| Author |
Message |
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
 Posted: Thu 28 Aug, 2008 9:42 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: |
Not so. I would love to hear the personal judgment of anyone who has killed a bloke or two in a swordfight.
Otherwise, what personal judgment are you talking about? Wisdom gleaned from playfighting?
|
Actually, you may not be very satisfied at all. Machete fighting is pretty common in Africa and on some Islands in the Caribbean. It does not mean the people who do it, fight well all the time or are not suicidal at times. I have had discussion with such people in my travels. They have pointed out some stuff to me like using the edge on edge parries to nick the two blades, lock them together and try to pull it out of each others hand. They use both edge parries to do this and flat parries to avoid this. I don't think nicking and pulling is feasible with a sword but it gives you an idea of how creative people are and how they improvise. In the Philippines all the stick fighting that they do is really machete training and it has a lot in common with with SCA two-sword fighting... both from natural evolution and from people directly importing some techniques. If there is one thing for certain, it is that blood has been spilled with those machete techniques.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
    |
 |
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Thu 28 Aug, 2008 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, I'd love to hear what they have to say. Those people probably have a lot of insights about close quarters blade combat that all of us could learn from. The machete fighting of Africa is not as exactly the rich martial tradition that HES is, but that doesn't mean they have nothing to teach us.
Machetes aren't swords, and the kinds of people that kill each other with them in Africa are not exactly the epitome of fighting men, but you take what you can get. I'd be interested to hear more about what you learned from them. While not directly applicable, it could still be valuable.
Even if they totally suck you can still learn a lot from them. For example, one might say "Well I did A,B and C, got my arm chopped off." Well, you just learned a lesson. Don't do A, B and C. 
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Pengryffyn
Location: Canberra, Australia Joined: 21 Jul 2008
Posts: 72
|
| Posted: Thu 28 Aug, 2008 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: |
Not so. I would love to hear the personal judgment of anyone who has killed a bloke or two in a swordfight.
Otherwise, what personal judgment are you talking about? Wisdom gleaned from playfighting?
But lets look at what you said... "maybe the mountain top isn't the only goal". I agree completely. For some people, swordsmanship is an intellectual and physical journey of learning, struggle, pain and reward. For others, it is a fantasy, a game whose only purpose is escape from reality. And there's nothing wrong with that! These are both valid pursuits. I just wish people were honest with themselves, and with others. |
But we don't know how many blokes Liechtenauer killed either. Or how many his students killed. We don't know whether there were other teachers around at that time whose students killed a lot more people, but who never wrote a book or founded a school. How many people did any founders of martial arts kill? For the most part we haven't a clue.
Let's take your argument further. Is the criterion of what's to be judged a martial art it's ability teach someone to kill? Put that proposition to teachers of many, if not most, asian martial arts these days and they'll deny it. . As far as I'm aware, the close-quarters fighting systems taught by the world's military services aren't generally referred to as martial arts. "Combatives" seems to be the current term. As Bill Grandy pointed out, nobody uses swords these days for serious fighting. Machetes and knives and clubs certainly, but not swords. We have no way now of telling absolutely if the techniques we're studying are useful for killing, because we don't do that anymore, and thank heavens that's so!
Yes, the old masters founded schools that became popular and lasted for a period of time. They must, therefore have had something going for them. We really don't know what that something was. It might have been the deadly efficiency of the system. It might have been the killer booze-ups afterwards. We know what they wrote in the books, but we don't know the myriad of details that couldn't be written down because they had to be demonstrated. We don't know if or what techniques they kept secret. We know that teachers and styles of all periods argued just as much about what constituted "the true fight" as people are here today. Isn't that a lesson?
As for "playfighting", and people being "honest with themselves, and with others", well, sauce for the goose... "Playfighting" is a pejorative term, and I'd have thought it best avoided in a civil discussion. As I've already stated, I admire those HEMA practitioners who dedicate so much energy to recreating historical systems and reviving dead techniques. I admire their martial art. But HEMA isn't the totality of western martial arts. If HEMA practitioners try to claim sole access to the title "Western Martial Art", I would see that as inaccurate and even presumptuous. To refer to anything else as "playfighting" can only be taken as insulting by those who don't share that point of view. I think it's also unnecessarily limiting, since the historical manuals we have cover such a small area of western swordsmanship, both temporally and geographically. There is and enormous amount of territory between "a fantasy, a game whose only purpose is escape from reality", and the "pure" dedication to histrically verifiable technique. That ground contains a myriad of people who are just as surely practicing a martial art as you are.
