I'll let this guy try and explain my point about mass.
...
As far as actually hurting people there are basically 3 ways of doing so. Blunt force, piercing, and burning. In combatives a hawk is going to cause major blunt force trauma over piercing do to design. I think a "skull cracker" would be a fight finisher over a stab which would take a bit to bleed out.
Wow. Please tell me that's not whom you rely on for your information...
Again, research human history, human anatomy, and hand-to-hand combat techniques. Nearly EVERYTHING that this guy has suggested doesn't even work in THEORY much less in practice, which makes his own alleged experience dubious at best.
Regarding the trailing weight and momentum control (his only point on it), the momentum control is the advantage achieved by a
better-balanced head. With a
trailing center of mass, you lead the direction of travel and can change direction more easily because the mass's momentum buts up against your lead as it tries to continue in the same direction. This is just like towing a trailer vs. pushing it - when you accelerate, the mass behind you is towed, then impacts against you when you break; but when pushing, the mass will try to continue it's forward momentum even after you've ceased to supply power to its motion. What does this mean in impact scenarios? First, the leading mass requires less energy to deliver a blow than a trailing mass. Second, the leading mass impacts ahead of the point of control, so continued force may be applied to drive the impact further and harder as the user requires; the trailing mass impacts the
point of control itself rather than the target, it's momentum is conserved - it cannot be driven further or harder into the target despite user efforts unless the point of control can precede it. Third, on impact, the user can lay off application of force to the leading mass driving into the target, so if the leading mass encounters an obstacle, the point of control isn't forced to rotate around it in an effort to continue dispensing kinetic energy; but if the point of control encounters an obstacle, the trailing mass
is forced to rotate around it, creating imbalance.
Does the leading mass require more energy to change its direction of travel? Yes, but once changed, it requires less force to continue in that direction. Add on top of that the benefit of a cutting-edge leading that mass and it is no contest as to which is the more combat effective design. Human history and weapon-design support this (and not just in regard to tomahawks, btw), bearing witness to the physical realities.
There are a LOT more than 3 ways to induce tissue damage, but that is beside the point. You may notice with careful observation that there are slight differences between the design of a hammer and that of a hatchet or tomahawk. In case you miss the specific feature I am referring to, there is a
cutting edge present on the axe/hatchet/hawk and only occasionally is there a specific design aspect for inducing blunt-force trauma, unlike what is seen on a hammer.
Cutting demands material penetration, i.e.
piercing. The wide blade of such cutting tools allows them to pierce a larger area with a single application of force, albeit requiring more force than would be needed to pierce a smaller area with a smaller blade (e.g. tip). Piercing the protective outer layer of a target allows the tool to make contact with and do more damage to the, commonly much more vital,
internal parts of the target. When felling trees, one cannot simply remove the sapwood with blunt-force or abrasion and expect the tree to immediately perish or fall - one must
penetrate to the heart where its structural integrity is maintained. This is why both axes and saws have cutting blades, are cutting tools.
Inversely to trees, the human skeleton that gives us structure is NOT vital and can be compromised any number of times in any number of locations without inducing fatality. But if you pierce our protective shell and compromise our vital internal organs, we can be slain almost instantly. A strike that cracks your skull is not even close to being as effective as a strike which cuts through your brain, your heart, or your lungs. Similarly, a bruised muscle and cracked bone (pain) is less debilitating than
severed tissue and bone + blood-loss (disablement). Human physiology attests to this as does human history and weapon design over millennia, including projectiles and firearms. Furthermore, delivery of an effective "head-shot" is only simple in video-games. Once you leave virtual reality for the real world, you learn that center-of-mass (thorax) is the best choice for an effective target and quick kill, but blunt instruments perform very poorly in comparison to penetrating tools.
None of this information is difficult to acquire, none of it difficult for the mind to grasp.
Read, study, and learn to recognize when the information being dispensed by a random youtube video is fallacious, in this particular case, laughably so.
Good luck!
