Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Edge to Flat Cuts Video Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next 
Author Message
Travis Canaday




Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 145

PostPosted: Fri 08 Jun, 2007 6:44 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall,

Randall Pleasant wrote:
Guy Windsor stated on another form that he experienced enough edge damage that he changed the way he performed parries, noting that hitting the flat did not cause that type of damage (check some of the other thread here on myArmoury for a direct quote of Mr. Windsor).


As you have mentioned this before, I thought I would post what Guy Windsor said (This was posted on the last discussion about this by Risto Rautiainen.):

Guy Windsor wrote:
"Taking comments out of context is poor scholarship. What I actually wrote meant that in my opinion, one should parry with your edge, as the most stable part of your weapon, but do so where possible against his flat, for maximum effect and minimum damage to your sword. However many of the documentable techniques do involve edge contact, with attendant damage to the weapon, which was clearly acceptable to our forebears. That's what sword-sharpeners are for. This argument is a decade old and was daft enough when it started. I see no reason to continue it here."


As Greg Mele pointed out earlier... "Only the parrying sword defines the parry." It seems that Guy isn't on quite the same side of the argument that you and ARMA are on. Hitting the other person's flat might be the ideal, but doesn't seem to be too big an issue for Mr. Windsor.

Chad,

I realize this really isn't adding any new information, and probably won't be changing any minds; As Randall has mentioned Guy Windsor's name in support of his position more than once, I thought I would put up Guy's quotation.

Travis
View user's profile Send private message
Jason G. Smith




Location: Quebec
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 130

PostPosted: Fri 08 Jun, 2007 7:23 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Craig Peters wrote:
M. Eversberg II wrote:
I read the last argument (well, portions of it till it became...no.) about this and I implore all of you to cut it out please.

Question for Craig: "Nebenhut" is a guard you mentioned early on. I am assuming this is another name for "Alber", the "fools guard"?

M.


No, Nebenhut is not the same as Alber, though it's similar. It's basically the position one finds one's self in after finishing a descending diagonal cut, starting right and finishing on the left. Like the other guards, it can be adopted from both sides.


Sorry if this has been addressed, but to my knowledge, a Nebenhut on the left is called a Wechselhut, and the point is forward, not back. Crossing your hands on the left is weak, IMO. Just an aside...

Les Maîtres d'Armes
Member of the
Chivalric Fighting Arts Association

... above all, you should feel in your conscience that your quarrel is good and just. - Le Jeu de la Hache


Last edited by Jason G. Smith on Fri 08 Jun, 2007 7:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Jason G. Smith




Location: Quebec
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 130

PostPosted: Fri 08 Jun, 2007 7:32 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Bill Grandy wrote:
Actually, I said that I do the first play of the zornhau as a thrust to the face, as the text says to do. And I said that if the opponent is too close, it becomes a cut instead.

To be clear, I do practice countercuts by stepping offline and using a zornhau. But I feel the first play of the zornhau is actually safer to perform if the situation allows it.


This would be my understanding as well, as I think we concluded on that *other* thread. I've been mulling this over and trying it different ways since that discussion, and it all comes down to timing and distance, as well as angle of attack.

Les Maîtres d'Armes
Member of the
Chivalric Fighting Arts Association

... above all, you should feel in your conscience that your quarrel is good and just. - Le Jeu de la Hache
View user's profile Send private message
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team


myArmoury Team

Location: Alexandria, VA USA
Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Reading list: 43 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 4,153

PostPosted: Fri 08 Jun, 2007 7:48 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Jason G. Smith wrote:

Sorry if this has been addressed, but to my knowledge, a Nebenhut on the left is called a Wechselhut, and the point is forward, not back. Crossing your hands on the left is weak, IMO. Just an aside...


It actually depends on the master and time period. Meyer (16th c.) shows wechselhut on the left and nebenhut on the right. But Ringeck (15th c.) shows several plays from nebenhut, in which he says that they can be done in either a right or left nebenhut, but that they work better from the left.

