Hi Cory,
Ok, that's what I figured. :)
Now, off to bed for me...
Looking forward to seeing you guys in a week and a half!!
Yours,
Christian
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: |
| Hi Cory,
I think we may have a terminology difference here. A full cut is usually defined (and this is general fencing lingo - the L. tradition says nothing about this) as one that travels all the way through the centerline. A half cut is one that ends, at least roughly, in the centerline. It's not about power or intent, per se, but travel. And this is where we come back to targeting, because if the target is the head or body, you're not going to finish that blow in Nebenhut, but in them. And that's where I've kinda been going with this - unless you miss (or, perhaps, cleave through an arm instead), you're never going to complete a full blow from the onset. Can the *intent* to accomplish that relatively impossible feat help you with power generation. I'd say yes, to a point. But, as our Nachreisen example says, we have to be careful. Oh, and just so you now...I've seen enough video of you guys to definitely *not* feel that you're over-cutting. I think we're just dancing around some definitions here. Cheers, CHT |
A definition of words is certainly an issue here and at times ignorance can be an advantage in that I understand or believe that one can cut at full power but still plan on it being a half cut. ;) ( Now quantifying the actual power is not a precise thing and it may be that planning on doing a half cut means actually a small lost of power but at the gain of more control ??? ).
Maybe it's an " artifact " of training in a non-touch system where we stop almost all our blows before actual contact but often move at close to full speed ( Or what we mistakenly believe is full speed. :confused: ): But it means that I have to stop my hits a few inches before hitting my training partner in practice but in a real fight I would stop in the target or just past it if the cut was successful or come to a " Controlled " dead stop just over the centre line if I misses or the opponent voided: So I'm basically trained to stop suddenly almost no matter how hard or fast I swing, so targeting short of the target or targeting to stop at any point in the swing is imprinted in my muscle memory !
( When someone screws up and the distance becomes closer if someone rushes forward I have to be able to react in time to stop a blow shorter than was initially planned ..... so this can be a planned stop at a predetermined arc or a sudden emergency abort to prevent a training injury. Note: If a hit happens anyway, pulling the blow means little energy is transmitted to the target and this is why we can train safely with only fencing masks and light gloves with almost no accidents except a light bruise )
So maybe the terms have to be defined more accurately or everyone has to use the same definitions:
A) We have full power which means maximum speed of the sword but not muscleling through the target i.e. letting the sword do the work.
B) The fulness of the arc: Full commitment to the ground or the half cut fully committed but controlled with a pre-planned stop just past the target or centre line indifferently if the cut was successful or missed.
C) The same type of control used in training is used in fighting as opposed to overcommitted blows where no forethought or control is used. ( Like having a gas pedal and no brake pedal on a car )
I don't define full commitment as letting the sword go in a wide arc to the ground or way off side in any direction: I define it as really trying to have the cut connect as opposed to a planned miss only intended to provoke a response. ( A planned miss can be a form of feint but must seem dangerous to be effective ).
Oh, and I could be completely wrong here, and frankly I'm taking a big chance discussing this with people way over my league in knowledge of the period texts and experience ...... but why not, and I hope this can be useful to the debate even if just to correct me. ;) :lol: :cool: Notice that I'm only using plain language as I'm not familiar enough with technical meanings of fencing terms or comfortable with all the German terminology. ;)
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: |
| Hi Cory,
I think we may have a terminology difference here. A full cut is usually defined (and this is general fencing lingo - the L. tradition says nothing about this) as one that travels all the way through the centerline. A half cut is one that ends, at least roughly, in the centerline. |
Right, and this comes from Aristotle again, in relation to motion and time. So a full blow is one that starts high and ends low, or vice-versa. That is also one tempo, or fencing time. A half blow is one that travels half of that length, and is this faster because it uses half of one "time". This is how one uses that idea of "mezzo tempo" to counterattack - think Zornhau Ort - you use a shorter attack inside of his own.
The focus point should be as deep and powerful, although by definition full flows tend to be stronger.
Anyway, I didn't think L had anything on this, other than Meyer obliquely doing this by charting out the high, middle and low position of blows, but it did become the standard way of looking at this as Italian fencing theory spread. Thanks for clearing this up, guys, I was getting a bit lost. ;)
The next personal attack I read or any instance of name-calling and baiting will result in the loss of posting privileges. This is my last warning.
Page 7 of 7
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum