TOPIC: TSL Tournament winner Phil

Good point. I was thinking of midieval european military sword more than asian. That said, (in theory) with no edge to consider and you could go put the hilt in your mouth (with a light saber) and walk through a person. And as you said "adrenaline" and lack of fear (people will hold back when afraid of getting injured, well many will. lol). I just was hoping to get it as "real" as humanly possible. Thanks for getting me to re think that. No clue why I got stuck on that

Oh, I'm talking european sword, too. I've cut with sharp sideswords, long swords, falchion, sabres ... Another club here did some cutting on a dead pig and even with 3 mm edges on show-swords could cut cleanly through half the body (including bones). The myth of the unearthly-sharp Katana is just that - a myth.

What makes the lightsaber so special, IMHO, is the lack of edges, so you can whack it around without edge-orientation to consider and any hit will still be dangerous.
Rules can take this into consideration. If a riposte is allowed, and counts full, you are less likely to just go for the hit without protecting against the riposte. We have a HEMA-ruleset in Austria that even punishes reckless attacking (requiring referees, of course) - but that's a bit debatable.
Overall, in my experience, the less points one has to score to win, the more caution one uses.

I think weight classes need to happen, I don't think you shouldn't be allowed to fight someone outside of your weight class, but if someone is 180 and the other person is 200, the lighter fighter should start with 1 or 2 points right off the bat.

Height would be tough, no martial arts have height categories and it would really limit the matches for tall guys like me.

There are advantages and disadvantages to being tall, obviously reach is a huge advantage but I tend to do much worse in the bind when it gets in close because there is a whole lot more of me to hit and its very easy for an opponent to get a low blow from the bind to my legs or lower torso. In hema thats not as much of an issue since afterblows count, so I can hit your head at the same time or right after you hit my leg and come out with an extra point. As it was pointed out, because I am tall I have to hunch down very low to protect my legs and maintain my measure. I am working on stretching and leg exersizes to increase my flexibility and speed in a low stance.

I just started training hema longsword 6 weeks ago, I am loving it, adds a bunch more tools to my tool box including how to win in a bind even with the height issue, its extremely technical and I think that within 12 months its going to be the gold standard starting point for anyone getting into saber combat.

Weight classes are a good idea, but height and reach are a bigger advantage IMO. As were using "lightsabers" the strength of a hit isn't as relevant. Though it does make it easier bull rush a defense. Though I guess that's the struggle for TSL, lightsabers or swords. Phil you were a beast in that tourney, very well done. Your reach, mixed with your skill are what won it.

Afterblows really need to count in TSL. Since they count in Hema,( which going by sword and lightsabers). Leverage and power in general would be lost (usually, this is an assumption, but seems logical) after being hit by a Lightsaber or sword. And the afterblow from a lightsaber would be much more damaging (on avg) than a sword.

I envy your HEMA training, sounds fun as hell

I hope I'm making sense, been up way to damned long

Strength can power through in the bind, break a block, and snap a saber aside to create an opening. Don't under estimate strength in sword combat, used correctly strength is greater than or equal to reach.

Hence my strength and conditioning program to prep for world championships this summer

I don't think you will ever see a height bracket in martial arts, but their will and should be weight categories.

Where is this out of?

It can - but then, it can also be used against the one depending on it. They call these fighters "Büffel" (buffalo) in German treatises.
Binding is almost useless with a round polycarbonate blade, since their are no edges and flats to work with. One can only apply pressure and blade angles and without a cross, that's a bit dangerous for the hands.
And they are a neverending point of discussion in HEMA. The problem lies in how to referee them. It's really hard to see if an action should count as an afterblow or it is just a wild swing out of frustration of being hit. And it's even harder to tell apart an Afterblow and a Doublehit ...

In general, I prefer the simple way to define a legal Riposte (Afterblow) as an action that's already begun at the moment of the hit and may consist of no more than one step after the hit.

I don't see the point of weight categories in a weapons sport. We don't have these in HEMA, where we use steel or nylon (depending on the tournament), and especially in longsword, there's a lot of wrestling involved. So, why would we need it in Sabercombat?

I think HEMA and saber combat will both adopt weight categories in the near future 1-5 years.

I think that will happen for two reasons.

First, in boxing weight categories developed to make betting more interesting, and to have MORE belts up for grabs, thus more title fights per year, and those are the bigger money makers and crowd draws.