Virginia Academy of Fencing Historical Swordsmanship
--German Longsword & Italian Rapier in the DC Area--


"A despondent heart will always be defeated regardless of skill."
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Joel Whitmore




Location: Simmesport, LA
Joined: 25 Aug 2003

Posts: 342

PostPosted: Fri 08 Jun, 2007 7:55 pm    Post subject: Mythical proportions         Reply with quote

This discussion is reaching the level of internet mythology that only "Do Balrogs Have wings?" debates achieved!

Joel
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Jason G. Smith




Location: Quebec
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 130

PostPosted: Fri 08 Jun, 2007 8:12 pm    Post subject: Re: Mythical proportions         Reply with quote

Joel Whitmore wrote:
This discussion is reaching the level of internet mythology that only "Do Balrogs Have wings?" debates achieved!

Joel


ROFL! Who told you I still lived in my parents' baseme... oops!

Les Maîtres d'Armes
Member of the
Chivalric Fighting Arts Association

... above all, you should feel in your conscience that your quarrel is good and just. - Le Jeu de la Hache
View user's profile Send private message
Jason G. Smith




Location: Quebec
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 130

PostPosted: Fri 08 Jun, 2007 8:14 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Bill Grandy wrote:

It actually depends on the master and time period. Meyer (16th c.) shows wechselhut on the left and nebenhut on the right. But Ringeck (15th c.) shows several plays from nebenhut, in which he says that they can be done in either a right or left nebenhut, but that they work better from the left.


Gotcha, and after reviewing the literature - you're right. Mea Culpa.

Les Maîtres d'Armes
Member of the
Chivalric Fighting Arts Association

... above all, you should feel in your conscience that your quarrel is good and just. - Le Jeu de la Hache
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Pleasant




Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Joined: 24 Aug 2003

Posts: 333

PostPosted: Fri 08 Jun, 2007 9:52 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Travis Canaday wrote:
Randall,

Randall Pleasant wrote:
Guy Windsor stated on another form that he experienced enough edge damage that he changed the way he performed parries, noting that hitting the flat did not cause that type of damage (check some of the other thread here on myArmoury for a direct quote of Mr. Windsor).


As you have mentioned this before, I thought I would post what Guy Windsor said (This was posted on the last discussion about this by Risto Rautiainen.):

Guy Windsor wrote:
"Taking comments out of context is poor scholarship. What I actually wrote meant that in my opinion, one should parry with your edge, as the most stable part of your weapon, but do so where possible against his flat, for maximum effect and minimum damage to your sword. However many of the documentable techniques do involve edge contact, with attendant damage to the weapon, which was clearly acceptable to our forebears. That's what sword-sharpeners are for. This argument is a decade old and was daft enough when it started. I see no reason to continue it here."


As Greg Mele pointed out earlier... "Only the parrying sword defines the parry." It seems that Guy isn't on quite the same side of the argument that you and ARMA are on. Hitting the other person's flat might be the ideal, but doesn't seem to be too big an issue for Mr. Windsor.

Chad,

I realize this really isn't adding any new information, and probably won't be changing any minds; As Randall has mentioned Guy Windsor's name in support of his position more than once, I thought I would put up Guy's quotation.


Travis

If you are going to quote me and reply to that quote then please take the time to read what I wrote. At no time did I say that Guy was on my side. I simply said that Guy wrote on another forum that he experienced enough edge damage that he changed the manner in which he performed parries and that he understood that an edge-on-edge impact causes much more damage than and edge-to-flat impact.

I said this in the last thread and I will repeat it here. Guy's statements were absolutely not taken out of context. As a researcher, author, and instructor Guy cannot expect his statements on a public forum to not be quoted. Also, please note that edge damage was indeed a big enough issue for Guy that he felt the need to comment about it on a public forum.

