[Michael Edelson]

Hi all,

This is the first in a series of body mechanics vids we're putting together. This one is about timings (sword first, foot first, etc.) These are meant as instructional videos for our students, but we're going to put them on youtube in case others may be interested.

I hope you enjoy it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9aDZ6s2WcI

[James Head]

Great job Michael! I think you make a well balanced argument about the reasons for acting in other timings besides the commonly labled "true time". Watching your video was helpful in envisioning the small nuances of timing and distance. I also began to think about certain follow up actions if one happened to judge their distance incorrectly and threw a faster timing that did not have sufficient range. As an example: your first timing is noticeably quick but suffers from the least range. I imagine that it would probably be the best set up for a Wexelhau if you missed since you would still have a little time left to respond. It makes me think that a Wexel should only be thrown with a "first timing", slightly out of distance, to successfully pull off the change strike without getting killed.

[Michael Edelson]

Thanks! I'm very glad it helped.

Your reasoning for Wechselhau sounds right to me, though you can always shorten the other two timings if you wanted to. Just because you have range, doesn't mean you always have to use it. But as an "oh shit" follow up action, yeah, that would be a good one. So would stopping the strike short and thrusting or just holding long point.

[Chuck Wyatt]

Well done!

I especially enjoyed the benefits and drawbacks of each.

Chuck

[Michael Edelson]

Thanks Chuck!

It was surprisingly easy to make. Once I realized my voice didn't suck too badly, that is.

[Jean Thibodeau]

Very nice and professionally produced video clip as well as good content giving a lot to think about.

I for one fell too in love with the idea of the time of the hand, and although in the right context it's probably the best way to avoid telegraphing and surprise when in measure or just out of measure, I think I had the mistaken impression that the hands should always move first !

When acceleration in from way out of measure moving the hands first and them having to slow down for the rest of the body to catch up sort of seems like wasted motion since the body has to get close to get in range anyway moving the hands first when they are way too far to hit doesn't do anything to avoid some form of telegraphing.

On the other hand if one is rushing forward one can still time the hands to move at the most opportune time to either cut, turn the cut into a thrust or end up in longpoint and go from there at the sword.

Anyway, this is what I get from the various comments so far and that I should try to use the right timing according to context rather than always move the hands first.

In part moving the hands first is counter intuitive and had to be practised a great deal for it to feel natural, moving the hands at the same time or after the body is more natural and more powerful if after the body.

Often when we find something useful, like the time of the hand, we make the mistake of using it not only to best advantage but at the wrong times when it isn't the optimum way to move.

[Michael Edelson]

Jean,

I'm very glad this vid helped you. The idea that the hands *must* always move first really screwed me up in my early days. Getting rid of that one idea was like a domino effect of positive change and insights.

It's not that moving the hands first is bad...the first timing does just that. It's the "always" part that has to go, I think.

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Thomas R.]

Isn't the third timing just a step towards the enemy? So you reduce measure and then do a strike? As you pointed out, Michael, it seems to me very dangerous to go into close measure without simultaneously threatening the opponent. It's like you try to lure the enemy to make the first strike. But nevertheless great video! Makes one think about timing and footwork, and that's good! Thanks for sharing.

Thomas

[Steven Reich]

[Michael Edelson]

[Artis Aboltins]

Many thanks for well reasoned and descriptive video, Michael! It helped clear up some thoughts of my own regarding the movement, although it will take a bit of thought on how to adapt this to sword and shield combat...

[Michael Edelson]

[Hugo Voisine]

Very interesting video. Keep them coming !

[Michael Edelson]

Thanks, Hugo, I'll certainly try.

[Greg Coffman]

Hmm...

Well done video and great topic for discussion. I'd like to offer a few critiques and observations of what I saw. Take it for what it's worth.

In the first timing demonstration, the first thing you do is to lean forward. Then you start the cut, and then the right foot comes forward but only enough to support your shifted center of balance. It is not really a full step. You are just moving your foot to bring it underneath where you now are after you leaned in. And yet, the overall picture does not look that much different than the second timing.

In the second timing, you do take a full step forward, but you cut much slower. Now, apart from particular instances where the goal might be to prompt or draw out your opponent, you should make the cut at the same speed every time regardless of foot-hand timing or stepping distance. I would want to see all three cuts (at all three timings) be made with the same speed cut. Otherwise I feel like you are changing variables that should remain constant which then give you false results. As in, the difference in timing between these three options does not appear to me to be based on relative foot-hand timing but based on how you are changing all three cuts. Likewise, in the third timing you step much farther than you do in either the first timings. So the range of all three timings seem to be more a function of length of step then actual timing.

In the last demonstration in which you show the third timing against a counter cut, in the first cut your opponent stops his attack before you have intercepted and bound against him. The second counter is much better.

You can demonstrate anything at slow speed and with a compliant partner. Your argument would be much more persuasive if you showed the techniques with full speed and intent and consistent cutting and stepping.

On the issue of hand-foot timing, my personal practice is to land my footfall at the same time my cuts "land," hit, or snap through langenort. This gives me my maximum range. I have already moved my body as far forward as I am going to go through my step, and my sword is reaching out as far forward as it is going to at the point it passes through long point. Now because the sword is lighter, I can accelerate it faster; the sword is faster than my ability to step. But my "full speed" is not as fast as I possibly can swing the sword. The sword does not need to go that fast in order to work correctly. Rather, speed in the cut is more an intent of placement or getting there first. Therefore, the speed at which I can step is plenty fast for my cuts, and this keeps my steps and cuts both fast. With this framework in place, I am free to concentrate more on stepping as a function of range and lining up my steps with my cuts instead of concerning myself with whether I am or should be moving my feet or my sword first. It's a mute point for me. And binding changes up the conversation quite a bit too.

Regards,
Greg Coffman

[Michael Edelson]