From the looks of it I'm going with she's in mid action maybe sweeping her arm across to do a Force push or whatever and the LS is moving to a guard position. Or not. It looks like a showy Kung Fu thing for wielding a one handed sword, very theatrical but not terribly effective in combat. In fact it looks like the only research they did was looking at anime and not how the human body actually moves. This doesn't make it a bad piece only that it could have been a little better.

I've also studied western martial arts and I understand the pedantic argument, the artist really should have googled sword stances before setting up the pose but it's not the end of the world that they didn't. If you want to make a change contact the artist with a link to a site with the info along with a compliment on their work and that you thought the info would be helpful. You don't have to tell them why they will end up seeing how cool it is and use it.

I went to art school and there are many promising artists out there who have focused almost entirely in method and style with very little understanding of subject matter. As a result they make simple, avoidable mistakes in posing, weight, logic, and motion. A good artist with do a little research but not all do.

To me it just looks like she is trying to keep her cloak from getting burned by the blade.

Brilliant and this makes sense. Also, given that she looks to be a Jedi, she could be using Force move to do so which in canon media Jedi nearly always seem to do by extending a hand in the direction they wish to push. Which would explain why there's no visible contact between her hand and the cloak if this is what she's trying to do.Of course that raises the question of whether cloaks make a suitable garment for the lightsabre-wielding Jedi in realistic terms... Anyone up for a discussion?

Sariss was a dark Jedi and minion of Jerec, an Inquisitor who put Kyle Katarn through his paces in Dark Forces 2.

As for whether a cloak is ideal clothing for a saber user, I think one of Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan's few common sense moments was when they took theirs off prior to their throwdown with Maul. That said, perhaps a style could be developed where the wielder uses their cloak to obfuscate their attacks?

Edit: wording change

Actually, Baritsu incorporated the use of overcoats and other long garments into its martial arts techniques. And if I recall correctly there was one Savate practitioner who was noted for use of a cloak in street-fighting, but I my recollection on that one is very vague. At any rate, Baritsu is the only martial art I recall with certainty using "cloaks" as part of it, though there may be others.

Anyway, I wasn't entirely serious. It was intended to be a self-deprecating joke that might help defuse some tempers as some people seem to feel very strongly about this.

EDIT: Just to add for the general interest, some old photos from Baritsu instructions:

There was also something about defending yourself with a hat. I don't know the details, but it makes me want to buy a hat. Images courtesy of The Art of Manliness (Warning, extremely English website for Manly Englishmen).

So you are going to use Western swordfighting techniques to say someone using what is obviously an eastern style is wrong? And what I said was with out knowing what the opponent is doing you cannot judge anything about what she is doing. There is also the problem of trying to say what she is doing is wrong based on a single frame. A single frame really does not tell you anything. And judging by western styles also tells you nothing. You assume she is static. even though looking at her cloak she is obviously moving. You are trying to claim what she is doing is wrong. It is not. Not from my experience. Movements like hers are often used to add energy to a strike as on uncoils.

A tai-chi sword has a flat blade. A lightsabre is 360 degrees of edge.

EDIT: You may be talking about sticking two fingers up at your opponent, rather than the picture. I'm not sure.

yes. But that is true of all swords. the techniques still work with a lightsaber. and one might say they work better.

It is not true of all swords that they are 360° of edge. Most swords have a flat and those few that don't have much of one are stabbing weapons. A lightsabre is pretty much unique in that every point of its surface is cutting. One can rest a gladius on one's forearm or a shield (more commonly), a lightsabre is not something you want to risk coming into contact from any angle.

Man, she is going to cut her own arm off, standing like that!

Having much personal experience with swords. She is in no danger. Trained people tend to have good proprioception.(your internal knowledge of where your body parts are. It is what allows you to touch your own face in complete darkness.) So she is in no danger because she is fully aware of where both arms and the lightsaber is.

Uh, no. I don't know where you got your "much personal experience with swords" but the stance she is holding is very foolhardy and inappropriate for that type of sword. The question is not whether she might get confused about where her forearm is whilst just standing there. If she's in a combat stance presumably she is in combat, or training for when she is. Firstly, you are not solely in control of your sword when fighting. What she accomplishes by holding her forearm under the blade is to ensure that if her enemy forces the blade down at all with any kind of downward strike, it will cut it off with her own weapon. And the length of the blade extended forward from her body simply means her opponent can accomplish this without even having to close as much or use much force (as holding a long object perpendicular with just elbow and wrist strength against an external pressure is really hard. The only reason your arm there would help would be when you have a FLAT blade and could use your second arm for support; and as I pointed out in my first post, this is the very opposite of a flat blade.

Secondly she leaves her entire lower body open. By placing her own arm below the blade like that she makes it impossible for her to parry anything below her upper chest. I.e. 4/5ths of her body is unprotected. The only regard in which this stance provides defensive benefit is in so far as the forward extending length of the blade gives you threat range to keep the enemy at bay. But this is deceptive as she has next to know horizontal strength behind the sword in that stance. Try it - hold any long object with your elbow out 90° from your body. The slightest pressure from side to side on that object and it will move, yu wont have the strength to push back because the angle of your muscles is all wrong. Meaning anyone can sweep that blade to the side with just the quickest and lightest if strikes and the circle sweep down to the unprotected lower 4/5ths of her body. And heaven forbid that she come up against one of the dual-weapon styles so popular in the PT/TCW because the an opponent could use the shorter blade to completely control her restricted sword positioning whilst striking at her vulnerable lower body.

The stance she is holding is a stabbing stance. You would use it for weapons where you want to punch forward, e.g, a gladius which I mentioned in my first post. You would use it in a scenario where you had a shield, and if you imagine a round shield on her spare arm the stance suddenly makes sense. You might also use it in a "brawl" style scenario where you were expecting your opponent to grapple you or you were fighting in a very enclosed space. It's a tavern / forest / tunnel fighting stance, maybe, where there can't be wide swings. And its good for protecting against disarms - the grappling opponent scenario I mentioned. But not with a weapon that long with a 360° edge and with no shield and without exceptional restrictions to your manoeuvrability.

EDIT: Given the way she is combining this stance with a side-on position, she's also ensuring she has no guard whatsoever for the entire left side of her body and back, which she is exposing. Meaning pretty much the only strategy she has available to her with this stance is to step back. Really her only hopes of victory are if any of the following are true:

• Her opponent is unarmed.
• Her opponent does nit know she is there.
• Her opponent feels bad about picking on someone who has no combat experience and leaves.

Spoken like someone who has no experience with swordfighting.

So first you tell me I'm wrong because you have "much personal experience with swords", aka just saying I'm wrong because you know more (despite knowing me not at all). Then your second response is an ad hominem - 'you're wrong because you have no experience with sword-fighting'. Both are fallacies. And whilst I could adopt your arguing style of 'no, I have more experience so you're wrong', that would be useless. Actual reasoned argument is the only useful form of debate and that's what my post was unlike yours which was just claiming better knowledge than other people (and now asserting that they have none).

1. without knowing where her opponent is or where their blade is. Also I put my sword out of position ALL the time as a trap. Look I am open go ahead and strike at this opening right..oh you lost your head...

So now you agree with me that it is a weak stance, you're just claiming that it's deliberate in order to lull the opponent into thinking she doesn't know what she's doing.

As to the not being able to parry lower attacks... why are you assuming her arm cannot move? Why are you assuming she cannot move?

Nowhere have I suggested she can't move, I've merely assumed that all else being equal having to move your arm out of the way first is considerably slower than not having to do so - especially in the case of have to react to an opponent's strike where you are not in control of the timing of it and have to move instantly. Not only does she slow her own defence enormously by blocking any downward movement with her sabre so long as she holds her arm in the way, she also tells her opponent very clearly so long as she has it there, that she is only striking his upper body which makes it considerably easier for him to manager her. A very important part of sword-fighting is not telegraphing your moves to your opponent and if she has to move her arm out of the way to strike anything below his chest, that's pretty extraordinary clue-giving there.