In regard to what to call the parries John Clements performs in his videos I will repeat to you what I replied to Greg Mele. I don't care if you call it an "edge-to-flat" parry or if you call it a "flat-to-edge" parry. But John Clements parries cannot be called "edge-to-edge" parries.

Also, in the mist of these discussions please don't over look the fact that that all of the parries John Clements demonstrate in the video are extremely effective against very powerful cuts and don't damage his blade!

Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW
View user's profile Send private message
Risto Rautiainen




Location: Kontiolahti, Finland
Joined: 23 Feb 2004
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 176

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 3:22 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Pleasant wrote:
Guy Windsor stated on another form that he experienced enough edge damage that he changed the way he performed parries, noting that hitting the flat did not cause that type of damage (check some of the other thread here on myArmoury for a direct quote of Mr. Windsor).


Yes. But here you don't know how he changed his parries. You don't know if he uses edge-to-edge or edge-to-flat only. Yet your writings leave the reader believe that he has abandoned edge to edge parries because of this damage. At least that's how I would understand your statements as an uninformed reader. It seems I'm not the only one. And for your information, we do use edge to edge parries and even sometimes use the occured damage to our advantage. Eek! (I'm not going to go into detail here, if you want more information you can contact Mr. Windsor by e-mail through our website: www.swordschool.com) So yes, you can use Guy's post to validate the fact that edge to edge damage happens and it affects the way we parry, but please, don't let people believe that he's changed his intepretation towards the ARMA way, as there are significant differences.

Cheers,
Risto Rautiainen
School of European Swordmanship, Lappeenranta
www.swordschool.com
View user's profile Send private message
Travis Canaday




Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 145

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 4:34 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Pleasant wrote:
At no time did I say that Guy was on my side. I simply said that Guy wrote on another forum that he experienced enough edge damage that he changed the manner in which he performed parries and that he understood that an edge-on-edge impact causes much more damage than and edge-to-flat impact.

True… you never explicitly stated that Guy Windsor was in the same camp as Clements and the ARMA gang on the whole edge vs. flat issue (the zombie issue that won’t die). However, the implication is that Guy agrees with ARMA’s stance that edge on edge contact is incorrect and always to be avoided.

Randall Pleasant wrote:
Also, please note that edge damage was indeed a big enough issue for Guy that he felt the need to comment about it on a public forum.

Maybe so, but clearly Guy is well aware that “many of the documentable techniques do involve edge contact, with attendant damage to the weapon, which was clearly acceptable to our forebears.”

Randall Pleasant wrote:
In regard to what to call the parries John Clements performs in his videos I will repeat to you what I replied to Greg Mele. I don't care if you call it an "edge-to-flat" parry or if you call it a "flat-to-edge" parry. But John Clements parries cannot be called "edge-to-edge" parries.


So your point is that John believes that proper technique shouldn’t include edge to edge contact. Clearly Guy doesn’t agree with this, and I thought by posting his quotation it would make that nice and clear.

I don’t think it is very analogous to compare modern soldiers and their mud dragged rifles to a medieval man (of whatever type) and his chipped up sword. The fact is a sword was a back up weapon, and if it got nicked up, so be it; it wasn’t one's main battlefield weapon. A sword would be sharpened as needed until it had to be replaced. I think it is a bit of a myth that swords were this really special thing, hard to produce, and incredibly expensive. Many swords that were produced were no doubt just tools made to be used, and expected to wear out.

Travis
View user's profile Send private message
Vincent Le Chevalier




Location: Paris, France
Joined: 07 Dec 2005
Reading list: 15 books

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 847

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 4:49 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

There is a point of view that I feel is not discussed that often in these discussions, that is the one of the attacker.

Please mentally prefix each of my sentences below by "In my humble opinion" as I'm obviously no expert in longsword Wink (and for some strange reason it seems those debates essentially happen among longsword enthusiasts).

