# Dual swords + their weaknesses



## OGone (Mar 1, 2013)

I've done some research on dual wielding and I know the rough advantages and disadvantages of doing it with two full size swords. I'll give a brief outline for one part of the storyline to explain why I'm asking the question, if you're not interested in that then skip to the last couple paragraphs where I'll ask the question which needs answering.

In my story there are gladiatorial arenas with two main houses competing and a few outside houses providing fodder, beasts and occasional gladiators. Popular gladiators are attributed a weapon-sets, forced to fight in a certain way, packaged as a character or occasionally historical figures for the crowd to cheer or boo. 

One of my protags uses dual swords. Very occasionally the dominus, however, sometimes choose to fix bouts if the yield will be more favorable by doing so (to get another gladiator "over"). But obviously none of the gladiators want to willfully die so they use other methods to bend the result.  

The champion of one house is fighting the other champion, so they try to make one look as heroic as possible whilst one as evil as possible - so the fight is more of a big occasion and draws more money... If that makes sense? Kinda like pro wrestling except all the bouts aren't fake 

So my protag ends up using dual swords. He's paired with the champion and they fight a group of barbarians. To make the champion look heroic and defy the odds, the dominus poisons the protag so that he's weakened in battle (thus having him killed by the barbarians who are under the rival banner making them more antagonistic and a bigger draw). This backfires, the two have developed a (NON-KAYFABE ) friendship and the champion does all he can to defend the protag. He ends up dying, protag ends up surviving but the crowd turn heavily against him for getting their favorite killed.

As the second best gladiator he's the only one who's a match for the rival champion, however, and they don't want the big occasion to be a poor fight. They throw him into the big fight (and he loses but what happens next isn't needed for the explanation).

I want him to have some disadvantage though so that losing doesn't make him look weaker (this is for story purposes). As such I need the rival champion to be fighting in a style which counters somebody dual wielding swords.

I've thought about this and I just don't know. I really want his opponent to be wielding a flail and shield, would this put him at a disadvantage? I can't find anything about this kind of thing online. If anybody has anything to add about the whole concept go ahead. Primarily, if you can forward a style strong against dual wielded swords or anything to add about dual wielding in general (I've done some research but anything added is a bonus) then please say!


----------



## Aidan of the tavern (Mar 2, 2013)

Hmm, I'm not sure.  Wikipedia has some basic info on the use of weapons but I haven't found anywhere which gives details on what counters what.  If you want him to be at a disadvantage couldn't you just pit him against a more skilled opponent?  Or maybe a dirty fighter?  Maybe the protag is right handed, takes a wound to the right arm, and ends up fighting with just one sword with his left hand?  I don't know how strict these contests are, but it sounds quite easy for someone to suddenly turn the tables.


----------



## CupofJoe (Mar 2, 2013)

The Retiarius [Trident and Net] was the standard opponent to the Thracian or Samnite [sword and shield] Gladiator types.
There was a two sword Gladiator, a Dimachaeri and their usual opponent was the Hoplomachus [heavily armoured with sword, padding and a shield].


----------



## Shockley (Mar 2, 2013)

Obviously, the worst thing you could do to a combatant is throw them out there with a weapon they aren't familiar with. I would do something like moving him to larger/smaller swords, swords that have a different purpose than the ones he traditionally uses, etc.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Mar 2, 2013)

OGone said:


> I've thought about this and I just don't know. I really want his opponent to be wielding a flail and shield, would this put him at a disadvantage? I can't find anything about this kind of thing online. If anybody has anything to add about the whole concept go ahead. Primarily, if you can forward a style strong against dual wielded swords or anything to add about dual wielding in general (I've done some research but anything added is a bonus) then please say!



A shield would do just fine for this. One of the reasons dual weilding wasn't really a thing historically was that the off hand was reserved for the shield, and using a shield generally just makes way more sense than using two swords.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 2, 2013)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> A shield would do just fine for this. One of the reasons dual weilding wasn't really a thing historically was that the off hand was reserved for the shield, and using a shield generally just makes way more sense than using two swords.



Which brings up the question, why did Samurai disdain the shield?


----------



## FatCat (Mar 2, 2013)

I always assumed it was because of societal values, the shield being seen as a tool for the weak-willed. Though this line of thought stumbles when you think about Samurai armor...