3. presenting a side on presents a smaller target. So again your lack of swordfighting experience is showing.

You present the leading side of your body so that your profile is narrow and you have a guard over the exposed areas. With your leading side presented (the half with the sword), you have a narrower profile, can block either side, step backwards and forwards rapidly (meaning you don't have to shift to strike thus telegraphing your attack to your opponent) and your strike and defensive range are both longer because you are leading with your weapon (which is a much better idea in a sword-fight than leading with your shoulder. What you don't unless you're using a short, stabbing weapon like a gladius, is present your OFF-side to your opponent. In this case your target area is narrower but all of the other advantages are lost and in fact you create major disadvantages for yourself. You can now block only to the front and your sword-side, leaving your entire back undefended save for stepping back (the universal defence). And that's a Bad Thing. You decrease your striking range by the entire width of your body because all that extra distance must be made up, you decrease your defensive range enormously because the weapon you would parry with is not starting a foot behind your rear shoulder rather than a foot in front of your body. And it becomes monstrously harder to parry any strikes to your off-side and back. Unlike yourself, I'm not going to declare that this is so because of my presumed greater experience than anyone else, nor am I going to say it's so because those who disagree with me have no experience sword-fighting. I'm just going to leave it there as logical argument and if anyone is particularly curious, they can take a sword or walking stick or similar, adopt the stance in the picture and try to block some imaginary strikes to their midsection, legs, outer shoulder and back. They'll be able to step back, but not block.

You'll never see a fencer use a stance like this - for very good reasons. It's extremely rare in sword-fighting, again for good reasons. The only time you'd see this normally would be with a sword and shield style. Namely something along the roman pattern where you have a leading shield and a short stabbing sword (gladius) over the top with which to attack. It works in that because you rely on the shield to let you get right close to the opponent, rather than any defensive ability of the sword which in that position is minimal. Rather obviously, she doesn't have a shield in that picture. Other than that, there is something that shares some properties with it it in Medieval sword-fighting stances:



Note the Inside Right / Inside Left and Hanging Right / Hanging Left stances. Both of these are leading with the off-side but that's about it. The hanging stances are not at all the same as they're leading with the sword ready to defend, rather than leading with the body and intending to stab. The Inside Right / Inside Left stances are superficially similar but note that they are appropriate for a two-handed weapon where the rear hand provides extra power and control. They're good defensively because even though having a reversed position, the sword is still starting from the hip, not a foot behind the swordperson's own head! Additionally it's good for a rapid cut from behind - which you cannot do if your other arm is forcing the sword to be held up at head height. You'll see some similar stances in Kendo where the same objections will apply (two-handed, range not restricted by randomly placing your forearm in the potential path of the blade. Really the only exact parallel is with a shield which she doesn't have and which I pointed out in my first post.

Also, aren't you kind of arguing against your own first point with all this? Firstly you say that she's deliberately adopting a weak stance in order to lull people into a false sense of confidence, and then you start trying to argue point by point that it's not a weak stance. This is Kettle Logic.

4. Why do people seem to assume you cannot stab with a lightsaber? We see maul do it. We see yoda do it.

You can stab with a lightsabre, just like you can stab with a rapier or actual fencing sabre. But no fencer stands like that for all the reasons given. I mean a foil is used ONLY for stabbing and you would never see a practitioner attempt to do some from such a stance. Holding such a stance with a sabre-style weapon which can score with both point and blade is doubly-nonsense.

EDIT: Also, can you do something about your quoting, please? You have a lot of my own words showing as your own.

So you are going to use Western swordfighting techniques to say someone using what is obviously an eastern style is wrong?