Cheers
Marc
Tradition is the illusion of permanence.
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Thu 28 Aug, 2008 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | No, I'd love to hear what they have to say. Those people probably have a lot of insights about close quarters blade combat that all of us could learn from. The machete fighting of Africa is not as exactly the rich martial tradition that HES is, but that doesn't mean they have nothing to teach us.
|
I had a few conversations with a few people and it was in relation to two-sword fighting or single-sword fighting as done in the SCA. First, they were quick to take credit that the basis for our strikes in the SCA was copied entirely from them. It's not entirely true and I did not argue the point, but I know of one SCA fighter that comes from a Philippine stick-fighting background. He has modified that form significantly when dealing with shields and polearms.
Another guy mentioned that the less skilled the machete fighters are with blades, the more they will look to get into grappling. He also felt that the better skilled person does not always win. A less skilled fighter can be very frighting in their unpredictability and can make the skilled fighter do stupid things regardless of training (he thought our shields are awesome in that regard). Fearless-ness is something that is not so easily trained into people. He did not believe machete fighters were suicidal but you can't be afraid to die either if you want to kill someone. He said if you want to live your mindset has to be that you want to kill the other person more then save your own skin. The idea of not getting wounded can not be in your mind at all. This guy was very impressed with SCA two-stickfighting and thought we had raised two-stick to higher level.
I already told you about how they use both flat and edge parries, that came from a third source. I can't remember the other stuff. We spent time talking about some variances in techniques but many of the similarities were clear.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Thu 28 Aug, 2008 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Double kills are rampant in not only SCA combat, but a lot of HES bouting. This is because people simply don't understand this. |
It's nothing new. Meyer noted double hits as happening often. While relying on attack to force defense might have worked at certain points in the German tradition, records of duels show that folks could be suicidally aggressive back in the day. Silver wrote about such encounters with the rapier. You can find many others.
| Quote: | | This has led to another all too common artifact of bouting...constant retreats. |
Sounds like decent Silver. There should be a lot of flying out involved.
| Quote: | | Likewise, if you think that dropping to one knee and continuing to fight after being hit in the leg is a good simulation earnest combat, then no amount of training is going to make you an able combatant. |
Didn't someone dig up an account of a historical warrior doing exactly that? I could swear I remember reading it. Regardless, I don't think any set response to a hit would be an accurate simulation of earnest combat. I've looked through many accounts of modern and medieval injury. The most notable feature would be randomness. A wound to the leg might either completely incapacitate or prove no hindrance whatsoever.
| Quote: | | As Bill Grandy pointed out, nobody uses swords these days for serious fighting. |
Well, a few people use them for murder and the assault. This doesn't tell us much about combat between aware and equally armed folks. I don't think many people use any hand-range weapon for serious combat these days. That's why dueling techniques with the dagger seems a bit silly in the modern context. Folks use knives and such mainly for ambush and intimidation. The culture of fair fighting with blades has basically vanished.
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Marc Pengryffyn wrote: | | Let's take your argument further. Is the criterion of what's to be judged a martial art it's ability teach someone to kill? Put that proposition to teachers of many, if not most, asian martial arts these days and they'll deny it. . |
The fundamental purpose of a martial art is to teach its students to defend themselves through a set of rules and precepts. With weapons, that generally meant incapacitating or killing your opponent, but most of all, preventing him from doing the same to you. That was not the only use of martial arts (historically speaking), they were also used as a way to demonstrate one's 'virtue' as a man; that is, demonstrate through skill the embodiment of the desirable traits for men (although there were other arts in which this was part of the purpose, too: horsemanship, music, rhetoric, etc.). Additionally, the martial arts were also incorporated into sporting events and exhibitions. Sometimes, martial arts were even looked at as a path to spiritual development (but this is sort of along the same lines as virtue). However, the fundamental trait of a martial art was that it was designed to help its user survive.