Let's say I'm the attacker. I'm launching a strike. From here there are several possibilities depending on the quality of my strike and the level of my opponent:

1) If my strike is telegraphed, false time, or my opponent has a superior mastery of the art than me, no hard contact will likely happen. He will either void my strike or stifle it and counter in the same motion, or even counter before my attack is fully launched.

If there is blade contact, it will happen at an angle, with weapons glancing on each other. Flat on edge, edge on flat, or even edge on edge but with such a narrow angle or low relative speed that the damage is not a concern.

In other words in this case the nature of the blade contact is not determined by a concern from either fighter to preserve his edge, but rather results from the dynamics of the action. I have the impression that many here agree about that.

2) If my strike is really good, or my opponent was not focused, or he is an absolute beginner, he will likely attempt a hard static block to save his life. It will be my weak against his strong normally, because that's the most natural outcome (or he has missed a counter on my arm, but in that case I'd think my strike would actually go through his parry). This is good from my attacker's perspective, because I keep the initiative. He is restricted to acting in two times if he goes for the static block. That is why Thibault for example advises against this move (he is a rapier master but I think the idea translates well to any weapon). From what I heard it was clearly not the prefered way, but it can happen.

Of course there will be hard blade impact (at least that is what my opponent expects), and two sub-cases:

a) He blocks with the edge. Depending on the strike and on his position, this could be the most obvious way. Anyhow it is the strongest way to block (not that anything else is impossible, but it will be weaker or more difficult to perform). And from my attacker's perspective, it bothers me to no end. I'm going to strike full force, edge on, my weak on his strong, and there will not be that much give in the impact. So, even if I think that he is a fool for parrying this way, I'm actually risking more than him. Maybe he will damage his sword, but surely he will damage mine, in its most fragile spot (and Viggiani was quoted in the previous discussion as saying just that).

I have little hope of striking through his sword in this position. The thing I think I would do is actually pulling my strike to lessen the impact, from which I have little to gain. But at least I won't break my sword. And then we are in a bind. He has regained a bit of initiative in the process.

b) He blocks with his flat. I'm then nearly sure there will be no damage done to my sword. I have nothing to gain by pulling my strike. So I land it full force on his flat (that could actually damage his sword a bit). He has to be a bit more tensed to withstand that. Maybe his sword will start to vibrate, maybe mine will bounce back, because of the flexibility of the swords. He loses part of his "sentiment du fer" (I'm sure there is a German name for that as well Wink ). His reaction has meant nothing for me, in the sense that there was no danger neither for me nor for my sword at any time, so that I never need to react or adjust my moves.

We end up at the bind, but I'm maybe in a more favorable position than in the previous case, because I have my edge against his flat. I could be wrong about that, but it seems that this is generally preferable (as was cited in the previous discussion the masters specifically said so when using the flat to bind gave an advantage).



To conclude, it would make some sense to me if the reasoning behind edge parries was: "I'm not going to hurt him, so I might as well threaten his sword as much as I can, and end up in a more even position."

I don't know if any master ever taught that. It is an idea I had during my practice in kenjutsu, because the school I study depicts a good deal of edge to edge contact (some are disguised counters, but some are really difficult to perform that way...). I don't think anyone believes that hard edge on edge impact would not damage the swords, but maybe we should not overlook the reaction that the attacker can have when faced with such a block. After all, ideally all strikes should be controlled, in order not to leave gaping openings in case of a miss, so isn't it possible to stop the strike before contact?

And I for one see some value in these discussions (as long as they remain civil, of course), because they are a place where both sides give their opinion, so that normally the overall view is less biased than it would be in an article from either side. Even if the proponents from both side will never jump ship, it's interesting for those like me who do not have a ship in the first place Happy

Regards,

--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo


Last edited by Vincent Le Chevalier on Sat 09 Jun, 2007 4:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Craig Peters




PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 5:21 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Vincent,

That's an interesting perspective from which to look at this discussion. The problem is that I'm not sure how much ecological validity it has. If you're fencing against someone who is skilled, they're going to be striking in such a way that even if you block or parry the cut, their strong is going to be against your weak, in which case you really haven't protected yourself all that well, because the attacker still holds the initiative and now is in a good position in the bind.

