Steve, I said I was rude cause I feel I get out of line. In an ideal world I'd like to be profesional and courteous at all times, but alas, I am a bit too passionate for my own good.(not that I'm passionate for you, don't get me wrong here!)
Here we go;
I am a proponent of length=speed. My preference for a fighting bowie over a bolo, barong, or even machete is based largely on the fact that I have worked the weapon more, so have a greater familiarity with it. What'll compensate for the disparity in length is the fact that I know how to use the gaurd, how to parry, and how to bridge. I also understand how to work at different ranges, in my art it's called "terrano", and encompasses the full reach of the extended arm and blade.
Now, in practice the difference in range is not as functionaly great as you'd figure with the length of blades in question. Specificaly how I'd handle the situation in a one-on-one fight is; wait for my opponent to launch an attack, or launch a feint or snapcut myself to draw him out. I would then parry his blade and step in, or while he deflects my pre-emptive attack, catch him on my gaurd and step in, delivering a strike to his chin with my free hand(my left arm has an uppercut that'll drop an elephant). Then we're mixing it up.
So far as thrusts and lunges are concerned, your only as open as your technique. I don't thrust in the manner you've seen James Keating do in his Crossada video. Rather than have both my arms fully extended in opposite directions at the moment of impact, my free arm is bent at the elbow and online with my extended knife hand. If someone tries to defang the snake(well known in Western arts), the weapon arm is raised and moved out of the way while the freehand deflects the strike and body turns away. It works. Then you follow it up with a suitable counter attack. Keep in mind also, the thrust is more a finishing move or a way to exploit an opening in the enemy's defenses, not neccesarily the main form of attack.
Difference between thrust and lunge; The lunge starts as a thrust, but when the arm has reached maximum extension the sameside leg steps(?) forward, lowering the body and increasing reach and force of impact. The lunge is a long range attack, and quick fast when properly executed. The thrust's footwork is much more conservative, and not neccesarily even present. There are many types of thrust, some for speed, some for close in work, some for long range work. The timing of shoulder, torso, and footwork vary according to circumstance. For instance, when going for top speed, the arm strikes out at the same time the torso twists and is followed by footwork just before the strike makes contact. That works best at medium range. For close in, you want the arm going first, followed by the torso twist, and then the footwork. That way the point is driven home without leaving you out of balance incase you are struck by your opponent during delivery. It is hard to describe technique in text, but I think you get the gist of it.
I stand by my assertion that the cut is not as fast as the thrust. You can develop greater speed in the arc of a cut because you have more distance to gain speed potentialy, but again your taking the long road instead of the shortcut. A properly developed thrust is quite explosive and will reach it's mark and be on the way home before the cut lands. Oh yeah, you withdraw the blade at high speed as soon hits it's mark. You don't dawdle there, reduces window of exposure. Okay, the SNAPCUT is as fast as a thrust, because it IS a straight line attack. But we were talking about arcing cuts here I believe. If I could show you how a thrust works and you work it to where you're proficient, you'll see how it's faster. However, the thrust is not quite so readily employed by the uninitiated as the arcing cut because the arm tends to move in arcs more than thrusts in daily life, so there is a natural preference that needs to be accounted for. However, once you learn the mechanics, the thrust is quite natural and readily employed.
The checking hand is used quite a bit in Western styles, though I prefer to parry with the blade then catch with the hand and deliver a follow up technique. We also use bucklers(I'm fond of these), hats, cloaks, jackets, sticks, a whole myriad of objects to occupy the free hand, even second weapons. I prefer an empty hand, as I feel it is more flexible. I can switch the weapon between hands(only in dire need in my case, my left hand is only good for gross motor functions), use my free hand to parry or tie up the opponents weapon hand while my knife removes it, use it to regain my footing should I fall, and am better able to respond defensively when disarmed, but this is a matter or personal preference based on my left hand's inability to wield a second weapon effectively, and the way I train.
As far as Western arts being based on smaller blades, that's untrue. Western arts carry over principles of mechanics and flow to a myriad of weapons, from sticks and knives to axes and 5-6 foot long swords(which are MUCH more nimble than you'd think, only weight around six pounds and are well balanced). So they are based on smaller blades on in as much as a particular style may be, but the bulk of Western arts, being of a martial heritage, deal with larger weapons. If we compare comprable weapons, we will find that FMA and Western techniques associated with them are comprable. Oh yeah, and bowies got BIG. 9 inch blade with 3 inch swedge an inch and a quarter wide may be the classic dimensions, but the Confederates in our Civil War were fond of D-gaurd bowies the size of short swords. A number of which incorporated trapping gaurds. As pistols supplanted knives as primary defensive weapons, the bowie shrunk. Early ones were very big, and the style of knife reffered to as the "bowie" has existed in Europe for centuries. In fact, it's quite like some variations of the scramasax. Which makes sense, Jim Bowie likely had Saxon roots, as do men Englishmen. Scramsaxs, a common early European weapon, frequently had blades from a foot on the low end to 2 feet on the high end.
FMA and Western arts share common roots, so in this case their is not much in the way of practical differences. A few details vary, but the concepts are quite similar. I am speaking for Escrima and Arnis, which are the most popular FMA's, and are the only ones I have exposure to. Everyone speaks of hundreds of forms of FMA's, but does not elaborate. I assume the sittuation is simmilar to Europe's; a myriad of weapons tought by a myriad of masters using similar precepts accross the board but individualy tailored to suit their needs/experience, many of whom do not give their arts individual names, but refer to them with collective terms such as "fencing" in English or "escrima" in Spanish. Oh, you did know that "arnis" and "escrima" are Spanish words, and that the techniques included in those arts have Spanish names as well, didn't you? In this case "arnis" is from "arnes", which means "trap", and "escrima" is "escrima" which comes from the German word "skirmjan" which means "brandish". What a tangled mess linguistics is!
As I said, in this case our likely combatants will be familiar with eachother's arts and will be on pretty even footing.