No, I never did any such thing. I gave a list of reasons why the stance was inappropriate for the weapon or otherwise weak and that's nothing to do with whether something is an eastern or western style. Indeed, I'm not sure how you can say that lightsabre techniques are one or the other. In the OT for example, it was almost wholly based on Western sword-fighting techniques in so far as Eastern and Western techniques actually are different. I don't think lightsabre fighting breaks down into one or the other in canon sources generally. Which leaves us with the question of this specific picture being one or the other and I don't see it. Why do you say it is "obviously an Eastern style". What do you even mean by that? Her stance is actually that which a roman soldier would use with a shield and gladius. I've never seen a stance quite like that in any traditional Eastern sword-fighting practice in fact and I'm curious which style you're referring to where you'd ever stand like that. Wuxia perhaps, but that's a movie genre, not a martial art.

And what I said was with out knowing what the opponent is doing you cannot judge anything about what she is doing.

But we can. Presumably the opponent is in front of her. If not, then her stance is poor because she is not only turned away from her opponent but she is angling her weapon away from her opponent. Even if you allow some Jedi awareness that means she doesn't need to look at her enemy, those are still both things that put her at a disadvantage. Therefore it's either a weak stance or movement, or the opponent is in front of her. If the opponent is in front of her, it remains weak for all the reasons given earlier. She lacks guard, her striking range is far reduced by holding the sword up and behind her like that, she lacks any lateral or vertical strength behind her sword, she has limited her own striking range. All she could do is strike forward. She can't even strike down effectively because her arm is in the way. That's a weak position to be in whether she's moving or in a stance so yes, you certainly can judge things from a picture. Of course you can. If she was standing there with the blade across her throat, we would still be able to judge it bad positioning. It's not true to say we cannot make judgements from a picture.

There is also the problem of trying to say what she is doing is wrong based on a single frame. A single frame really does not tell you anything.

It can tell you a lot as I've just given examples of above.

And judging by western styles also tells you nothing.

Again, you seem to have taken a single part of what I posted (some diagrams showing similar poses in medieval sword-fighting) and dispensed with everything else I have written in favour of some notion that I'm only talking about Western traditions. I'm also not seeing why you think the principles of sword-fighting Eastern and Western styles are radically different. They're not. Their are numerous parallels - as there must be. But again, I've not limited my argument to either so it's irrelevant.

You assume she is static. even though looking at her cloak she is obviously moving.

I don't claim that, see above. Whether she's standing like that or she's in that position, it's a weak position to be in. The best we can hope for is that she's spinning to the side of her sword to back-hand an opponent, or possibly running backwards. But the angle of her body doesn't really suggest either. If you were spinning to strike, you would not be leaning backwards away from the direction of your spin as she is and you certainly wouldn't be lifting your own off-hand into the path of the spinning strike. And if you were back-peddling away from your opponent's strikes you again would not be leaning to the side like that. And a billowing cloak does not mean she is "obviously moving" given that cloaks are well known for their billowing regardless. The flames behind her seem to be billowing in the same direction as her cloak, if you notice. If the cloak does indicate movement on her part, then it indicates she is moving backwards to the right of the picture as we look at it. In which case her positioning is even worse than it looks if she's standing still because either she is aiming her sword at nothing or she is running crabwise across her opponent's strike range!

You are trying to claim what she is doing is wrong. It is not. Not from my experience. Movements like hers are often used to add energy to a strike as on uncoils.

Which direction do you think she is about to uncoil in / strike at? I'm genuinely interested. None of this makes sense as a good position to me and I'm interested to see what you can come up with that would make her stance / position optimal (or even advisable).

Baritsu interests me - never heard of it before. Which Lightsaber form might have a home for it? I'd be interested in running an NPC who uses this. There could be some clever uses of advantage from the Force-enhanced application of a cloak in combat.

Baritsu interests me - never heard of it before. Which Lightsaber form might have a home for it? I'd be interested in running an NPC who uses this. There could be some clever uses of advantage from the Force-enhanced application of a cloak in combat.