The other thing is that even if the flat deflections appear more difficult to do at first, they're actually not with a little bit of practice, and as you can see in the videos, they leave one in an excellent position to regain the initiative and cause harm to one's foe. Thus, the rather small amount of effort it takes to learn to ward off blows in this manner would be more than worth it for the benefit of the end position you're left in, not to mention the fact that you don't damage your sword. As I mentioned in the other thread, damaging your edges can potentially impede your ability to cause harm to your foe and protect yourself.

I don't think a single master taught the philosophy that you describe here. The masters were all about ensuring that you were protected and that it was your enemy that got hurt- it's part of the philosophy necessary to being a master, really- and thus techniques with this philosophy in mind are not really worth teaching or practicing because of their extremely limited usefulness, and the likliness you'll be killed.
View user's profile Send private message
Risto Rautiainen




Location: Kontiolahti, Finland
Joined: 23 Feb 2004
Reading list: 10 books

Posts: 176

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 5:29 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Excellent post Vincent!

Vincent Le Chevalier wrote:
I have little hope of striking through his sword in this position. The thing I think I would do is actually pulling my strike to lessen the impact, from which I have little to gain. But at least I won't break my sword. And then we are in a bind. He has regained a bit of initiative in the process.


If I understand corrently, Fiore's Punta Falsa is a quite similiar situation as this is, but you actually gain quite a lot.

PS. Ditto on the expert stuff, I really don't know a lot.
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Pleasant




Location: Flower Mound, Texas
Joined: 24 Aug 2003

Posts: 333

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 6:44 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Risto

Thanks for joining these friendly discussions.

Risto Rautiainen wrote:
Randall Pleasant wrote:
Guy Windsor stated on another form that he experienced enough edge damage that he changed the way he performed parries, noting that hitting the flat did not cause that type of damage (check some of the other thread here on myArmoury for a direct quote of Mr. Windsor).

Yes. But here you don't know how he changed his parries. You don't know if he uses edge-to-edge or edge-to-flat only. Yet your writings leave the reader believe that he has abandoned edge to edge parries because of this damage. At least that's how I would understand your statements as an uninformed reader.

My summary of Guy's statements is very clear and very direct. There were three points: 1) Guy experienced edge damage, 2) that damage was caused by edge-on-edge impacts, 3) the damage was significat enough that Guy changed some part of his interpretations. I have not said anything beyound that and what I stated is fully within the context of Guy's statements.


Quote:
So yes, you can use Guy's post to validate the fact that edge to edge damage happens and it affects the way we parry...

This I have done.

Quote:
...please, don't let people believe that he's changed his intepretation towards the ARMA way, as there are significant differences.

This I have never said that Guy is in ARMA camp on this issue, only that he experienced some of the same type of damage we warn against.

All the best,

Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW


Last edited by Randall Pleasant on Sat 09 Jun, 2007 6:46 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Lancelot Chan
Industry Professional



Location: Hong Kong
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Likes: 2 pages

Posts: 1,273

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 6:46 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Just to add some information to the discussion Vincent brought up with. While I've never received full force striking with my flat, thus not sure about if my sword's flat could take it or not, striking at the opponent's flat with my edge will absolutely blunt the immediate area of contact of my blade. So I wouldn't consider striking at someone's flat wouldn't damage my sword. At least it won't slice anymore. Even a winding move after the bind would blunt the area of the edge that contacted the opponent's blade. As a result, I've found that a sharp sword's edge is pretty fragile. Any contact with the opponent's sword would turn it blunt in no time.
Ancient Combat Association —http://www.acahk.org
Realistic Sparring Weapons — http://www.rsw.com.hk
Nightstalkers — http://www.nightstalkers.com.hk
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Greg Coffman




Location: Lubbock, TX
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Reading list: 4 books

Posts: 254

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 10:07 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Mr. Chan, not knowing the swords you are working with, it sounds like your swords have either too thin, too keen, or too soft an edge.

