On Cutting, Beefiness and Balance Point
     

When speaking of cutting practice, practitioners will tend to say that they've had a "Light Session" or that they need a sword for "heavy cutting" and this has lead a lot of newcomers to ask what the difference is between light, moderate and heavy cutting. I can not – and will not – pretend to speak for all practitioners, but I do believe that the following would suffice as a broad, generalized definition of these three terms.

On “Light Cutting” “Moderate Cutting” and “Heavy Cutting” …

There are three things to consider when classifying a cutting session as light, moderate, or heavy, and they are 1) the skill of the practitioner, 2) cutting frequency, and 3) the makeup of the actual target itself. The end result is that the practitioner can gauge how stressful a given session (or an overall training style) is, and this can get complicated. Really, hardly anyone ever evaluates a cutting session in the manner I’m about to propose, but these things are what – in the back of one’s mind – are considered when looking for a “light cutter” vs. a “heavy cutter”.

Skill is relative, and really boils down to gauging how experienced at cutting a given practitioner is, not how long he’s been practicing JSA. For me, what is a “light cutting session” would easily be a “hard cutting session” for any beginner. When in doubt, consider yourself to be less experienced than you think you might be. If you’re reading this looking for advice, then you might want to consider yourself a beginner or moderate cutter. I imagine that more experienced cutters will find this information mundane, redundant or obvious.

Frequency is a matter of not how often you cut, but how much cutting you do in a single session ... a few targets, vs. some targets, vs. a whole lot of targets. One must also consider the speed at which a practitioner will make multiple cuts. There are days I'll leisurely cut just a few targets to keep a blade "working", and there are days that I'll spend cutting until I'm simply too tired to go at it anymore, switching from sword to sword and making fast, multiple cuts on one or multiple targets. Honestly, it takes a while to wear me down, and that can be quite a strain on even a great sword.

The makeup of a given target varies widely, but (like everything else) it can be generalized. Targets will range in fullness (size), hardness, and resiliency.

As to fullness (size), a single soaked and rolled tatami would be light. Two or three (depending on the tatami) might be moderate, and anything over that would usually be considered heavy.

As to hardness, there are soft vs. hard targets. Soaked beach mats (usually woven out of young reed) are soft, but different people will soak them for longer or shorter periods to achieve desired levels of "squishiness". Wara are tougher (harder) and not nearly as prone to squishiness as mats are, but are still comparatively soft.

Tatami (rolled and soaked) are a bit tougher, and considered a hard target, but there are also used tatami that are soaked and rolled, and generally considered a harder target still. Dry tatami would be much harder than their soaked counterparts. Most people would rather move to Goza than cut dry tatami.

Goza are much tougher, and would definitely be considered hard targets. Even soaked, they are highly resistant targets. There are also raw “freshly plucked/harvested” bamboo stalks, which can range anywhere from an inch in diameter to as big as eight inches and more. These are very hard targets, and can easily chip or bend a blade in untrained or moderately experienced hands.

The softer a target, the easier it is to cut (… sort of – more on that in a moment) thus producing a “lighter” cutting session. The harder a target is to cut, the more stress on the sword, and the “heavier” a cutting session.

Resiliency is a whole different matter, and in some ways counteracts (and simultaneously, seemingly contradicts) the above information on hardness. Bear with me, it will all make sense. The more resilient a target is, the more it fights back against the sword’s attempt to cut efficiently. In general, hard targets are resilient, and soft targets are not so, however, there is one very important exception to this: extremely soft targets can resist cuts because they tend to bend and flex, sometimes wrapping around the blade and not allowing it to bite into the very soft target every well.

This most often happens when a target has been soaked to the point of sogginess or sponginess. The target thus soaked can sometimes wrap around the blade during a cut. This can get messy, but more importantly, can foil even a seasoned practitioner’s attempts to snap that blade through its intended target. This is sometimes done intentionally, however, in an attempt to train a practitioner how to handle what are sometimes referred to as “sheering cuts”, which do not attempt to actually pass through the target, but rather to open the surface of the target. This would be done if one wanted to disembowel an opponent as opposed to cut him down completely.

Highly resilient targets can be a hazard to the sword due to their resistance. Hard targets can sometimes chip or bend a sword, while extremely soft targets (those that are spongy or soggy) can sometimes bend, warp, or twist a blade.