If you want to see Baritsu in action on film, check out the Sherlock Holmes films starrting Robert Downey Jr. It's been inferred based upon the timeframe that Holmes of the stories was himself a practitioner, and RDJr's own prowess with wing chun and the simple combat pragmatism that Holmes employs in the films works towards that end.

As for which Form, going by the old EU lore, all Jedi of the old Order were trained in the basics of hand-to-hand combat, so it's probably not tied to any one specific Form as it'd more of an alternative to fall back on (i.e. the Brawl skill) if a Jedi was either deprived of or simply unable to make use of their lightsaber for some reason.

EDIT: Also, can you do something about your quoting, please? You have a lot of my own words showing as your own.

So you are going to use Western swordfighting techniques to say someone using what is obviously an eastern style is wrong?

No, I never did any such thing. I gave a list of reasons why the stance was inappropriate for the weapon or otherwise weak and that's nothing to do with whether something is an eastern or western style. Indeed, I'm not sure how you can say that lightsabre techniques are one or the other. In the OT for example, it was almost wholly based on Western sword-fighting techniques in so far as Eastern and Western techniques actually are different. I don't think lightsabre fighting breaks down into one or the other in canon sources generally. Which leaves us with the question of this specific picture being one or the other and I don't see it. Why do you say it is "obviously an Eastern style". What do you even mean by that? Her stance is actually that which a roman soldier would use with a shield and gladius. I've never seen a stance quite like that in any traditional Eastern sword-fighting practice in fact and I'm curious which style you're referring to where you'd ever stand like that. Wuxia perhaps, but that's a movie genre, not a martial art.

And what I said was with out knowing what the opponent is doing you cannot judge anything about what she is doing.

But we can. Presumably the opponent is in front of her. If not, then her stance is poor because she is not only turned away from her opponent but she is angling her weapon away from her opponent. Even if you allow some Jedi awareness that means she doesn't need to look at her enemy, those are still both things that put her at a disadvantage. Therefore it's either a weak stance or movement, or the opponent is in front of her. If the opponent is in front of her, it remains weak for all the reasons given earlier. She lacks guard, her striking range is far reduced by holding the sword up and behind her like that, she lacks any lateral or vertical strength behind her sword, she has limited her own striking range. All she could do is strike forward. She can't even strike down effectively because her arm is in the way. That's a weak position to be in whether she's moving or in a stance so yes, you certainly can judge things from a picture. Of course you can. If she was standing there with the blade across her throat, we would still be able to judge it bad positioning. It's not true to say we cannot make judgements from a picture.

There is also the problem of trying to say what she is doing is wrong based on a single frame. A single frame really does not tell you anything.

It can tell you a lot as I've just given examples of above.

And judging by western styles also tells you nothing.

Again, you seem to have taken a single part of what I posted (some diagrams showing similar poses in medieval sword-fighting) and dispensed with everything else I have written in favour of some notion that I'm only talking about Western traditions. I'm also not seeing why you think the principles of sword-fighting Eastern and Western styles are radically different. They're not. Their are numerous parallels - as there must be. But again, I've not limited my argument to either so it's irrelevant.

You assume she is static. even though looking at her cloak she is obviously moving.

I don't claim that, see above. Whether she's standing like that or she's in that position, it's a weak position to be in. The best we can hope for is that she's spinning to the side of her sword to back-hand an opponent, or possibly running backwards. But the angle of her body doesn't really suggest either. If you were spinning to strike, you would not be leaning backwards away from the direction of your spin as she is and you certainly wouldn't be lifting your own off-hand into the path of the spinning strike. And if you were back-peddling away from your opponent's strikes you again would not be leaning to the side like that. And a billowing cloak does not mean she is "obviously moving" given that cloaks are well known for their billowing regardless. The flames behind her seem to be billowing in the same direction as her cloak, if you notice. If the cloak does indicate movement on her part, then it indicates she is moving backwards to the right of the picture as we look at it. In which case her positioning is even worse than it looks if she's standing still because either she is aiming her sword at nothing or she is running crabwise across her opponent's strike range!

