Matt

We were invited to attend a local renaissance faire/reenactment fair over the weekend and met a good group of guys who practice the European longsword.

After some friendly ribbing we decided to have a friendly match this coming weekend, four of our students vs four of their members.

I decided to research European longsword forms in preparation partly so I know what we are up against and also because of the obvious similarities in stance and technique. (Plus I don't want to keep reffering to their swordsmanship with Japanese equivalents)

Now, I am having trouble finding extensive documentation on the subject due to many European forms being lost to the ages, but also have read that a number of people have begun reconstructing the forms using Italian and German texts and historical data but can't seem to find any results on the matter.

I should note we are not really fussed on the results and are in no way worried about the match, our students are no strangers to unlimited full contact sparring, I think it is more a matter of respecting our opponents by at least understanding the history behind them.

(I said many, not all)

All I ever seem to hear is arguments that traditional forms don't practice full contact sparring or that they do not evolve to change and modify the style making them stale.

Obviously this is a true fact, but rather than recognise the many forms and styles that indeed do practice combat and further the style, they dump ALL forms in to the many weekend hobby schools that exist.

I have yet to see a style that doesn't have one or more forms under its many variations that does not practice these things.

On the other front, there are just as many hobby schools for MMA but don't seem to drag the name of the sport down any at all, it seems to be a combination of ignorance and double standards.

Many seem to think that MMA as a sport is MMA in it's purest form when in fact it is subject to the same rules and regulatory aspects they speak out against. (Again, many, not all) It falls under the same close minded ideals as those TMA schools that do the very same thing.

I will say I do not dislike MMA, it's many practitioners or it's presence in the combat world, only idiots.

My school offers multiple open classes per year in traditional Jujutsu that gets attended by many MMA practitioners from local schools/clubs and many of them are pleasant and respectful people eager to learn something different and add to their understanding of different forms as well as show us some of their own training backgrounds, they are the ones who I call MMA practitioners, not those willing only to concentrate on a small part of the bigger picture.

(Note: Cold Friday night, heated sake and Yahoo Answers is prob not the best combination)

I'm talking about fake tans and puffy lips in particular. Do people actually find this attractive?

Now I am no fashion expert, but I have yet to find another male or female among my group who actually do.

Fake tans look really unnatural, even when not over done and puffy lips make it look even worse, like some kind of oral infection.

Clearly I am missing something since girls keep on doing it

To be honest I have my opinion already, I just want to hear some other thoughts on the matter.

As a practitioner of the Japanese sword arts I get asked or told all sorts of things ranging from thought provoking to ridiculously stupid.

I have been told by some it can't even be considered a martial art any more since Kendo, Iaido and Kenjutsu are practised as a sport, Kata based form and paired drills respectively.

(We actually spend a lot of time engaging in free unstructured Kenjutsu to replicate realistic matches, but I know many schools don't)

I have been told it's useless in self defence since we can't carry swords in public, which I might have agreed with years ago if the simple thought of swinging a blade didn't evolve in to understanding footwork, targeting weak points, defensive, body position, keeping a calm mind, reflexes, body control etc

My least favourite is the comment, "A sword is a tool for killing, so by not killing you are not using it correctly", which is obviously true from a very direct point of view, but a philosophy that has been around long before swords left the battlefields of the world.

Some of the greats long questioned the true use of a sword beyond it's base form as a killing weapon

(It is actually manga/anime fans that like to share that one the most, seems to be popular in period comics from the villain or anti-hero.)

To be honest I have never considered using a sword to harm a person, but I am well aware of how it can and the result of doing so.

I get that in some ways it's a form of appreciation and retention of historic cultural roots, for that reason alone it should remain though out time, but I think it is more than that.

So what are your thoughts on the subject?

(Note: I won't just choose the answer that agree's with me, I will consider even opposing views equally as long as it is respectful and doesn't bring up a gun unless to argue a certain point.

In other words, "A gun is better than a sword", I know, but doesn't answer the question does it)