It's a really great, accurate model, as per the period photos of soldiers whom used them. The Hanwei model is a bit "exaggerated" but a really fun cutter! Great video, Sifu!
The old version makes sense, because the rifles were longer, and then you also had to get past a longer bayonet. So you had to get past the point to get close to yhe opponent. So that hop closed the distance. You have to look at the wespon one came up against to understand the practicality of the move.
Sifu, hi! I've looked through your channel and I couldn't find it, I'd like to see an empty hand form please, all I find elsewhere is competitive olympic wushu. Do you have a video of a form? Thank you 🙏
The way I see the opening step, regardless of the weapon. It is a timing issue. The downward motion or slash should finish as the body lands after the hop. This is where the power comes. If both moves are excuted without delay, this combination ofa downward slash followed by the sideways slash is a practical move. Footwork and strike timing is the focus of all fighting arts. My experience is godan American karate, sandan aiki jutsu, and nadan okinawan, Bagua practitioner karate, just for reference.
I dunno if it's that awkward, even if you don't do a lot of Longfist-type arts. Anyone who has gone bowling, do you end in a bow stance or a back step?
That is true, but I feel that it doesn't provide an advantage even when conditions go right. However, since you mentioned bowling, the direction of the step might be a game changer. I'm going to see if it is meant as a lateral step rather than a direct forward step 🤔Thanks!
Your modified version is so much more practical than the actual "practical version." Getting all fancy with footwork on unknown ground in the heat of actual battle seems like a Bad Idea. Stable base and the ability to move with a low, controlled center and deliver blocks and strikes with power seems like a much better plan.
that's the wrong weapon for that manual. If you read it, and review the depictions, the weapon used is more like a pudao, where the broadsword blade has a much longer handle. The modern interpretations of the dadao do not match the manuals from the past. Change My Mind
I took the image from position 2 and scaled it to the average height of a Chinese soldier in the 1930s (about 5'4" or 163 cm). For that image, the OAL length including ring is about 130 cm (51"), with a blade 76 cm (30"), and grip 44 cm (17"). That's way bigger than LK Chen's version, and also much larger in direct comparison to historical photographs. I speculate that it may have been exaggerated in size for the manual to emphasize the weapon position and hand positions. As to it being more like a pu dao, I disagree. Pu Dao blades are much shorter than their grip/handle/shaft length and the overall length would be about the size of the soldier or larger. But the manual images are closer to some Nan Dao dimensions. But even then, the grip and overall lengths in the manual seem very exaggerated. Again, I think it is for clarity of instruction, as the manual images match exactly zero of the photographs I could find.
The manual mentions holding the weapon where the front grip is outstretched, and the rear grip is at the waist. That's impossible to do with the dadao we see today. The Chinese today are not that much taller than they were less than 100 years ago. There are plenty of videos on yt with Chinese doing this set with the modern weapon, and it would still be impossible
You make an interesting point, I tried it out with a longer handled Liao Dao and then an even longer handled pu dao, and though the hop and strike felt more balanced on landing, the following step and cut required more maneuvering and even became somewhat awkward. Because of China's urgent need for DaDao, anyone who could forge was commissioned and in such created variation of design. You can see my antique DaDao in the back, and it has an even shorter blade and handle, and the one from LK Chen is 1:1 from an antique and not really an "interpretation." Going back ot the technique, I still feel it misses the mark of practicality that is so heavily emphasized by the author. Even with the exact same sword that would match the manual, the stealing stance is awkward and stepping out of it is clumsy, and I find it's inclusion to be fascinating. Then again, I'm just interpreting a translation that was also interpreted from the original... in the end, only Jin Enzhong would know 🤔
As someone without any experience in chinese Martial arts or fencing, I still find these videos of you faszinating and good to watch.👍
It's a really great, accurate model, as per the period photos of soldiers whom used them.
The Hanwei model is a bit "exaggerated" but a really fun cutter!
Great video, Sifu!
The old version makes sense, because the rifles were longer, and then you also had to get past a longer bayonet. So you had to get past the point to get close to yhe opponent. So that hop closed the distance. You have to look at the wespon one came up against to understand the practicality of the move.
check that cut at 7:02
Thanks!
i love your videos always refreshing to watch
Sifu, hi! I've looked through your channel and I couldn't find it, I'd like to see an empty hand form please, all I find elsewhere is competitive olympic wushu. Do you have a video of a form? Thank you 🙏
The way I see the opening step, regardless of the weapon. It is a timing issue. The downward motion or slash should finish as the body lands after the hop. This is where the power comes. If both moves are excuted without delay, this combination ofa downward slash followed by the sideways slash is a practical move. Footwork and strike timing is the focus of all fighting arts. My experience is godan American karate, sandan aiki jutsu, and nadan okinawan, Bagua practitioner karate, just for reference.
❤merci Sifu nice video 🙏🏼🔥
I dunno if it's that awkward, even if you don't do a lot of Longfist-type arts. Anyone who has gone bowling, do you end in a bow stance or a back step?
That is true, but I feel that it doesn't provide an advantage even when conditions go right. However, since you mentioned bowling, the direction of the step might be a game changer. I'm going to see if it is meant as a lateral step rather than a direct forward step 🤔Thanks!
Good
Your modified version is so much more practical than the actual "practical version." Getting all fancy with footwork on unknown ground in the heat of actual battle seems like a Bad Idea. Stable base and the ability to move with a low, controlled center and deliver blocks and strikes with power seems like a much better plan.
should you grab on to the pommel of this sword just like a European hand and a half sword
That's typically avoided in most (if not all) Chinese martial styles, but it does sound interesting. I'll give it a shot.
that's the wrong weapon for that manual. If you read it, and review the depictions, the weapon used is more like a pudao, where the broadsword blade has a much longer handle. The modern interpretations of the dadao do not match the manuals from the past. Change My Mind
WWII Chinese sword is not that big, I have seen some in museums
I took the image from position 2 and scaled it to the average height of a Chinese soldier in the 1930s (about 5'4" or 163 cm). For that image, the OAL length including ring is about 130 cm (51"), with a blade 76 cm (30"), and grip 44 cm (17"). That's way bigger than LK Chen's version, and also much larger in direct comparison to historical photographs. I speculate that it may have been exaggerated in size for the manual to emphasize the weapon position and hand positions. As to it being more like a pu dao, I disagree. Pu Dao blades are much shorter than their grip/handle/shaft length and the overall length would be about the size of the soldier or larger. But the manual images are closer to some Nan Dao dimensions. But even then, the grip and overall lengths in the manual seem very exaggerated. Again, I think it is for clarity of instruction, as the manual images match exactly zero of the photographs I could find.
The manual mentions holding the weapon where the front grip is outstretched, and the rear grip is at the waist. That's impossible to do with the dadao we see today. The Chinese today are not that much taller than they were less than 100 years ago. There are plenty of videos on yt with Chinese doing this set with the modern weapon, and it would still be impossible
@@hanliu3707so then the entire manual is false? It's not just the pictures. Even the text describes a longer blade
You make an interesting point, I tried it out with a longer handled Liao Dao and then an even longer handled pu dao, and though the hop and strike felt more balanced on landing, the following step and cut required more maneuvering and even became somewhat awkward. Because of China's urgent need for DaDao, anyone who could forge was commissioned and in such created variation of design. You can see my antique DaDao in the back, and it has an even shorter blade and handle, and the one from LK Chen is 1:1 from an antique and not really an "interpretation." Going back ot the technique, I still feel it misses the mark of practicality that is so heavily emphasized by the author. Even with the exact same sword that would match the manual, the stealing stance is awkward and stepping out of it is clumsy, and I find it's inclusion to be fascinating. Then again, I'm just interpreting a translation that was also interpreted from the original... in the end, only Jin Enzhong would know 🤔