Quote:
Originally Posted by sjard
This sets off all sorts of alarm bells about him all by itself.
Yes, there will be a point of balance, no, it will not be where most people think it should be, and most especially, have been taught how to find over the last 40 years or so.
For example, finding the "point of balance" the way a lot of, say SCA people teach it, you want something that balances itself on a fulcrum point about 5-6 inches past the cross. However, this tends to put a preferred point of impact about 2 feet past the tip of the blade, where there's nothing but air. There's a lot more math involved, but that's a quick example.
|
Ah Ok, the videos I've seen where he discusses point of balance he's only talking about where a particular weapon balances on a fulcrum, and what the implications of that might be for handling and moving it as an object in your hand. I.e. not trying to tie point of balance to point of impact, and calculate the perfect former for the preferred latter* (although he might do that elsewhere I don't know).
But as I said he did tend to over infer the ramifications of even that. And I guess the point is as I said there's not a lot of detail. Point of impact wasn't even mentioned let alone tied to point of balance in anything I saw, so it's not so much he was wrong about it, but didn't actually address it in anyway.
Also as an aside while he seems to have lots of experience handling weapons (and swinging them around etc), he doesn't seem to have an awful lot of experience of handling them in for want of better term a "combat like way"?
I could be being unfair to him in this though there's not much to judge him by.
*IIRC balance in terms of handling and balance in terms of point of impact being at the optimal part of your weapon two potentially conflicting things in weapon design (lots of variables though).