----------



## OGone (Mar 2, 2013)

Thanks for the help so far guys. Looks like shield + sword would be the way to go. I really want this guy wielding a flail though but I think any shield counters dual wielding. Plus how you going to block a flail with a sword? One swing and the chain's wrapped round and the sword yanked from your hands, so yeah I think that's the style I'm going with for my protag's opponent. 

As for samurai I think they viewed shields as equipment for cowards, I read somewhere that samurai felt using one meant you feared death.


----------



## Shockley (Mar 3, 2013)

I think that has more to do with the Samurai origin being mounted horse archers - they didn't need shields. That, coupled with the fact their polearms/swords are nearly universally two-handed. That said, scabbards and war fans were used in a manner similar to that of shields.


----------



## wordwalker (Mar 3, 2013)

OGone said:


> Looks like shield + sword would be the way to go. I really want this guy wielding a flail though but I think any shield counters dual wielding. Plus how you going to block a flail with a sword? One swing and the chain's wrapped round and the sword yanked from your hands, so yeah I think that's the style I'm going with for my protag's opponent.



Most of the evidence seems to be that sword/axe/mace + shield just has more versatile power than anything out there. But for the story you've got, I like the shock effect of bringing in flail+shield: your MC's probably got a lot of practice getting around The Usual, but getting around it while surviving a flail's swings would emphasize just how much trouble he's in. The drawback might be that flails on shieldless targets hit *hard*, so the MC may have trouble losing the fight and staying in the story. --That is, if flails are feasible weapons at all, that's sometimes under debate.

Another option might be a long spear or polearm, at least if you've established a spear-user so good the MC needs a miracle to get past that reach without a shield to block it with.


----------



## Ankari (Mar 3, 2013)

From what I've read on the subject of weapons, flails required more skill than swords.  Precisely, flails had a higher learning curve because your swing didn't necessary translate into the ball of the flail following that trajectory.  Flails are great because of the blunt damage they inflict, especially useful against well armored warriors.

This isn't to say that a master of flails is a better warrior than a master swordsman.  Just that flails required more training to be expectedly useful.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Mar 3, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Which brings up the question, why did Samurai disdain the shield?



They did have hand shiels early on in their history, but they quickly fell out of use. On the other hand, they did use a type of stationary shield that would be proped up on the battlefield to protects troops from missile weapons. So it's not like they hated the very concept of shields or anything.

As far as I can understand, it's got to do with Japanese battle tactics and the fact that they were isolated and primarily fought among themselves for much of their history. Like Shockley said, the samurai started out as horse archers and their traditional weapons (bow, spear and longsword) are all two-handed. Their fighting style was mostly based around challenging an enemy samurai of equal rank to single combat. Infantry units typically fought with spears. The practice of having divisions of archers who pelted the enemy army with arrow rains was basically unheard of until the Mongol invasion. 

So, the somewhat oversimplified answer is: They apparently never felt that they needed hand-held shields, since the guys on the other side didn't have them either.


----------



## Shockley (Mar 3, 2013)

They almost certainly understood the idea of the arrow volley, at least in a conceptual sense. The art from the time of the early samurai, however, shows the arrows being fundamentally ineffective. I'd assume the armor was better than expected (least possible) or that their arrows were not designed particularly well (more possible).

Edit: Did a quick research dive. The arrowheads were crafted using a scaled down process reminiscent of what was used to produce the katana. That said, the thing I read expressed that the early Japanese warriors had a strong aesthetic concern for the shaft of the arrow (length versus width versus weight - the lower the weight the more aesthetically pleasing the arrow was considered to be, and this led to a blending of materials used in the construction of the shaft) - to me, that would translate to the arrows not having as functional a design as they did in say, China.

Second Edit: I keep thinking about this, as this is opening up entirely new horizons of inquiry in my head. A fault in the arrows would also explain why the samurai were so quick about abandoning the horseback archer role - it was possibly more effective to just dismount, walk up to the guy and cut his head off than riddle him with relatively light arrows.


----------



## Maximillian_dErembourg (Mar 30, 2015)

I fought SCA (medieval armored combat) for 15 years...back when I could =}
I was qualified with using almost every weapon and fighting form they allow.
Flail was specifically NOT allowed in "regular sanctioned SCA events"...BUT it was used, in private house-run tourneys or private challenges (which the SCA is powerless to stop or regulate).
I saw a flail used. 
If you were wearing leather or chain or padded armor (thick cloth)  AND USING A HEATER OR KITE OR SCUTUM TYPE SHIELD then a flail would Ruin Your Day. The entire reason for the creation of a flail was: to get around shields. Any kind of block that a warrior had spent years perfecting with a shield (designed t stop a sword or axe) would simply power the flail into the defender. It is particularly wicked in that --like a hammer-- it delivers a heavy blunt blow...which chainmail is basically useless against. On the downside, if your opponent is wearing plate, you need the opposite, something good at penetrating.
(Half-plate would be more than useless against a flail, as it covered only the front half of the defender, while slowing him down more than chainmail.)
A good defense against a flail would be a small (therefore light) round shield. They are used entirely differently then the larger shields are. In the Viking round shield fighting style a defender strikes actively with the smaller round, targeting the attacker's weapon every time he moves it. This would allow a defender to interrupt a flail's momentum-building swing before it got started, and the slower-moving flail head would strike the defender's arm, not the back of his his head, neck, or kidney.
Another good way to defend against a flail would be with a shield ON YOUR BACK (where a flail will strike you most of the time), using a weapon with more reach that the flail (spear, or if you have a bastard or two-handed, thrusting to keep the flail user back).

One Further Note: Like a bullwhip, the flail is a SERIOUS THREAT to its OWN USER. It takes lots of training and practice to learn to use without striking oneself. Often one training to USE a flail would be injured in the training. Think nun-chucks. Same principle, but deadlier.

Max


----------



## Maximillian_dErembourg (Mar 30, 2015)

Oh, I fought dual-weapon, as well. Florentine style was two swords, one long one short. I also used a long sword primary and a one-handed falchion secondary (a one-handed axe with a much longer blade than most axes).
Also, of course, sword-and-board. And spear. And greatsword. Even arched at folks (non-lethal arrows, of course =) and one and two-handed maces.
So, I am also a bit of a medieval weaponry expert.

Max


----------



## psychotick (Mar 30, 2015)

Hi,

Sword and board is the traditional sort melee combination, and replacing the sword with an axe or a mace doesn't really change things that much. In essence you have a block in one hand and a strike in the other. Flails though are a trickier weapon to use. Unlike one piece solid weapons they tend to swing and in doing so jerk the user about a bit making him vulnerable to being pulled out of postion. Also for anyone not trained in their use the temptation would be to use them as a solid weapon and simply strike at an opponent. And it would not work well. The one place I have seen flails used is by mounted soldiers, where the natural swing of the flail can be useful. In essence they ride along, get the end of the flail spinning and then time it to smash into their enemy.

Dual wielding is a highly specialised artform with swords, and has never been seen in real life on a battle field in any major way. In order to dual wield the swordsman has probably spent years training with the specific weapons, whereas your typical melee soldier experienced with sword and board has probably only needed days to train to reach an acceptable standard.

There are also two different approaches to dual wielding. The typical one would be to use the off hand weapon largely as a parrying blade. For this it'll be shorter and lighter than the main sword, and often designed specifically for parrying. A small flamberge which can deflect another sword at an awkward angle would be a good choice.

If on the other hand the swordsman wants to use both weapons for attack, then he needs to have his off hand as strong and practiced as his strong hand. If you don't think that's hard try practicing to play tennis or squash etc with the racket in your off hand. And after that he then has to master the entire array of patterns of sword waving, because even if he's equally skilled with both hands with the same weapon, he still runs the risk of bashing his swords into one another in the middle of combat.

Though I have seen footage of martial artists / samurai using two longswords, I suspect that it is mostly only a demonstration of skill. More commonly where someone was dual wielding blades, they would be knives or daggers. Shorter bladed weapons that feel and act almost as an extension of a fist, where essentially they would be more like claws or boxing gloves.

