Most dedicated "off season" trainers?

Emile Griffith was a pro for eighteen years and lithe always in condition and just about boxed more championship rounds then any man ever.

Hardly was Emile ever in need of a breather. I don't know how he dieted or anything but I do know he was never out of shape.

 

Have you considered sabres or fencing?

 

I have pretty much fought with every kind of sword, against every other kind of sword.

If combustible propellants' were uninvented, and we had to go back to blade weapons, I would be a decent advisor!

 

Very cool, what is the best sword?

If I ever find myself challenged to a sabre duel I will get in touch

 

I remember I once spoke to somebody who said that fencers didn't seem like real athletes. I pointed out that if he challenged them to a sword fight, they would literally kill him. He reconsidered and agreed.

 

Lots of unathletic events in the Olympics I don't consider them athletes per say either.

But your point is spot on. In a street fight if they had anything resembling a sword they would end you.

 

Next up, Lyle Alzado challenges James Figg to a fight with sabers.

 

Why don't you just give @janitor a sparring sword and Lyle a pool cue and have them fight to the death. It'd be an interesting thread.

 

Tough one.. Much as I like @janitor, it's hard to bet against an armed guy who actually murdered somebody before.

 

Okay, Jan get's 3 lives!

 

Much ink and blood has been spilled over this topic, but I will give you a few things to think about.

One handed vs two handed
Two handed swords are longer and heavier that one handed swords, and they don't tire you out as quickly, because the effort is distributed between two arms. However if a person is fighting with a one handed sword, they have one hand free, and they will often grab your sword hand to disable it. If you chose to go with the advantages of a two handed sword, then you need to be very aware of this. People who favor a two handed sword in HEMA, usually settle on a medieval longsword or a katana. Those who favor a one handed sword, but want a bit of clout, typically go for something like a cavalry sabre.

Light vs heavy
Thee are those who argue that the rapier is the ultimate sword because it is fast, and a person with a rapier is likely to get the first strike in. This is very true, but history of its actual military use, seems to show that it lacks stopping power. You could hit somebody five times with a rapier, and they might still be coming after you, while if you hit somebody with a medieval longsword they are probably going to stay hit. Also there are tactics to negate rapiers with slower heavier swords. If I am sparring somebody with a rapier, with a medieval longsword, I will deliver a short hard chop to the blade, to send it flying out of the way, then whack them across the side of the head.

Versatility
There are those who argue that the katana is the ultimate sword, because it is the epitome of the cutting weapon. Personally I find the medieval longsword to be a more versatile weapon, because the pommel makes if dangerous on both ends. This is particularly useful tin situations like melees, where you don't knw where the next threat is going to come from. It would also have been a big game changer once armor becomes involved, because blunt trauma was important.

Other weapons
There are those who argue that spears, axes or halberds are superior weapons to swords, and those are separate debates in their own right.

In summary
A lot of it comes down to personal preference. The mechanics of all swords are broadly the same, and a person with good technique, will own a person with bad technique. I personally like the two handed medieval longsword, and that is what I reach for when it comes down to a game of capture the flag. When it comes to the crunch, it is probably best to stick with what is familiar.

 

That was an excellent write up Jan.

 

Hopkins,Eubanks,Zivic,Patterson.

 

Eder is also a vegetarian.