This doesn't mean that the purpose of practicing a martial art is necessarily to learn to kill someone or even to defend oneself. That certainly isn't usually the aim of practicing the western or eastern sword-arts today.
| Marc Pengryffyn wrote: | | Yes, the old masters founded schools that became popular and lasted for a period of time. They must, therefore have had something going for them. We really don't know what that something was. It might have been the deadly efficiency of the system. It might have been the killer booze-ups afterwards. We know what they wrote in the books, but we don't know the myriad of details that couldn't be written down because they had to be demonstrated. We don't know if or what techniques they kept secret. We know that teachers and styles of all periods argued just as much about what constituted "the true fight" as people are here today. Isn't that a lesson? |
To say that we don't know what the masters had going for them is rather a big stretch. We do know what many masters had going for them. For example, we know that Monte was a superb martial artist and horseman. Not from his work, but from writings of his contemporaries. We can see this with several masters: Marozzo, Fabris, Thibault, and Angelo are four more who immediately spring to mind, but there are many others. This becomes even clearer when we get into the 1800s and 1900s. Surely, Agesilao Greco had more going for him than the "killer booze-ups afterwards." Of course, Fabris probably did too, as he was the personal fencing master to King Christianus IV (I don't think the king needed to go to Fabris for killer booze-ups, as I imagine he could have thrown his own so much better). Additionally, we have the record of Maestro Guido Antonio di Luca (who wrote a treatise which is lost), Marozzo's master. Now Marozzo says of him, "...from whose school exited more warriors than exited the belly of the Trojan horse." I guess you could say that Marozzo was inflating his value by inflating that of his master. However, we have records of what at least one of his master's students did: killed his first man in a one-on-one encounter while still a teenager. Killed another man when in his mid-twenties in a judicial duel. Finally, we have Fiore's accounts of his and his students' experiences. Once again, I suppose we can assume that Fiore was lying, but it would have had to have been bold, out-right falsehoods. Fiore gives details (he fought 5 encounters with sharps, "far from his home."), additionally, he names some of his students (and clearly, his readers were expected to recognize at least some of the names).
Now I'm sure not all masters were equal in ability: some were probably better fencers than writers, a few may have been better writers and instructors than fencers (although I wouldn't go as far as saying that they were bad swordsmen). I'm even willing to believe that there were McDojos (McSalles?) in their days--some of the masters even allude to this. However, even the disagreements between them doesn't mean that it was only a matter of opinion--more than one right way is not the same thing as no wrong way.
The point is that while we may be missing things from not having the actual instruction (and we almost certainly are), it is still the best way we have to learn proven effective western sword arts (i.e. the arts designed to utilize the weapons and armor of western Europe). Who among us is willing to say he has more experience or knowledge about how to face a sharp longsword "wearing only a gambeson" than Fiore who did so five times (and won every time)?
Steve
Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Do we have any details on Fiore's duels? The best I can come up with is a record that he was in charge of a crossbow battalion in one of the Italian civil wars. I have been trying to find details on his duels for a long time. Any help would be appreciated.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
Last edited by Bill Tsafa on Fri 29 Aug, 2008 8:10 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Great post Steve!
Many of these masters worked for the men at the highest strata of society. One of them, of course, *was* of that class - Dom Duarte of Portugal. When a king writes about jousting and horsemanship, we can be pretty sure it was stuff that was perceived of as having worked.
This is an old debate - reading parts of it reminds me of the same discussions c. 1998. The problem is that we know so much more now, and all that data points to deep connections between the highest levels of the warrior class and these martial arts. Paulus Kal was a right-hand man for one of the most powerful people on the planet at the time, Ludwig IX of Bavaria. After that patron died, he went to work for an equally powerful guy - SIgismund of the Tyrol. Does anyone think he got away with being a phoney for 40 years in the most dazzling and warlike courts of Europe?
The argument that stuff made up in American backyards is somehow comparable to actual historic arts is a non-starter. Practice what you like, and enjoy it for what it is, not for what it's not.
All the best,
Christian
Christian Henry Tobler
Order of Selohaar
Freelance Academy Press: Books on Western Martial Arts and Historical Swordsmanship
Author, In Saint George's Name: An Anthology of Medieval German Fighting Arts
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 8:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Marc Pengryffyn wrote: | | Michael Edelson wrote: |
Not so. I would love to hear the personal judgment of anyone who has killed a bloke or two in a swordfight.
Otherwise, what personal judgment are you talking about? Wisdom gleaned from playfighting?
But lets look at what you said... "maybe the mountain top isn't the only goal". I agree completely. For some people, swordsmanship is an intellectual and physical journey of learning, struggle, pain and reward. For others, it is a fantasy, a game whose only purpose is escape from reality. And there's nothing wrong with that! These are both valid pursuits. I just wish people were honest with themselves, and with others. |
But we don't know how many blokes Liechtenauer killed either. Or how many his students killed. We don't know whether there were other teachers around at that time whose students killed a lot more people, but who never wrote a book or founded a school. How many people did any founders of martial arts kill? For the most part we haven't a clue.