You are trying to claim what she is doing is wrong. It is not. Not from my experience. Movements like hers are often used to add energy to a strike as on uncoils.

Which direction do you think she is about to uncoil in / strike at? I'm genuinely interested. None of this makes sense as a good position to me and I'm interested to see what you can come up with that would make her stance / position optimal (or even advisable).

it got all screwed up and I have no idea how to fix it....

Baritsu interests me - never heard of it before. Which Lightsaber form might have a home for it? I'd be interested in running an NPC who uses this. There could be some clever uses of advantage from the Force-enhanced application of a cloak in combat.

Baritsu was a blending of multiple martial arts traditions, though especially informed by Ju-Jitsu and boxing. I wouldn't say any lightsabre form would suit it. If you wanted to Jedi-fy it, you would more make it a tree of unarmed combat talents and improvisational weapons bonuses. But I don't think this should be a Jedi thing. In fact, it feels pretty non-Jedi to me.

EDIT: Also, can you do something about your quoting, please? You have a lot of my own words showing as your own.

So you are going to use Western swordfighting techniques to say someone using what is obviously an eastern style is wrong?

No, I never did any such thing. I gave a list of reasons why the stance was inappropriate for the weapon or otherwise weak and that's nothing to do with whether something is an eastern or western style. Indeed, I'm not sure how you can say that lightsabre techniques are one or the other. In the OT for example, it was almost wholly based on Western sword-fighting techniques in so far as Eastern and Western techniques actually are different. I don't think lightsabre fighting breaks down into one or the other in canon sources generally. Which leaves us with the question of this specific picture being one or the other and I don't see it. Why do you say it is "obviously an Eastern style". What do you even mean by that? Her stance is actually that which a roman soldier would use with a shield and gladius. I've never seen a stance quite like that in any traditional Eastern sword-fighting practice in fact and I'm curious which style you're referring to where you'd ever stand like that. Wuxia perhaps, but that's a movie genre, not a martial art.

And what I said was with out knowing what the opponent is doing you cannot judge anything about what she is doing.

But we can. Presumably the opponent is in front of her. If not, then her stance is poor because she is not only turned away from her opponent but she is angling her weapon away from her opponent. Even if you allow some Jedi awareness that means she doesn't need to look at her enemy, those are still both things that put her at a disadvantage. Therefore it's either a weak stance or movement, or the opponent is in front of her. If the opponent is in front of her, it remains weak for all the reasons given earlier. She lacks guard, her striking range is far reduced by holding the sword up and behind her like that, she lacks any lateral or vertical strength behind her sword, she has limited her own striking range. All she could do is strike forward. She can't even strike down effectively because her arm is in the way. That's a weak position to be in whether she's moving or in a stance so yes, you certainly can judge things from a picture. Of course you can. If she was standing there with the blade across her throat, we would still be able to judge it bad positioning. It's not true to say we cannot make judgements from a picture.

There is also the problem of trying to say what she is doing is wrong based on a single frame. A single frame really does not tell you anything.

It can tell you a lot as I've just given examples of above.

And judging by western styles also tells you nothing.

Again, you seem to have taken a single part of what I posted (some diagrams showing similar poses in medieval sword-fighting) and dispensed with everything else I have written in favour of some notion that I'm only talking about Western traditions. I'm also not seeing why you think the principles of sword-fighting Eastern and Western styles are radically different. They're not. Their are numerous parallels - as there must be. But again, I've not limited my argument to either so it's irrelevant.

You assume she is static. even though looking at her cloak she is obviously moving.

