based on Chinese culture.

For me, everything is simple physics, but there is something more to it internally. It is not as deep as cultivating internal energy or other deep unclear thought. It also involves the internal movement of your body. I am sorry that I might not explain this clearly. These are demonstrated and taught by my three grand masters. Two are in Asia. One is in USA named Zhou Ting Jue. Ripley believe or not has my grand master's footage. He is well known on energy healing and martial arts. You may google on him. Maybe you will know what I am talking about.

You are really a knowledge person on sword. I might create some misunderstanding by translating directly from Chinese concept. It is nice to share ideas with every one.

In my experience over many years involving examination and restoration of many hundreds if not thousands of antique jian and dao, some patterns can be discerned in the population of historical weapons still in existence. Here are some random thoughts for readers to pick up on and apply to their particular analyses of sword design in relation to fighting style, and what makes a weapon "ideal" for any given person.

A. MASS PRODUCTION. Contrary to the common notion that swords were individually fitted to the user is the fact that China in each of its dynasties maintained large armies whose regular forces were equipped with weapons which were made in considerable quantities to standard designs. Crossbow mechanisms from the Qin and Han Dynasties have interchangeable bronze trigger components. The HUANGCHAO LIQI TUSHI of the 18th cent. provides measurements and weights for regulation-pattern weapons. And so forth and so on. There are enough military-issue sabers and falchions from the latter Qing that are still around for the astute observer or collector to note several distinct models. In my experience of handling so many of these, it's easy to see that for each pattern they are practically identical in proportions, balance, and style of manufacture.
It would be impractical for government arsenals or contractors to "tailor" swords to individual rank-and-file troops (officers for the most part had to buy their own weapons but there were far fewer of them than common soldiers). Considering the size of the military population relative to that of sword-owning civilians (the ability to own and carry a sword was often subject to social-status and economic restraints) one can see that a huge slice of the weapons-output pie at any given time was in the form of what we would call mass-produced regulation patterns.

B. CRAFT PRODUCTION: BLADE DIMENSION. Swordmakers also catered to the non-military market, expecially for jian, from the latter Ming onwards. They also made sabers to order for officers. But even here, I notice that many of the weapons (especially jian) have a certain commonality as regards to blade cross-sections and tip shapes, and rates of taper. Blade thicknesses at the forte for jian and peidao is a surprisingly consistent 1/4 in. for the lion's share of examples, with a few going about 1/16 upward of that. Most long-bladed jian, for example, tend to cluster in the 28-30 in. range. Full length sabers tend to fall into two groups, the longer ones averaging between 29 to 30 in., and the slightly shorter ones being around 27 in. Considering that sabers (notably yanmaodao and liuyedao) were primarly purchased by military men, the difference may well be due to the fact that horsemen needed a bit more "reach" in their blades than infantry.

Note: Slight variations in length of surviving examples can be atributed to battlefield damage to blade tips, and subsequent re-shaping.

BALANCE: Some years ago I did a study of several jian in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. I broke the group down into several classes, and this is what I found.
JIAN WITH HILTS OF TYPICAL MING/QING TYPES (3 examples):
blades 24 1/2, 27, 29 1/2 in., point of balance varied between 5 1/4 and 6 1/2 in.. The shortest of the group in terms of length and POB is a Taoist ritual sword with a nonetheless-functional blade. I have handled many other jian of this class, in private collections, and their POBs all fall around 6 in. give or take a quarter inch or so.
JIAN WITH ATYPICAL HILTS (jade and all-over cloisonne metal, 2 examples): a duanjian with 22 3/4 in. blade, a changjian at 28 3/4 in, with POB of 4 3/4 and 4 in. respectively. The "livelier" balance is due to the heavier material of the hilts on these swords which were probably meant to be more decorative or ceremonial than combative).
VIETNAMESE SWORDS OF JIAN SHAPE (KIEM): 2 examples, one a double set in one scabbard, blades 25-26 in., POB 2 3/8 to 3 3/4 in.
I've handled dozens more which fall within the same range with no notable "outlyers", indicating that the culture had different expectations as regards to how a d.e. blade should "play".
TIBETAN VERSION OF A JIAN: 30 1/4 IN. blade, POB 8 3/8 in. Quite tip heavy which is along the lines of the common Tibetan long backsword "dpa-dam".