Let's take your argument further. Is the criterion of what's to be judged a martial art it's ability teach someone to kill? Put that proposition to teachers of many, if not most, asian martial arts these days and they'll deny it. . As far as I'm aware, the close-quarters fighting systems taught by the world's military services aren't generally referred to as martial arts. "Combatives" seems to be the current term. As Bill Grandy pointed out, nobody uses swords these days for serious fighting. Machetes and knives and clubs certainly, but not swords. We have no way now of telling absolutely if the techniques we're studying are useful for killing, because we don't do that anymore, and thank heavens that's so!
Yes, the old masters founded schools that became popular and lasted for a period of time. They must, therefore have had something going for them. We really don't know what that something was. It might have been the deadly efficiency of the system. It might have been the killer booze-ups afterwards. We know what they wrote in the books, but we don't know the myriad of details that couldn't be written down because they had to be demonstrated. We don't know if or what techniques they kept secret. We know that teachers and styles of all periods argued just as much about what constituted "the true fight" as people are here today. Isn't that a lesson?
As for "playfighting", and people being "honest with themselves, and with others", well, sauce for the goose... "Playfighting" is a pejorative term, and I'd have thought it best avoided in a civil discussion. As I've already stated, I admire those HEMA practitioners who dedicate so much energy to recreating historical systems and reviving dead techniques. I admire their martial art. But HEMA isn't the totality of western martial arts. If HEMA practitioners try to claim sole access to the title "Western Martial Art", I would see that as inaccurate and even presumptuous. To refer to anything else as "playfighting" can only be taken as insulting by those who don't share that point of view. I think it's also unnecessarily limiting, since the historical manuals we have cover such a small area of western swordsmanship, both temporally and geographically. There is and enormous amount of territory between "a fantasy, a game whose only purpose is escape from reality", and the "pure" dedication to histrically verifiable technique. That ground contains a myriad of people who are just as surely practicing a martial art as you are.
Cheers
Marc |
Sorry, Marc, but I've heard this argument all too often as a justification for not putting in the time to study HEMA properly. When I did JSA, I heard this argument as an excuse not to study koryu or the other more difficult arts. And when I was very young, I used this argument myself for the same reasons. I'm not saying that's why you're using it...I dont' know enough about you.
And, Steven nicely summed up my other objections, so there is little point in continuing. I wish you the best of luck in your pursuits.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | The argument that stuff made up in American backyards is somehow comparable to actual historic arts is a non-starter. Practice what you like, and enjoy it for what it is, not for what it's not. |
I would have used something a bit harsher than "non-starter", but that essentially sums up not only how I feel, but in my opinion, the reality of the matter.
Of course some people would say reality is overated, and I agree. These pursuits are not about killing, but about fun. We are supposed to enjoy them, and different people enjoy different things. My gripe, as I've said before, is people pretending to be doing something they're not.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | | The argument that stuff made up in American backyards is somehow comparable to actual historic arts is a non-starter. Practice what you like, and enjoy it for what it is, not for what it's not. |
I would have used something a bit harsher than "non-starter", but that essentially sums up not only how I feel, but in my opinion, the reality of the matter.
Of course some people would say reality is overrated, and I agree. These pursuits are not about killing, but about fun. We are supposed to enjoy them, and different people enjoy different things. My gripe, as I've said before, is people pretending to be doing something they're not. |
Although I agree with what Christian is saying here, if we go back to the original question(s) of this topic and some of the early posts: I would say that the backyard stuff might be worth looking at, but just to see if someone has actually found something useful, but this only means just not dismissing it without looking. Even the most random unlearned sword " Play " can show us something useful even by accident. Looking can also mean perceiving what doesn't work and understanding why.
But this doesn't mean putting the " improvised stuff " as being equal or better than the best and most credible sources historical sources: The improvised stuff just shouldn't be completely ignored, and that's all I'm saying, but spending a disproportionate amount of time looking at improvised stuff is not an optimum use of one's training time or study.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vassilis Tsafatinos wrote: |
Another guy mentioned that the less skilled the machete fighters are with blades, the more they will look to get into grappling. He also felt that the better skilled person does not always win. A less skilled fighter can be very frighting in their unpredictability and can make the skilled fighter do stupid things regardless of training (he thought our shields are awesome in that regard). Fearless-ness is something that is not so easily trained into people. He did not believe machete fighters were suicidal but you can't be afraid to die either if you want to kill someone. He said if you want to live your mindset has to be that you want to kill the other person more then save your own skin. The idea of not getting wounded can not be in your mind at all. This guy was very impressed with SCA two-stickfighting and thought we had raised two-stick to higher level.