All that said, "light cutting" might be defined comfortably as maybe up to a half dozen soft targets in a single session. "Moderate cutting" might be say a dozen or so soft targets, or a few moderately hard targets, or some mix thereof. "Hard Cutting" and "Sustained, extended cutting" might consist of a great number of targets, a fair amount of hard or resilient targets, or a great frequency of difficult cuts.

 

On Sword Beefiness …

By “beefy” most practitioners mean that a sword has sufficient weight and force to accommodate hard and sustained cutting. The Bugei Samurai is heavy enough for hard, hardened, and very large targets, but is not so heavy that it is unusable. Beefiness is not simply a matter of good, solid weight in hand, however.

It also (possibly more accurately) describes a sword that is eager to cut. One that has forward moving balance, as opposed to stagnant balance or rearward-moving balance. When a sword has forward moving balance, it is going to move into and through the target, and a great deal of the inertia is going to be spent in that endeavor. A practitioner needs good control and strong (i.e., developed, practiced, and accurate, not necessarily muscular) form.

It is possible for a sword to have a forward moving balance that is too forward moving. These swords feel heavy in the hand and – while they will aggressively move to and into a target, they leave little control in the practitioner’s hands. This is all wrong, and no good form will correct or compensate for it.

A less beefy sword – by contrast – may be a lighter one, or one that has a stagnant balance – one that neither impels the sword forward nor rearward. The benefit here is a sword that will cut fine, but will not impel itself through the target on the merits of sheer inertia. It will get into a target, but only pass through a target based on the practitioner’s force and form. In other words, the sword is not helping the cut much, and is most suited for softer targets, even if the sessions are frequent and long.

A sword with rearward-moving balance is one that feels heavy in the hand, but leans back to the practitioner – there is little if any weight forward of the hand. This is good for lighter, slashing swords that do not have to cut through a target, but only ever have to cut the surface of a target. Generally, JSA has no such swords, but other cultural styles do.

While the Bugei Shobu and the Bugei Samurai are essentially the same weight, and are essentially the same length, the fact is that the Shobu is a more aggressive cutter because of it’s shape and design makes it a “beefier” sword overall.

Likewise, the Samurai is heavier and a tad thicker than the Crane. The Crane is sometimes referred to as the Baby Samurai, and for good reason. While it is lighter, it has nearly identical behavior as the Samurai. So, while they behave essentially the same, the fact that the Samurai is heavier makes it “beefier” than the Crane.

On Balance Points …

The balance point of a sword – in Japanese sword arts – is extremely overrated. In all honesty, it is very nearly irrelevant. If a sword is otherwise a good sword, then the “balance point” falls into its proper place. Balance point is generally the measured point at which the sword will level out. To reiterate what you probably already know, when we say that a sword has a balance point of 6”, then we mean that if it is rested – say on the end of our finger – at that point, then it will balance, having neither end falling or raising from a true level, but remaining relatively or reasonably horizontal.

However, this is very misleading. Partly, because this leads us to believe that there is a “good” balance point for a give sword type, which is ludicrous. The Samurai and the Shobu Zukuri are essentially the same weight, but the balance points are different because of variances in blade configuration and mass displacement. These are two excellent swords, however, and simply behave differently, one no better than the other. The Samurai is a great all-around cutter, but the Shobu tends to be much more aggressive, moving forward with the cut more readily than the Samurai.

The Shobu, however, also requires a bit of adjustment to one’s approach to the cut. It takes a bit more arc, acting more like a Chinese sheering cut than a hack or slash. Still, both swords will pass through their intended targets with ease. They will simply do so with slightly different approaches and slightly different attitudes.

Swords in Japan are designed with certain behaviors in mind – balance point is a largely irrelevant side-effect of those designs, but is rarely ever considered when a practitioner is searching for a new sword. Assuming that the sword is a good sword and properly made, my concern is if it behaves properly and moves correctly when used. If so, the balance point will be exactly where it needs to be, but I’ve never even considered or measured this in any of my Japanese style weapons. If that makes for a 6” balance point, a 3” balance point, or a 12” balance point, then so be it.

I’ve got a sword (my great-great-grandfather’s big old two-hander) that is 5’10” long and weighs 16 pounds. Its balance is exactly 1” above the hand – right smack in the guard. Most people tell me that this is a horrible balance point, but I’ll tell you … that thing cuts right through anything you want to put in front of it, and moves so smoothly that you’d swear it was feather light.