Second, especially in HEMA due to grappling and binds, a significant weight and strength advantage is simply not fair. Two men of equal skill and physical fitness enter the ring, the one who is 40lbs heavier will likely win. As HEMA and saber combat grow the size of their fighter base you will see weight divisions begin for the same reason that larger tournaments have womens divisions. All bodies are not created equal, and strength is a huge advantage in any combat sport.

I beg to differ - that's why weapons where invented in the first place.

In any unarmed fight, hitting power and stamina have a huge influence on the outcome of the fight. But why? Because a single hit with a fist only drops the opponent in movies - in the ring or on the street, this is highly unlikely.

It may still be like that with sticks (depending on their length and weight) and even a knife doesn't kill with the first stab in most cases.

But a sword-hit (not counting grazing scratches) will very likely maim or kill either immediately or in a few minutes.

What we see in HEMA today (and Sabercombat for that part) stems from the (necessary) fact, that safe blades and protective equipment make a hit nothing to be afraid of. That's why there are so many double-hits and why hard-hitting has become a way to gloss over lack of technique.

Strength has other benefits in weapons arts - like better weapons-control and more explosive movements. Weight alone only is a benefit if the rules are more like boxing or wrestling than a way of trying to simulate a fight with a sharp blade (or a plasma one).

Please note I said all things being equal, IE experience and skill being equal, the stronger man will usually win. Strength plays a very large role in sword combat, especially hema due to grappling, and to a lesser extent saber combat.

Your choosing to believe that one of the primary variables in sword combat is not a variable at all, when empirical evidence of tournament winners shows that larger and stronger fencers absolutely win more frequently.

The same can be said for real martial combat, the viking hordes were better fed and thus larger and stronger than their malnourished stunted opponents and their size played a pivotal role in their success in battle. Their metallurgy and weapon technology outside of sea craft was generally inferior to their opponents, their larger size allowed them to over power their better armed and armored adversaries.

The Mongols show the Vikings example to be very oversimplified. And the gun was a real equalizer of man. A sword just gave the stronger more athletic guy a sharp pointy friend that liked to rip you apart.

Just for the record, HEMA is not only long sword, where grappling is common and an essential part of the sources. HEMA is also sidesword, rapier, sabre, etc. - where grappling is possible but mostly a bit suicidal. What tournaments? At least for most of the HEMA-tournaments in Europe, this doesn't seem to be the case. The taller guys have the advantage of reach, but I've seen big guys losing against smaller, quicker fencers, even when wrestling.
In long sword, the aggressive fighters seem to be more likely to come out on top, especially in Eastern European countries. As most of the top-level tournament fighters there train hard for those tournaments, they are all reasonably strong.

Weight-categories seem to be not issue here. I've fought guys a lot taller and heavier than me, some who where lighter, faster, and I've fought female fighters. Every opponent is a different problem to solve - sometimes strength is the key, sometimes it's something different.
At a professional level, this may change, but I hope, it never comes to that ...

Though I have never had experience with HEMA, though I am familiar with them, as a young man I was a competitive fencer and have a lot of Kendo experience.

That being said, I don't see the use of weight classes in a weapons sport other than to create more entertainment for the reasons Phil notes. Traditional fencing doesn't have them for example. There are a number of advantages a person can have over another, a left handed fencer, for example is an absolute nightmare in the piste. I'm 5'10" with a 6'1" wing span, I usually have about an inch of reach on other welter weights.

Height would be important as it relates to reach and in terms of HEMA, certain weapons were designed to be used effectively be people of certain heights e.g. the Viking broadsword was designed for and by men 6 ft and over. Size has the necessary downside of a sacrifice in speed, not that there aren't big guys who are fast, its a matter of physics. 200lbs takes more energy to move than 175lbs

Strength is important as it relates to endurance in my opinion and as I mentioned above the bigger you are the stronger you need to be.

Raven makes an excellent point about the more aggressive person often being the winner. The Japanese have a term for this which literally translates into "crushing the enemy" and my military training taught me that "overwhelming aggression trumps all".

Just my 2 cents. Phil since we're neighbors (sort of) were do you train?

And off topic, SuUpbersith, the bow made men equal long before the gun could hit the broadside of a barn.

Darth Squidious, but then you get into situations as Phil mentioned with the Vikings. In the end it's always been a fight of offense and after a time a defense comes in to make a period of relative parity, until a new thing comes. And really the gun comment was tongue in cheek lol. Hell the point I made with the Mongols said exactly what you said