I already told you about how they use both flat and edge parries, that came from a third source. I can't remember the other stuff. We spent time talking about some variances in techniques but many of the similarities were clear. |
This is valuable advice, thank you for sharing it.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
Although I agree with what Christian is saying here, if we go back to the original question(s) of this topic and some of the early posts: I would say that the backyard stuff might be worth looking at, but just to see if someone has actually found something useful, but this only means just not dismissing it without looking. Even the most random unlearned sword " Play " can show us something useful even by accident. Looking can also mean perceiving what doesn't work and understanding why.
But this doesn't mean putting the " improvised stuff " as being equal or better than the best and most credible sources historical sources: The improvised stuff just shouldn't be completely ignored, and that's all I'm saying, but spending a disproportionate amount of time looking at improvised stuff is not an optimum use of one's training time or study. |
Hi Jean,
The problem with that is how will we know it when we see it?
To illustrate my point, my group, like most, engages in a fair amount of free play. I have some pretty simple standards for what constitutes good free play, and that is: if it looks like what the texts describe, it is right. If it does not, it is wrong. Now at first, it was extremely difficult to get bouting that looked anything like what the fechtbucher desscribe. It was very tempting to say "hey, this little trick works and works better than what the books say, so lets use it."
I am very happy that I shied away from this temptation. We have worked very hard to get our bouting as close to the treatises as possible, and only a few of us have achieved any semblance of success in that department (though we have a long way to go). As we progressed, however, we saw the flaws of these little tricks that we came up with in bouting, we saw why they were not martially sound. The point is, with the understanding we gained by striving to be true to the sources, we were able to dismiss things that we might otherwise have accepted as backyard discoveries. Without that understanding, we could not have made those decisions properly.
A good illustration of this are the talks about why schiettlehau doesn't work to break Alber that took place on SFI despite the fact that the masters say it does. If you can't get something to work, and you can get something you made up to work better for you, it is far too tempting to go that route instead of training harder and understanding why the correct technique not only works, it is actually easier and more effective than what you came up with.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Cha
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven Reich wrote: |
The point is that while we may be missing things from not having the actual instruction (and we almost certainly are), it is still the best way we have to learn proven effective western sword arts (i.e. the arts designed to utilize the weapons and armor of western Europe). Who among us is willing to say he has more experience or knowledge about how to face a sharp longsword "wearing only a gambeson" than Fiore who did so five times (and won every time)?
Steve |
Thats not quite true though. What we have left isn't what Fiore knew. It's what survived of what Fiore knew...which then has to get extrapolated to be of any use. So it is an interpretation of fragments of what a great fighter knew. And when you compare that to better combat simulated free play that Bill did, I would start to question the assertion that what we have left of the great old masters is enough to constitue the be all end all in using a sword for a real fight.
If you give a good SCA fighter a shield and sword and sent them after a GOOD HEMA fighter with a longsword and did this several times, We will see that the SCA guys will kill/cripple the HEMA guy about half the time...maybe more since Adam is more skilled then Bill by his own admission. I mean that is what that video is showing since there is no rules or limitation of equipment limitation in place. So can we honestly say that what the SCA developed is rubbish with a sword still? I'm leaning towards no.
FYI I was in a sword fight using sharps just once. And many other knife fights (yeah I was a hooligan in my youths). And Bill is right, if your not willing to get cut, you will get cut MORE. The other guy with a sword would always move to defend when I attacked when he could have taken my arm or leg several times had he not been so defensive and been willing to take a light hit. But then again since he was so defensive, I just used a flurry of light blows to just keep him in the defensive pretty much for the whole fight until I got one past him. If he wised up, I would be missing a limb today...well and probably dead since he did shoot me later...yeah a hooligan. Anyways, when this happened, I did kendo...and despite kendo being called a sport only (and it is), it still did not negate a useful skill when using a sharp sword when I applied what I knew from the various knife fights and sparing matches I have done. Of course the fact that my oppent was less skilled then me helped too....