FITTINGS: In many cases, the fittings on non-regulation Chinese swords and sabers fall into recognizeable classes, distinguished by style, material, and workmanship. Consistency in dimensions and decor indicate production in considerable quantity. Relatively few appear to be "one-off" creations. In the case of non-military blades of average or workaday quality, they appear to come in a pretty narrow range of sizes when mounted up in fittings of common type, which indicates that a considerable market for "off-the-shelf" products existed.

SO WHAT'S THE POINT OF ALL THIS? Some ideas to consider.
1. We can expect blade lengths to fall into several clusters depending on what they were to be used for: fighting on horseback, combat on foot in open ground, fighting on boats or in cramped alleys/indoors, etc.
Also, in the case of sabers, the degree and rate of curvature plays a huge role in their suitability for certain styles of swordplay, but I won't go into this here because the discussion thread seems to revolve around jian.

2. For those weapons not mass-produced in batches or lots of identical models, we can expect some variations in size because people do come in various sizes. If you shop for a dress shirt and are faced with a number of collar and sleeve measurements, you can imagine the choice that a sword or saber purchaser in China had. Keep in mind, though, that the vast majority of shoppers buy their shirts ready-made, off-the-shelf and thus the range of sizes is in fact limited and defined.

3. I think that BALANCE is an even more important a factor to consider than length when analyzing swords within the context of fencing technique. No matter if you're tall or short, if your system of swordsmanship requires that a blade do certain things, then POB is crucial.
It all has to do with physics and biomechanics, there's nothing mystical or arcane about it. And if you PRACTICE your system diligently -- all of it: forms, drills, CUTTING, freeplay -- under the guidance of a skilled teacher, you should after awhile be able to figure out "in your gut" what works for you and what doesn't.
Just like a carpenter develops a preference for a particular hammer or saw based on his years of effort in mastering his craft. He doesn't need to consult a guru or self-styled "master" under a fig tree to tell him what will enable him to do his job better and with less fatigue.

Despite the notable differences in average height and physique between northern and southern Chinese, I find that the surprising consistency in BALANCE within the various types sabers and swords, despite differences in weight and length, to be significant.
The laws of physics apply to everyone on Earth, and human bodies come with the same basic musculo-skeletal structure the world over.

4. This subject is multi-faceted and you need to get the big picture when looking at a sword and deciding "what's what". But it's all based on some pretty common-sense principles.

[SwordzenMaster]

If I die, then I die. In Chinese culture, we value our master as our father. I was taught in ancient way. We never say NO to our masters. It is rooted in our mind deeply. It is hard for me to figure out why. It is the way it was.

swordmaster.
what happens if you get hit by a bus before your master dies.

[Peter Dekker]

Hi,

I totally agree with you. Balance is very important on maneuvering a sword. But I mean that you totally misunderstand what I meant.

One of the most important things that Philip Tom laid out in his post was that the shapes and sizes were quite uniform throughout, and that the balance was always a bit ahead of the guard.

Your idea of balance directly on the guard comes from acrobatic and opera traditions with a focus on show that got intermingled with martial arts when these arts started to lose their significance on the battlefield in favor of firearms. The most significant phase in this stage was the creation of modern wushu, but in fact most elements of modern wushu were already deeply rooted in other Chinese performance arts and since long time combined with martial arts. What kept them from becoming one in an earlier stage was that there were still actual swordfights that separated what worked from what did not work. In modern times, there is not such a clear line anymore.

(In their time, village people only had the quasi historical operas performed on markets as a source of entertainment. They began to take these shows as seriously as some of us take quasi historical movies seriously nowadays, mimicking the movements of the actors and even worshipping them as gods. One of the sources that clearly shows this intermingling is Joseph W. Esherick's award winning research "Origins of the Boxer Uprising" that he almost solely bases on actual Chinese accounts such as local gazetteers, proving various official chinese and Western period accounts wrong on the true origins of this uprising.)

