[Michael Edelson]

Hi all,

A good deal of the criticism of test cutting in HEMA revolves around the over stressing of the full cut, isntead of a strike that ends with the point menacing the opponent's face or chest. My position is that comprehensive cutting training develops good striking mechanics for all strikes, not just full strikes.

This video shows strikes that sever the target completely yet terminate with the point online, menacing the opponent's chest.

Please note that I have a left elbow injury that results in some bounce at the termination of the cut.

I hope you enjoy the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9FxOatYP0s

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Michael Edelson]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Michael Edelson]

[Jean Thibodeau]

Michael: Thanks I really like the clear explanation.

[Cory Winslow]

Both the video and explanation are good, Mike!

[Michael Edelson]

[Greg Mele]

Mike,

Thanks for jumping on this - very nicely done, and I think that this did the best job of illustrating what we mean by half and full. Also, the bounce comes after the terminus of the cut, which I know you know, but my point is that it isn't affecting what you are trying to show folks.

There is something else you say in here that I think people need to remember: the half cut ends where the guy gets whacked, regardless of if your cut was half or full. Roughly, it is where the sword and the joints of the arm and leg all align - the maximum extension on the arc of a cut. The second half of the cut is the recovery phase - the sword is withdrawing from the target. But that doesn't mean there is no extra power, nor tactical reason for it. The half cut takes the center and sets up the point to control that line, the full cut sets up another cut.

BTW, although this relates to the other cutting thread, I'm going to add this here, since the thread is shorter and has none of the other "stuff" making it hard to follow. It occurred to me last night that one thing we didn't discuss in any of these threads, and which is important, IMO, is remembering that multi-action cutting forms contain tactics (or should), but can be a bit subtle when you are just watching a piece of tatami get murdered - just like iai forms can be subtle. That opening first full cut *might* be your entering cut, but it can just as easily represent your counterattack to the opponent's entry, and then the follow-on actions should he cover, deflect or fly out.

Case in point: one cutting form we use here is a full forehand cut with a pass in and off the line with the right foot, followed by a full, reverse false-edge cut, and then a half backhand while passing back with the right foot. Now that could be a lot of things, and it could be three cuts against the opponent's squishy bits. But it is also the bladework for one variation of Fiore's "rompere di punta", which works like this: you attack with a cut or thrust, I step offline and cut into your blade, driving it into the ground with a full cut. I immediately strike straight back up the line with the false edge, cutting you under the chin. As I pass back I make a second cut - a backhand - to the head, and as a half-cut it holds the center as I am retreating from measure. Essentially, this is a variation of something like the German Krumphau to his blade, Schnappen to the head with the false edge and then make a backhand to the right side of his head as you fly out.

When these actions are done against a piece of tatami, it just looks like multiple cuts. In practice, each cut may have specific tactical application (or applications, like I cut and miss and respond to his attempt to strike with Nachreissen), that sometimes doesn't look readily apparent when you watch. But parry or attack, a cut should always be mechanically correct, so as you practice this against the target, they all become cuts through the target.

Anyway, it occurred to me that we got onto discussing body cuts and why they do or don't appear and the use of half and full cuts, but this issue as relates to applying that to test-cutting, got lost in the shuffle, and was a disservice to what Mike was showing in the first place. Half and full cuts have various tactical purposes in combat, as attacks, counterattacks and covers, but when you are practicing cutting, you want to make all of them *good cuts*.

Thanks for adding this video, Mike. One thing you might want to do down the road as you build out this library of examples is do a few clips that show a multi action technique, and then how you'd practice it as a test-cutting exercise.

Cheers,

Greg

[Michael Edelson]

[Greg Mele]

[Michael Edelson]

[Jean Thibodeau]

Love it when the exchanges of opinion are so clearly trying to understand the other's meaning instead of trying to " nitpick" the differences and missing the forest for the trees.

Here is an example of constructive disagreement on minor issues or bringing up other relevant factors and both arriving at very close conclusions even if in the small details there might still be different interpretations or even " styles ". ( No matter how closely two people agreed on the techniques no two people are going to display the same style for all sorts of reasons ).

Anyway, stopping " soon " before I go off on too wide a tangent but I can really learn valuable insight form this discussion and the impressive demonstration of cutting and the analyses of what it might mean as applied to a " real " swordfight.

The cutting is a tool to build muscle memory and skill in the same way that bouting can be a tool or " katas " are a tool or formal prearranged plays using an agent/patient paradigm: Each has it's uses and each has it's " artifacts ", but each can be used to isolate aspects of the fight and each should reinforce the right skills. ( The trick is to be sure that one's training methods don't contradict each other or train in negative muscle memory if they distort the actions useful for the martial art being studied and practised ).

( NOTE: The above may be all too obvious but at times it's useful to formally state the obvious just to be sure we are all on the same page. ).

[Michael Edelson]

[Bill Grandy]

Mike,
I finally got the chance to sit down and watch this. Very nice stuff! I really need to spend more time cutting, as its a pretty small part of our curriculum here.

[Michael Edelson]

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi Mike,

As said before - good video!

[Michael Edelson]

Hi Christian,

What I meant was I’ll never set out to do a half cut unless I’m setting up to trick my opponent or something like that. If I know I’m going to miss, I’m generally not going to strike. If I think I’m going to hit and do a full cut, and I see in time that he is voiding, then I’ll try to stop it with the point before his face or chest, and I think I have a pretty good chance of making it happen. However, my default movement calibrates to stopping in Alber. If I calibrate for face or chest as my default strike, I see it as aiming to fail.

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hi Mike,

If you move to stop it as you see him void, then yes, I think you're fulfilling the text. One could read the text's reference to "long, free strokes" as once sufficiently over-committed to "stop on a dime" if need be.

I was only concerned with the earlier idea of cutting to Alber, if he voids, because that's a timing problem.

The other great place for a full blow, btw (and one we need to look to Ringeck for, it's no *explicitly* called out in von Danzig) is if he pulls up to strike: you can use Nachreisen to hit him as he does this, and it's a great, and safe, opportunity for a full blow.

To me, the safer bet is still to use the half-blow as the default for striking from the Zufechten, and the one that doesn't force me to adapt on the fly as much. And, I think it's more than powerful enough to hit the head with. But beyond that, I think we're into the minutiae of preference.

Cheers,

CHT