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P. Cha wrote: | | Thats not quite true though. What we have left isn't what Fiore knew. It's what survived of what Fiore knew...which then has to get extrapolated to be of any use. So it is an interpretation of fragments of what a great fighter knew. And when you compare that to better combat simulated free play that Bill did, I would start to question the assertion that what we have left of the great old masters is enough to constitue the be all end all in using a sword for a real fight. |
If you have fragmens of something and you are trying recreate it, then you need to look at the corresponding fragments of your work...do they match the surviving fragments? In that sense it is enough.
A lot of criticisms of the HEMA approach seem to suggest that HEMA exists in the absence of physical experimentation. This is grossly incorrect. A massive amount of physical pressure testing has been done to support (and in many cases invalidate) interpretations. The difference between this pressure testing and backyard discoveries is that in HEMA, such testing has been held to the standards of the period works and the basis for this testing was a massive research effort by many talented scholars.
| Quote: | | If you give a good SCA fighter a shield and sword and sent them after a GOOD HEMA fighter with a longsword and did this several times, We will see that the SCA guys will kill/cripple the HEMA guy about half the time...maybe more since Adam is more skilled then Bill by his own admission. I mean that is what that video is showing since there is no rules or limitation of equipment limitation in place. So can we honestly say that what the SCA developed is rubbish with a sword still? I'm leaning towards no. |
Out of politeness to the parties involved, I will not saymore than the above paragraph has several blatantly incorrect assumptions, enough to completely invalidate your point. PM me if you want details.
However, you must keep in mind that a guy with a shield has a tremendous advantage over a guy with just a sword, and you must also remember that even a crappy interpretation will work in the hands of a tremendous athlete. These statements do not necessarily apply to the videos, but they are something you must keep in mind at all times when evaluating something.
| Quote: | | FYI I was in a sword fight using sharps just once. And many other knife fights (yeah I was a hooligan in my youths). And Bill is right, if your not willing to get cut, you will get cut MORE. The other guy with a sword would always move to defend when I attacked when he could have taken my arm or leg several times had he not been so defensive and been willing to take a light hit. But then again since he was so defensive, I just used a flurry of light blows to just keep him in the defensive pretty much for the whole fight until I got one past him. If he wised up, I would be missing a limb today...well and probably dead since he did shoot me later...yeah a hooligan. Anyways, when this happened, I did kendo...and despite kendo being called a sport only (and it is), it still did not negate a useful skill when using a sharp sword when I applied what I knew from the various knife fights and sparing matches I have done. Of course the fact that my oppent was less skilled then me helped too.... |
First, it's probably not prudent to admit that in a public forum as a crime may have been involved, and I believe the moderators will soon take action.
However, there is a difference between being defensive the way you describe it and fighting in a manner that protects you and deals with the threat of your opponents sword. "Those with wisdom loathe the one forced to defend" is at the begining of Liechtenauer's verses. Swinging wildly without heeding incomming attacks is fighting foolishly, not just aggressively, and this is what is demonstrated in the majority of bouting clips posted to the Internet. It is possible, and proper, to attack in a way that closes your opponents most likely line of attack, this is what the vier versetzen are designed to teach us. To make it simple, fighting in a way that addresses your opponents threat is best illustrated by either a proper understanding of the vier versetzen or somethign simple like a zornhau ort play. Your opponent attacks you. Rather than swinging wildly back at him hoping to undercut and strike him frist, you cut into his attack and stop it cold, while at the same time, in a single imperfect time, thrusting along his sword into his face and killing him. This is the difference between a martially sound counter that protects you even as it takes the fight to your opponent and being on the defensive in the manner you describe.
Oh, and one last point. I don't do Fiore, but of the Liechtenauer tradition, a lot more than just a jigsaw puzzle survives. Also, our understanding of this art has come a long way, to the point where excuses about it's incompleteness no longer hold water. We have been handed the tools we need to recreate this art, and those of us interested in doing so should strive to do so dilligently. Those of us not interested in doing so should admit that and not muddy the waters.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: |
you must also remember that even a crappy interpretation will work in the hands of a tremendous athlete. |
You're making me blush    
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Cha
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | P. Cha wrote: | | Thats not quite true though. What we have left isn't what Fiore knew. It's what survived of what Fiore knew...which then has to get extrapolated to be of any use. So it is an interpretation of fragments of what a great fighter knew. And when you compare that to better combat simulated free play that Bill did, I would start to question the assertion that what we have left of the great old masters is enough to constitue the be all end all in using a sword for a real fight. |
If you have fragmens of something and you are trying recreate it, then you need to look at the corresponding fragments of your work...do they match the surviving fragments? In that sense it is enough.