It wasn't until after the art moved away from the battlefields, that these elements (for which a guard-balanced jian is excellent) could be claimed to be effective because there was no direct way of proving or disproving them. The tournament that Scott Rodell organized presented the first real platform to once again separate what works and what doesn't. In order to really prove or disprove the effectiveness of certain practical ideas, I think they should first meet in a sparring match and then discuss the differences. As you probably know, this was also the way that the ancient Chinese kept their styles pure and effective.

A note on historical reality
If your style, historically, would have really used a balance on the guard then I wonder where all these swords are now. The same goes for the differences in handle and blade length. If these should really match the user to such high degree, why don't we find more variation in the many, many antiques that remain for us to study? And why do the regulations mention standardized sizes? Were all Chinese soldiers -even those in the Emperor's elite guards- then wielding unspirited swords that would hurt them before they could hurt someone else?

In the field of Chinese arms those who seriously study them through old texts, actual antiques and period artwork & early pictures are constantly confronted with oral traditions that do not add up to the evidence presented. Many martial arts masters, who may very well be true masters in their art, forget that they are not historians / collectors or arms researchers. Proper historical research is a discipline on its own that requires an open mind but also a constant desire to have ideas backed up with actual facts before they are accepted. So far, I am afraid that the facts do not favor your teachings. I am open to hear more though.

Clothing

Length of the handle is important on maneuvering sword. I believe that some practitioners have experience that the long sleeve tangled with the end of the handle.

If this were the case, wouldn't it be better to change the sleeve and not the handle? Qing dynasty sleeves were not very wide when rolled back. In fighting position they would be rolled out to cover most of the hand, but in a way that it would not restrict archery or swordsmanship. The garment was designed for accommodation of the weapons used and not vice versa, thus it also closes to one side so the bow string would not hit the buttons.

-Peter

[Scott M. Rodell]

... the design of the swords... For the dimension of sword, there is certain way to fit the length of blade and length of handle for each individual...

I have been fortunate to have owned over 600 Chinese swords, including a great many jian, as part of my antique arms business (Seven Stars Trading Co.) & to have visited every major museum reserve collection here & in Europe. All together I have had in my hands over 2000 Chinese swords. So my observations about blade length, weight, hilt length & configuration, etc, are based solely upon examination of Qing & Ming era examples. None of my observations are based on information passed along in various martial art lineages as I have most of this to be inaccurate at best. I have also spent years practicing cutting with Chinese Swords.

Based on these observations I agree totally with the observations of Philip Tom (who BTW, is Chinese) & Peter Dekker above. For example, I have found for the vast majority of jian there is no appreciable difference in hilt length to blade length ratio between jian with full length blades. This is because the physics of cutting trumps any personal desire for a certain hilt design. In short, whether using a jian or dao, it is a tool that must do a particular job, that is cutting. To cut effectively, & not bounce back off the target, as a jian with a POB too close to the guard does, requires a very specific overall mass distribution, lengthening or shortening the grip too much throws off this balance. So hilt length is not a question of the personal needs of the swordsman, but of the needs of the tool. Therefore, just as a carpenter doesn't go out & try to design his own hammer, but buys a tried & true hammer off the shelf, jianke in the past, bought standard swords because that's what worked.

Regarding the competition, please let me know more about it, including rules... I cannot eliminate the danger to damage others. From my knowledge, it is hard to make a standard one size sword for competition... You need correct blade length and correct handle length.

... the next TCSL Tournament, it is planned for June 2009.

You can find the TCSL Tournament Rules posted on the Traditional Chinese Sword League website at: http://www.swordleague.com/rules.html

Regarding the dangerous nature of the Competition, you may also want to read the discussion in the thread:
Suggested Gear For Chinese Swordplay
viewtopic.php?t=732
Please note that the goals of this League is not to create a safe sport like fencing, the Tournament is not without danger, there were injuries at the Bozeman Tournament.

The TCSL rules provide minimum criteria for the swords used in TCSL Tournaments: they can not be lighter than 600 grams nor longer than 79 cm. (31"). The edge must be at least 1.3 cm. (1/2") wide and the blade at least 2 cm. (3/4") thick. Contestants can opted for a sword of short length or greater weight, etc. It should also be noted that the referee will inspect all weapons the day of the Tournament & can disallow the use of any weapon.

... the next TCSL Tournament, it is planned for June 2009.