As to your scenario, I suspect both warriors would be running a steep learning curve, and either could win depending on how quick they are to learn. Your flail and board man would be best off ramming his shield repeatedly into his opponent, hopefully knocking him to the ground where he could finally land a killing blow. Your dual sword guy would be better off dropping one blade and using the other two handed if he can while trying to make the enemy take a missed swing at him and be drawn out of position by the weapons wild swing. Also he should remember to go low. The flail takes a moment to be pulled back into position and swung, and unless he's got a tower shield that's a perfect opportunity to go for your enemy's legs.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Russ (Apr 1, 2015)

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> Dual wielding is a highly specialised artform with swords, and *has never been seen in real life on a battle field in any major way*. In order to dual wield the swordsman has probably spent years training with the specific weapons, whereas your typical melee soldier experienced with sword and board has probably only needed days to train to reach an acceptable standard.



Bingo.

The duel wielded sword is all show, no go.

Someone skilled with sword and board, or a multitude of other weapons would have the dual wielder for dinner.


----------



## Swordfry (Apr 1, 2015)

Well first of all, dual wielding is all about the right choice of which weapons you do it with. If it's two of the same weapon, then you obviously do not want full sized swords like you said. Smaller, maybe lighter swords would be easier to work. You should also avoid dual wielding two straight bladed swords as they would be a lot harder to move fluidly. Having two curved swords would allow for more mobility with the weapons and could confuse opponents more. _However,_ I would say that dual wielding short swords could be a good idea. 

I have always liked the sword and knife combo. Not pulling a knife out in the middle of a fight, but wield the knife openly in the fight in the less dominant hand. Parry, block, and distract with your sword, and try to sneak in cuts and stabs with the knife. You could even look into the Main Gauche, a dagger weapon made specifically for blocking and (I think) disarming. It's French...I think. The smaller blade can be a knife, dagger, or even a really short sword.


----------



## TheokinsJ (Apr 1, 2015)

Others have probably already stated that dual wielding really doesn't have any major advantages- movies and video games make it look far more spectacular than it actually is- what you can do with two swords you can do with one just as easily- dual wielding with say, a sword and a knife, however, does have certain advantages.

Pretty much any weapon can combat dual wielding because dual wielding is not really that effective (in my opinion). Any fighting style/weapon combination that you would use to counter one sword can be used to counter dual wielding swords- if someone was coming at me with two swords I'd probably go for a pole-arm or a spear and shield combination- you get an advantage of reach over your opponent and you have the safety of a shield should they close the distance and get in close.


----------



## Russ (Apr 2, 2015)

The other thing to keep in  mind is that one of the keys to winning a sword fight is dominating, or re-directing the center line.  Dual swords are very poor at this.  So a fighter with a single, quality weapon and some knowledge about the importance of the center line would be an excellent foil for your two sword fighter.


----------



## Tom (Apr 2, 2015)

I don't really know much about this subject, being a modern sport fencer, but I've also got a little experience with traditional sword fighting. From what I've seen, dual-wielding would be incredibly hard. I mean, you've got two swords, and the weight of each is going to throw off your balance. Plus it's kind of awkward having a long weapon in each hand; there's a tendency to get the blades in each other's way. If you're not that advanced, too, that's one more sword to worry about that normal. 

I mostly know this from watching a friend who's involved in the SCA try (and fail) to wield two short swords in a bout. It could just be due to the fact that he's usually armed with a rapier and parrying dagger, but it also could be that wielding two swords kind of leaves you open to a lot of opportunities on your opponent's part.


----------



## wordwalker (Apr 2, 2015)

Russ said:


> The other thing to keep in  mind is that one of the keys to winning a sword fight is dominating, or re-directing the center line.  Dual swords are very poor at this.  So a fighter with a single, quality weapon and some knowledge about the importance of the center line would be an excellent foil for your two sword fighter.



Hmm, could you clarify that one? And, is it a truth that applies to all melee weapons (like a nice simple spear)?


----------



## Russ (Apr 2, 2015)

Controlling or redefining the center line does absolutely apply to all of the western medieval melee weapons, including the spear.

The spear is a good example.  If you cannot get  your spear point on the center line, or it is pushed off the center in line it is just about useless.  The two common period terms for dealing with a spear that way would be called "setting the point aside" (ie forcing it off the center line) or "breaking the point" or "pinning the point" (getting it off line and trapping it or literally breaking it off).