A lot of criticisms of the HEMA approach seem to suggest that HEMA exists in the absence of physical experimentation. This is grossly incorrect. A massive amount of physical pressure testing has been done to support (and in many cases invalidate) interpretations. The difference between this pressure testing and backyard discoveries is that in HEMA, such testing has been held to the standards of the period works and the basis for this testing was a massive research effort by many talented scholars. |
I'm not saying that HEMA doesn't do physical experiements. However you do have to admit that what you have isn't exactly a complete picture. What you fill in the blanks with is different from what other people and groups fill in the blanks with. It's like guessing what a jiggsaw puzzle looks like with 3/4 of the pieces missing...you gonna get a lot of guesses and in all likelyhood, none of it is gonna be 100% accurate. Yes you have research and fragments on your side...but I think such is over rated when you compare exactly how little that amounts to in the grand history and variety of sword usage. To think that small fragment is the be all end all is a mistake. Yes it's all we have to go on for historical context. And yes it is VERY important and valuable. But it isn't how ALL sword in the grand history of western culture was used. You have to admit exactly how much you don't know before you can say exactly what you DO know.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | FYI I was in a sword fight using sharps just once. And many other knife fights (yeah I was a hooligan in my youths). And Bill is right, if your not willing to get cut, you will get cut MORE. The other guy with a sword would always move to defend when I attacked when he could have taken my arm or leg several times had he not been so defensive and been willing to take a light hit. But then again since he was so defensive, I just used a flurry of light blows to just keep him in the defensive pretty much for the whole fight until I got one past him. If he wised up, I would be missing a limb today...well and probably dead since he did shoot me later...yeah a hooligan. Anyways, when this happened, I did kendo...and despite kendo being called a sport only (and it is), it still did not negate a useful skill when using a sharp sword when I applied what I knew from the various knife fights and sparing matches I have done. Of course the fact that my oppent was less skilled then me helped too.... |
First, it's probably not prudent to admit that in a public forum as a crime may have been involved, and I believe the moderators will soon take action. |
What crime? Don't jump to assuptions. He attacked me with a sword, I grabbed mine because it was near by. He then shot me later when he ran away after I cut his arm. I fail to see how that is a crime on my part. The reason I was in that situation was because I was being a teenage hooligan and hanging out with my friends who also were of such nature. Last I checked...none of that was a crime. And yes I carry around a pocket knife for self defense. I used it as a teenager for self defense because of the people I use to hang out with. And more as an adult. You walk around west oakland 10 years ago and it's use WILL come up. It's gotten a bit better now.
| Quote: | | However, there is a difference between being defensive the way you describe it and fighting in a manner that protects you and deals with the threat of your opponents sword. "Those with wisdom loathe the one forced to defend" is at the begining of Liechtenauer's verses. Swinging wildly without heeding incomming attacks is fighting foolishly, not just aggressively, and this is what is demonstrated in the majority of bouting clips posted to the Internet. It is possible, and proper, to attack in a way that closes your opponents most likely line of attack, this is what the vier versetzen are designed to teach us. To make it simple, fighting in a way that addresses your opponents threat is best illustrated by either a proper understanding of the vier versetzen or somethign simple like a zornhau ort play. Your opponent attacks you. Rather than swinging wildly back at him hoping to undercut and strike him frist, you cut into his attack and stop it cold, while at the same time, in a single imperfect time, thrusting along his sword into his face and killing him. This is the difference between a martially sound counter that protects you even as it takes the fight to your opponent and being on the defensive in the manner you describe. |
Yes the guy was a bad swordman. I agree. Completely. However, the point was that doing kendo wasn't useless...or a waste of time. Not only was it invaluable for some minimally useful technique, but also for reading my enemy. Had I not that training, I would probably be dead.
| Quote: | | Oh, and one last point. I don't do Fiore, but of the Liechtenauer tradition, a lot more than just a jigsaw puzzle survives. Also, our understanding of this art has come a long way, to the point where excuses about it's incompleteness no longer hold water. We have been handed the tools we need to recreate this art, and those of us interested in doing so should strive to do so dilligently. Those of us not interested in doing so should admit that and not muddy the waters. |
I actually agree that SCA and backyardians should not be mixed with HEMA. And the study of HEMA is interesting, time consuming and can be very fun and gratifing. What I disagree with is how much people who study HEMA THINK they understand and know about sword usage. Yes, there has been a lot learned...but it is STILL a jigsaw puzzle with LOTS missing. And that is only looking at a small period of time in a small geographical area...much less looking at all of europe and all of time...even present time. What Liechtenauer wrote, even if you found EVERYTHING and got to talk with the master himself would not give you all sword usage in all of europe in all of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Fults
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Grandy wrote: | | And I repeat: the word "sport" is not a bad word! |
Perhaps the important detail that makes this discussion run in loops each time it surfaces, is that its not a bad word to you. However, if it is perceived as a bad word by the other party, then it is a bad word for all intent and purpose in the debate/negotiation.