I don't claim that, see above. Whether she's standing like that or she's in that position, it's a weak position to be in. The best we can hope for is that she's spinning to the side of her sword to back-hand an opponent, or possibly running backwards. But the angle of her body doesn't really suggest either. If you were spinning to strike, you would not be leaning backwards away from the direction of your spin as she is and you certainly wouldn't be lifting your own off-hand into the path of the spinning strike. And if you were back-peddling away from your opponent's strikes you again would not be leaning to the side like that. And a billowing cloak does not mean she is "obviously moving" given that cloaks are well known for their billowing regardless. The flames behind her seem to be billowing in the same direction as her cloak, if you notice. If the cloak does indicate movement on her part, then it indicates she is moving backwards to the right of the picture as we look at it. In which case her positioning is even worse than it looks if she's standing still because either she is aiming her sword at nothing or she is running crabwise across her opponent's strike range!

You are trying to claim what she is doing is wrong. It is not. Not from my experience. Movements like hers are often used to add energy to a strike as on uncoils.

Which direction do you think she is about to uncoil in / strike at? I'm genuinely interested. None of this makes sense as a good position to me and I'm interested to see what you can come up with that would make her stance / position optimal (or even advisable).

it got all screwed up and I have no idea how to fix it....

Generally it happens because a closing quote was missed when trying to insert one's own comments. The message board will then try to auto-fix it for you by automatically adding lots of closing quote tags to the bottom of the post. The key is usually to edit the post, delete all of these from the bottom, then do a simple top-down count of the quote tags and find the one where you missed a closing tag. You can toggle the editor between fancy and plain-text modes using the Lightswitch icon in the top left of the editor and that can help.

Baritsu interests me - never heard of it before. Which Lightsaber form might have a home for it? I'd be interested in running an NPC who uses this. There could be some clever uses of advantage from the Force-enhanced application of a cloak in combat.

As you're interested in putting this stuff into a game, here's a couple of things that might be of interest.

From the entertainingly implausible:

(they spent every penny they had on the cast so far as I can see, and had nothing left for anything else)

To the more realistic:

And for balance, the counter-argument:

Baritsu was a blending of multiple martial arts traditions, though especially informed by Ju-Jitsu and boxing. I wouldn't say any lightsabre form would suit it. If you wanted to Jedi-fy it, you would more make it a tree of unarmed combat talents and improvisational weapons bonuses. But I don't think this should be a Jedi thing. In fact, it feels pretty non-Jedi to me.

Yes, Bartitsu (notice the t; Baritsu is fictional Sherlock Holmes version) is not really fitting for most Jedi considering what we see them do in visual media. It was an attempt to provide gentlemen of the late 19th century with a means to defend themselves, which explains utilisation of gear and clothes they would often wear, like cloaks and walking sticks. A couple of friends actually booked a weekend-long workshop last year, but scheduling problems meant that I could not attend. They were all pretty hyped about it afterwards and I was shown a few moves.

Using capes or cloaks in combat is well-documented. For example, street fighting in the Italian city states often meant using any tool available, including using cloaks to deflect attacks, obscure vision or drape them around the non-leading arm as an improvised shield.

Using capes or cloaks in combat is well-documented. For example, street fighting in the Italian city states often meant using any tool available, including using cloaks to deflect attacks, obscure vision or drape them around the non-leading arm as an improvised shield.

Actually I know for a fact personally that at least ten years ago in Sicily, people still did that last one (wrapping a jacket around their arm to block with in a knife-fight). Better than nothing, I guess. Never saw anyone do that in the UK, though.

Using capes or cloaks in combat is well-documented. For example, street fighting in the Italian city states often meant using any tool available, including using cloaks to deflect attacks, obscure vision or drape them around the non-leading arm as an improvised shield.

Actually I know for a fact personally that at least ten years ago in Sicily, people still did that last one (wrapping a jacket around their arm to block with in a knife-fight). Better than nothing, I guess. Never saw anyone do that in the UK, though.

It happens here in the US, too, albeit infrequently. Most people carrying knives to fight with are more interested in "whoever stabs first, wins" than prolonging the confrontation. They're more common as a surprise weapon these days, particularly in nations where firearms are less restricted and coats have considerably less defensive value.