Think if redefining the center line this way (this is much easier to show than to write!).  If we are both standing with our sword in two hands held directly out from our chests straight in front of each other, both out center lines are pointed directly at each other's chests.

Now if you take a step slightly forward and two one side and keep you blade pointed at the center of my chest, your sword now points at my chest and mine, if I have not moved points at the empty spot where you previously stood.  So you have redefined the center line in a way that is very advantageous for you, and very bad for me.

Re-defining the center line is about moving (usually diagonally) and manipulating your opponents arms (with your weapons or your hands) so that you can strike your opponent without being struck yourself.  There are many ways to do it, but that is the basic principle behind it.

If you are into eastern martial arts, this is often seen very well executed in Wing Chung.


----------



## acapes (Apr 3, 2015)

Thanks to the OP for asking this question - fascinating replies too!


----------



## wordwalker (Apr 3, 2015)

Thanks indeed. I haven't seen it defined that clearly way before.

I suppose the theory with dual weapons is that you can create a center line from either arm, or use either weapon to block, keeping your options open and your opponent guessing; ominous in theory. The fact that it's so rarely done outside of light-weapon fencing techniques (eg Florentine) suggests that all those attack "options" aren't as good as the raw reach and power of a bigger weapon-- or the blocking (and bashing) options of adding a shield instead.


----------



## Elrik Blackhaven (Apr 3, 2015)

I have fought duel sword so I know a bit. Historically, There isn't really anything before the late 1500s and it deals more with fencing then actual sword fighting. Most historical forums will say that duel weapon fighting wasn't practical unless the off hand weapon was considerably smaller than the main weapon, such as sword and dagger or something like that. At that point, it would make more sense to use a shield of some type, even a buckler, because the fighter would gain more benefit from it. From practical experience, I strongly disagree with this. A skilled, duel weapon fighter is a formidable opponent. The types of weapons used are only limited primarily by the fighters size and strength and secondarily by the desired affect and fighting style. Basically speed vs power. 
The most effective defense against a duel weapon fighter is a weapon and shield combination. Of the weapon choices, mace is probably the best. A long mace or war mace with some reach preferably. Something like a bec de corbin could be a good choice as well. These weapons don't require the fighter to be as precise as a sword or axe. A good shoulder or hip hit would be as likely to grant victory as a head shot. These weapons are good for negating the defense of most metal armor as well.
Flails are a fairly specialized type of weapon. Most fighters wouldn't use one because they are a peasant weapon, along with rakes and pitchforks. Most flails, to be effective, are two handed. For a single handed weapon, something like a morning star would be a better choice. Slightly easier to control. By adding the chain component to the weapon, initial speed and power might be increased but recovery and reaction time is reduced. Once the opponent has closed the range, some of their effectiveness is lost.


----------



## Russ (Apr 7, 2015)

wordwalker said:


> Thanks indeed. I haven't seen it defined that clearly way before.
> 
> I suppose the theory with dual weapons is that you can create a center line from either arm, or use either weapon to block, keeping your options open and your opponent guessing; ominous in theory. The fact that it's so rarely done outside of light-weapon fencing techniques (eg Florentine) suggests that all those attack "options" aren't as good as the raw reach and power of a bigger weapon-- or the blocking (and bashing) options of adding a shield instead.



Part of the limitation of using two swords is that you cannot create a true two on one application of force as recommended in so many medieval fighting manuals.  So if there is a blade on blade engagement you can't use half swording ( putting a second hand on the riccassa), push the elbow with the free hand or use many other techniques.  "Doubling up" is suggested in almost every significant treatise from the era and can't be done with two swords.


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 8, 2015)

I think you guys might be forgetting the ultimate advantage of dual wielding: swag.


----------



## X Equestris (Apr 8, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> I think you guys might be forgetting the ultimate advantage of dual wielding: swag.



Sure, but swag doesn't really help you if you're dead.


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 8, 2015)

X Equestris said:


> Sure, but swag doesn't really help you if you're dead.



No, but it's massively important nonetheless. A dude dual wielding may not win in a fight against a dude with sword and shield, but he'll have more style while fighting, and what's life without a bit of flare and style?


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Apr 8, 2015)

Gryphos said:


> what's life without a bit of flare and style?