"The goal shouldn’t be to avoid being evil; it should be to actively do good." - Danah Boyd
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Tsafa
Location: Brooklyn, NY Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joe Fults wrote: | | Bill Grandy wrote: | | And I repeat: the word "sport" is not a bad word! |
Perhaps the important detail that makes this discussion run in loops each time it surfaces, is that its not a bad word to you. However, if it is perceived as a bad word by the other party, then it is a bad word for all intent and purpose in the debate/negotiation. |
I have a question for Bill Grandy. Since both he and I both fence rapier I think we will see more eye to eye on the following example. Let us consider Olympic Sports Fencing. Its just a sport right...? They don't train to actually kill people right? They use car antennas and rules. Now imagine swapping out that Epee for a Rapier and going to duel against an Olympic level fencer with no rules.... Would you do it? Would you dismiss their training as irrelevant and not functional with a Rapier? Would you bet your life on it?
I'm just curious. I'm not being a smart ass. As a rapier fencer I have asked myself the exact same question. My answer is no.
No athlete/youth can fight tenaciously who has never received any blows: he must see his blood flow and hear his teeth crack... then he will be ready for battle.
Roger of Hoveden, 1174-1201
www.poconoshooting.com
www.poconogym.com
Last edited by Bill Tsafa on Fri 29 Aug, 2008 1:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Pengryffyn
Location: Canberra, Australia Joined: 21 Jul 2008
Posts: 72
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Aug, 2008 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Several of you seem to be assuming that I'm downplaying the importance or skills of the old masters. I would have thought from what I wrote that this is obviously not true. The line "They must, therefore have had something going for them. We really don't know what that something was" is perhaps poorly stated. I was trying to suggest that in many cases there may have been a myriad of factors other than martial effectiveness that contributed to the popularity of a school- nationalistic pride, fashion, royal patronage. The further back in time we go, the less able we are to judge these factors. I was thinking especially of the earlier period, since that's what the videos and most of the comments seemed to be dealing with. For later periods, yes we have more data. We have more information about the lives of some masters and the practice of their schools than others. What I was questioning wasn't the importance or skills of the old masters, but the blanket assumption that they are the sole criterion by which to judge what constitutes a western martial art- that we know enough to assert that what they wrote negates anything subsequent.
Of course martial effectiveness is a part of martial arts. Of course many of the old masters must have had significant martial experience- we know that about a few, but not most. What I was questioning was Michael Edelson's reference to "killing blokes" as measure of martial arts credibility. Again, I would have thought that was obvious. If not, then please take this as a clarification.
What I'm mostly questioning is the assumption by several of the HEMA practitioners in this forum that the status of Western martial Art can only be applied to systems derived purely from the extant manuals, and that only techniques derived from those manuals can be considered martially effective. To my mind, Vassilis' videos are a valuable contribution, and I'd love to see more experimentation along those lines done.
I'm also questioning the tone of superiority adopted by many of the HEMA practitioners in this thread. References to "pollution", "playfighting", "stuff made up in American backyards ", "fantasy", "escape from reality", applied to all other approaches, is needlessly inflammatory. Resorting to insult and ridicule doesn't strengthen your argument, it weakens it. It simply creates the appearance of insecurity.
If someone wishes to pursue HEMA in a strict fashion, eschewing all outside the manuals (as interpreted through their practice), then that's a fine choice. I've emphasized several times my respect and admiration for the dedication and effort involved. It's not a choice all wish to make, however. In my opinion, and obviously the opinion of several others on this thread, martial effectiveness can be found outside the manuals as well as within them. Equal dedication and effort can be, and has been applied to martial practice outside the scope of the manuals. Many of us seem to agree that the term martial art need not be confined to HEMA. Some HEMA practitioners may disagree with that, that's their right. But they do themselves and their art a disservice by using a superior tone and resorting to ridicule in arguing the case.
Tradition is the illusion of permanence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You 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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic