As Rodell Laoshi has stated on many occasions, approaching the study of the sword as a historical discipline is an essential approach to the preservation of the skills and character of the art. I would go as far as to say that historical swordsmanship, specifically the swordplay aspect of it, may come to play a significant role in preserving and restoring other forms of classical martial arts as well. While the practice of forms serves an important role in the preservation of postures, aesthetics, and certain movement principles, actual application of skills in simulated combat under a diverse range of circumstances is the only way to preserve, reinforce, and Polish the actual skills that Chinese swords-folk and other weaponeers/ fighters must have had back in the day.
If realistic weapons play in martial arts schools is not available, and is no longer in the equation, most martial arts, that originally developed under conditions in which facing varied weapons/ multiple opponents was a reality, then it is certain that these arts undergo modification either as a response to constructed circumstances or to meet contemporary needs (such as marketability,etc.
) They still may be great arts, but they won't be historically accurate representations of what was. A lot of weapons practice that is currently available is either presentation / performance based, or takes on the form of sports or fencing so as to be confined and constricted by strict rules and guidelines. Historical sword combat was not. As was pointed out in "The Secret History of The Sword" by Christoph Amberger, contemporary fencing is no longer preserving historical sword play, but is now evolving to take best advantage of the modern rules and regulations. I have to agree with the logic of this argument. While the rule-filled arts such as fencing and kendo (I used to practice kendo for a number of years) are wonderful and full of merit in their own contexts, their connection with and resemblance to the historical fighting arts from which they are derived is becoming more and more distant.
One of the great merits of Chinese Historical Swordsmanship as it is promoted by Great River Taoist Center and its associates is that is makes use of a threefold approach, a scientific approach, as the means to verify the historical accuracy of methods of swordplay. The first aspect of research, to which Rodell Laoshi has greatly contributed, is to seek out and study intensively with as many living expert sources as possible. Laoshi now serves many of us as an expert, providing a source of foundation knowledge for many students. The second research method is to conduct scholarly "book research" in order to retrieve available texts and to render the information into language accessible by a wide range of practitioners. Connected with this is the production of scholarly discussion, debate, and conjecture on Chinese and historical swordsmanship (as we are doing in this forum). This is a very important device in helping to reinforce and stimulate academic growth regarding Chinese swordsmanship. Information gained from literary research or other forms of scholarship must be analyzed and utilized to verify other literary sources, to stimulate further investigation, and also to test and question and reinforce the breadth of knowledge and the methods of swordplay utilized by practitioners. This is especially important in order to bring "new" old knowledge back into the arena, where it can be put to the test.
The third method of research is to apply sword skills in free-play. Free-play serves as a test to verify, cultivate, and reinforce skills and concepts provided by expert sources and scholarship. Through the practice of directed trial and error as its mode of inquiry, and willingness to see how the methods of the system hold up when put under the stress-tests of facing and needing to adapt to other unfamiliar systems, the skills of practitioners might be honed to approach what Chinese Swordsmanship was historically all about. Especially while there remain a relatively limited number of historical swordsmanship practitioners, and thus a limited number of duifang, with finite sets of skills it is important to put ourselves under adverse circumstances, while in practice in order to insure that we make our skills work appropriately. What I mean to say, is that if a swordsman trains with the same three people all along, and they are all doing approximately the same techniques of attack and counter, (they inevitably will be over time) while using the same kinds of weapons against each other all the time, then they have likely limited their skills to dealing with a relatively narrow set of conditions. But can they deal with other kinds of close range attackers doing things that they might not regularly face? Will they be able to anticipate their new duifang's actions and adapt their skills to meet the challenge? The answer almost certainly is, not until they practice doing just that. This is a dangerous reality that we need to remind ourselves about often if we want to "keep it real." While we practice our own skill-sets diligently, from time to time it pays to look at our neighbors from other styles. Don't do what they do, just make sure your stuff works against their stuff. This is another form of scholarship.
Again, if "it" is realistic and functional use of the skills that we have acquired from experts and diligent research, then it is likely historically accurate.
In summary, free-play and its associated practice methods, combined with preserved teachings passed down by expert sources, and the examination of historical texts/ academic investigation each used to reinforce the other provide a sound basis on which to reconstruct swordplay with the best degree of historical accuracy.
Now, regarding free-play, if historically accurate swordsmanship is to be restored and preserved, free-play must be conducted in such a way as to stimulate realistic actions and responses. Within the many possible ways to practice free-play that are apparently used by a wide range of martial arts schools, there lies the danger of using approaches that prevent the cultivation of realistic sword skills.
Rodell Laoshi has pointed out to me that it is important to preserve the element of danger in order to breed realistically cautious swords-people, and to force us to employ techniques that are efficient rather than flamboyant or reckless. Practitioners often inadvertently revert to uncontrolled flailing when weapons are not of accurate weight or if they are soft, limp, or overly padded. Therefore, the somewhat heavy hard wood swords that GRTC encourages people to use appear to be a very sound tool for helping students to achieve realistic swordplay. On the other hand, they are safer than some of the lighter weight wooden swords in that the have a flattened point and rounded blades to reduce chances of permanent maiming injuries. However, they are more that dangerous enough to require extreme caution and care during free-play. Historically accurate swordplay can only be the product of realistic practice. If there is no danger in being hit because the practice weapon poses no threat or causes no pain when contact occurs, then the methods of attack will change. More than likely the combatant will just wail away on each other as much as possible and forget the majority of their technique. If two people battered each other with swords, they would both die. The objective in ancient times was exactly the same in combat as it is to day. Kill your enemy and go home in one piece. sword-fighting, unlike pillow fighting requires evasion of an adversary's weapon and extreme refinement of technique. In conclusion, if there is no danger, their is very limited incentive to replicate and utilize functional sword techniques.
Rodell Laoshi taught a workshop at my studio, Natural Path Taichi in NJ, in October, 2004. He eloquently demonstrated his ability to adjust his responses to varied opponents and to smoothly take advantage of defects in each of our styles of combat. He even conducted swordplay against two eager duifang simultaneously and successfully took advantage of their methods of attack. (Very exciting to watch, by the way.) He discussed this in a previous forum, but I have brought it up again here because of its relevance to the topic. If we wish to truly preserve historical swordsmanship, we need to be willing to be dynamic. One on one swordplay is the foundation of our skills, and in order to become competent we must meet and practice with as many different individual duifang as possible. Each different duifang has varied characteristics and abilities, and therefore conducting free-play versus them will help one at breadth to their range of ability in coping with and smiting foes, (I mean duifang). After that, facing multiple duifang simultaneously on varied ground and against varied weapons is the only way to gain a reasonable breadth of skill and knowledge that the complete practice of Chinese Historical Swordsmanship has to offer.
Historical swordsmanship, Chinese or other was not an isolated set of skills. It had to entail the ability to adapt and take advantage of whatever weak points an adversary may have made available. In training with this conceptual approach, we can be successful in restoring the skills that were historically present within the field of Chinese Historical Swordsmanship.
Thank you for reading this article. I look forward to hearing replies and responses. I would be delighted if anyone has something to add to this.
Cheers,
Seth
Dec 20, 2004