Longer. BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA *ahem*


So, now that I've got the obnoxiousness out of my system, yeah, dual wield is cool in LARPs and video games. With a real sword, it's impractical. I've practiced with the katana (well, okay, an iaito… I don't plan to actually kill anyone, so I just wanted a sword with the weight and feel but not the sharp edge), and while one-handed techniques exist, the real power comes from the pull from the led hand.

I think that answers a question Mindfire asked years ago about why the samurai don't use shields. Also, the overhead strike is designed to halve a man from scalp to groin. That gets more cool points than dual wielding katanas, which would severely limit the control over each sword even for the ambidextrous.


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 9, 2015)

My point is that life is about form as well as function, and there's more to fighting a bloke than just being practical. I mean, if everything was about practicality, why did people used to wear those funny hats with excessive amounts of feathers? The answer: swag. Now, don't get me wrong, you shouldn't be an idiot if it's going to get you killed, because you can't have swag when you're dead. So perhaps dual wielding isn't the best option in a fight to the death. I'm just saying the style-factor is something to take into account when discussing things like this, as it's probably why people started doing it in the first place.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (Apr 9, 2015)

Despite what I said above, I would not discourage a dual wielder, though that may depend on the type of fantasy. I don't write realistic stories, so for what I do, a dual wielder is probably acceptable. (I picture weapons being oversized in my head, but tend not to narrate exact size so readers may have more realistic interpretations.)

I wouldn't have a swordsman who's so good he can wield two swords at once. Maybe a showboat or an excessive character might do that. I haven't written this character, but I did once envision a sword-seller (not sell-sword) who had several swords strapped to the back. The sword-seller sells shitty swords that break easily and has to keep drawing more swords in the fight. I could see the sword-seller drawing two at once to save time. I also picture a barbarian with an oversized sword and two spas ready to draw—or even dual wielding a great sword and bastard sword for ridiculous, musclebound Florentine hack-and-slashing.

Yes, I do like the imagery. For me, whether I use it depends how over-the-top I want the character to be. My samurai master would use a single blade because I tend to want my skilled characters to be under-armed, realistically or not.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Apr 9, 2015)

The benefit to sword and dagger over sword and buckler is that you can also stab a person with the dagger.  However, in non-SCA fighting, you could you know, bash a person with a buckler.  I prefer the sword and dagger to the sword and buckler, but that's only because learning to use a buckler to trap a blade, etc. takes a while and I've never learned the techniques.  When the veteran light fighters are out on the field, it looks a lot more useful than when it's in my hand.  Same with a cloak.  That's a pretty neat off-hand when used well.  I guess it's my goal one day to be more concerned with the flourish of the sport, right now, I'm just trying to survive.


----------



## Elrik Blackhaven (Apr 9, 2015)

I think the answer to the question of duel swords depends on history vs fantasy and time period and culture when it comes to history. 

If you are looking at accounts from the official fighting lists of Europe, you won’t find much before the 1600s. But, we need to understand that these types of competitions were as much about showing proper form as about winning. There were strict rules on how a competitor should fight with a given weapon within a certain style. There wasn’t any room for creativity. In fact, most accounts of “civilized” warfare, show combatants  following strict fighting methods. Duels swords weren’t usually included in that. However, if we look outside of “civilized” European combat, we do find examples.

In Roman gladiatorial combat, they had a gladiator known as a dimachaeri. Duel sword fighter. This style of fighting must have been effective because it was popular for hundreds of years and any combat that didn’t please the crowds, wasn’t used for long.

There are accounts of the “barbaric” cultures using duel weapons, not swords specifically, among them were the Vikings, the Picts and the Celts.

The samurai may not have used duel swords but traditional schools of Japanese martial arts include dual wield techniques, particularly a style of classical Japanese swordsmanship conceived by the Miyamoto Musashi involving the katana and wakizashi, two-sword kenjutsu techniques he called Niten Ichi-ryū.

Later on, when fencing was the combat style rather than hack-n-slash, the use of a parrying dagger such as a main gauche along with a rapier is common. 

However, in a fantasy setting, the sky is the limit. To add realism, it should be noted that duel sword/weapon fighting takes a lot of training and skill. It’s not a fighting style that is common or suited to most fighters.


----------

