Combat Ranking Test Cut Patterns Explained

Speed is scored by the average time it takes to complete 3 different combat moves.

Cutting Power is scored according to the type of target the sword can successfully cut with those combat moves.

Reach is scored by the threat length of the sword, either the blade length or the length from the tip to the forehand grip of the sword.

Lancelot Open Field Sword Fighting Index

The lower the scoring index, the higher the ranking in a combat performance.

Speed scoring

(pattern 1 speed + pattern 2 speed + pattern 3 speed) / 3 

divided by

Cutting Power scoring

2 = upper arm, 1 = forearm, 0.5 = not through forearm, 1.33 = passing upper arm in 1 out of 3 patterns, 1.15 = passing 1 upper arm bone but not completely through

divided by

Reach scoring

total length in meter

The score is then subtracted by 200, and subsequently turned into percentage of 100% to be more presentable on bar charts. Then it'll multiply with cutting power / 2, to emphasize the difference in cutting power.

Open Field Combat has modifiers that favor longer swords, for reach allows more reaction time for defense as well as more leverage in defense against polearms, and also retains initiative to attack. 

Close Quarter Combat has modifiers that favors shorter and faster swords. Due to the lack of room to evade in CQB situation, rapid and repetitive attacks are essential to suppress opponents. 

Reach scoring will be changed to (1.7 meters minus threat length in meter).

All Terrains, overall readiness 

Average of Open Field Combat score and Close Quarter Combat score.

Please note that the ranking is subjected to change from time to time to include new sword entries or to correct an estimation in cutting power that was found wrong after conducting the combat ranking cutting test. Please check back often for update. 

There are people who value swords in various ways, buying swords for many different reasons. However, I have seen no one who value swords in their actual fighting ability, at least not in a systematic, scientific approach. Yet, this approach was totally historical correct, for general Qi Ji Guang mentioned in his writing that he specified his swords to be ground flat, so they can cut very well. He criticized smiths at that time to be lazy and made thick blades, only sharpening with secondary bevel. Thus when the apex got dulled, the sword could no longer cut. So one can see for life and death matter, generals back in the time care a lot more about the actual fighting ability of the swords than sword buyers nowadays do. I am the only one who carried on this tradition, perhaps.