The problem with Bartitsu (and fencing and kendo and...) as a real life case is that, like all martial arts, it assumes the opponent will follow certain rules during a fight. Granted, something like a street fighting style assumes a much wider possible range of "rules" than most, but it still makes assumptions about how your opponent is armed and will respond. Most self-defense classes emphasize escape and evasion for this reason, only teaching violence as a last resort when "calmly hand over your wallet and cell phone" won't work to defuse the situation. After all, these days it's "whoever shoots first, wins."

(Bartitsu also suffers in that it assumes all participants in the fight are armed with stunningly elegant mustaches.)

The problem with Bartitsu (and fencing and kendo and...) as a real life case is that, like all martial arts, it assumes the opponent will follow certain rules during a fight. Granted, something like a street fighting style assumes a much wider possible range of "rules" than most, but it still makes assumptions about how your opponent is armed and will respond. Most self-defense classes emphasize escape and evasion for this reason, only teaching violence as a last resort when "calmly hand over your wallet and cell phone" won't work to defuse the situation. After all, these days it's "whoever shoots first, wins."

(Bartitsu also suffers in that it assumes all participants in the fight are armed with stunningly elegant mustaches.)

It's Baritsu, actually. Bartitsu I think is a parody one (or honest mistake) from the Sherlock Holmes movies someone mentioned (the Robert Downie Jr. ones, not the Ian McKellan one. ).

Fencing is a sport certainly, but the principles are sound. If you were in a sword fight in the street (!) then yes, it would not necessarily prepare you for someone who got past your guard putting you in a headlock, but you'd still be much better off for knowing it. Ditto for any others. Baritsu comes primarily from western boxing and ju-jitsu. Two of the most practical martial arts I know. I used to do a freestyle session (this was before "MMA" was a thing) and one of the toughest guys there to fight was a boxer. He wasn't disadvantaged because his sport only targeted waist up. That is to say, it didn't make him an idiot who was completely unprepared for it. What typically happened if someone went low would be he would step out of the way or block just like anyone else. Or more likely punch you hard in the side of the head whilst you were trying it. I know what you're saying about not training realistically or martial arts having gaps in what they prepare for. But just because you assume that your opponent in a professional fencing match isn't going to try a headlock, doesn't mean that you still assume that when you attack someone in the street with a sword. You make allowances. Baritsu in particular had a focus on the practical which is why it included things like how to fight when you're wearing a coat.

As to the moustaches, I think they felt that with a sufficiently elegant moustace, ruffians would simply be intimidated by it. Much like Bruce Lee made all those "wee-yahhh" sounds. Puts the wind up the blighters, you know?

It's Baritsu, actually. Bartitsu I think is a parody one (or honest mistake) from the Sherlock Holmes movies someone mentioned (the Robert Downie Jr. ones, not the Ian McKellan one. ).

Baritsu is the mistake in the novels. Bartitsu is the actual art.

It's Baritsu, actually. Bartitsu I think is a parody one (or honest mistake) from the Sherlock Holmes movies someone mentioned (the Robert Downie Jr. ones, not the Ian McKellan one. ).

Baritsu is the mistake in the novels. Bartitsu is the actual art.

So it is. I got them muddled! Thanks and apologies to the poster I "corrected".

Or maybe her ARM ITSELF IS CORTOSIS!!!!!! *cue dramatic music and dancing ewoks*

This is 100% legal by RAW using an item from the Core Rulebook.

It's Baritsu, actually. Bartitsu I think is a parody one (or honest mistake) from the Sherlock Holmes movies someone mentioned (the Robert Downie Jr. ones, not the Ian McKellan one. ).

Baritsu is the mistake in the novels. Bartitsu is the actual art.

So it is. I got them muddled! Thanks and apologies to the poster I "corrected".

Baristu, bartitsu...whatever -- can't someone just get me a fraking latte?