Edge to edge contact is not the same as edge to edge parries. ARMA doesn't like edge to edge parries but we have never said that there won't be edge to edge parries.

With blade damage, some is to be expected. With normal usage nicks and scratches are normal. However, much more serious edge damage can result from hard edge to edge parries which then cannot be grinded out easily or without substantial reshaping of the blade. That is what I have been taught.

For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12
View user's profile Send private message
Travis Canaday




Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 145

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 11:49 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Pleasant wrote:
There were three points: 1) Guy experienced edge damage, 2) that damage was caused by edge-on-edge impacts, 3) the damage was significat enough that Guy changed some part of his interpretations. I have not said anything beyound that and what I stated is fully within the context of Guy's statements.


Your first two points are clear enough, but your third point doesn't have that much relevance unless you can explain how Guy changed his interpretations.

These are my two points: 1) Guy uses edge on edge parries, 2) Guy understands that historically correct technique includes edge on edge parries.

Do you think Guy has come to this conclusion because he has been “so bombarded by decades of bad movie and TV fighting?” Perhaps he has been influenced by modern fencing or sport fencing. This is Clement’s suggestion of why people just don’t “get it.” Clearly Guy and his students have fenced at speed with intent, using steel, and they have come to different conclusions.

Travis
View user's profile Send private message
Christian Henry Tobler
Industry Professional



Location: Oxford, CT
Joined: 25 Aug 2003

Posts: 690

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 12:14 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Randall Pleasant wrote:
This I have never said that Guy is in ARMA camp on this issue, only that he experienced some of the same type of damage we warn against.


No Randall, in the now locked thread, you inferred that Guy was now in your department:

"It seems that Guy Windsor has recent reached the same conclusions about edge-on-edge damage that John Clements and ARMA have been advocating for well over ten years. Simple edge-on-edge tests with sharp swords can indeed be very enlightening! "

Your use of the word 'advocating' indicates not just that edges get damaged, and that Guy recognizes this, but that this is supportive of John's contentions about parrying.

Guy's read on this remark was the same, which is why Risto posted his response from him.

This represents a pattern of disingenuous behavior on this thread and others by you. And, this is largely why this tedious subject keeps getting dragged out into the open here, having run out of steam long ago on other fora. A thread is started, usually accompanying yet another piece of two to four year old ARMA video under the guise of it being some public service announcement - something of 'possible interest to everyone'. Instead, it's intended to proselytize people into a position that has been thoroughly debunked through citation of period text, some of which, most especially Greg Mele's quotes from Viggiani, are explicit and transparent in their meaning.

If you were merely a fanatic about an untenable point, that would be one thing. But you quote others out of context, and then when confronted by that, deny it.

I agree with Chad Arnow that, while this thread has on the whole been more polite, that it's become extremely tiresome that this subject is popping up repeatedly on this forum, despite the repeated standoffs it creates. It really is time to let it go and stop bringing up the subject over and over again by posting 'innocuous' videos - we all know why that's happening by now.

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
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
Jason G. Smith




Location: Quebec
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Likes: 1 page

Posts: 130

PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 12:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Christian Henry Tobler wrote:


No Randall, in the now locked thread, you inferred that Guy was now in your department:

"It seems that Guy Windsor has recent reached the same conclusions about edge-on-edge damage that John Clements and ARMA have been advocating for well over ten years. Simple edge-on-edge tests with sharp swords can indeed be very enlightening! "

[... snip ... ]


I agree with Chad Arnow that, while this thread has on the whole been more polite, that it's become extremely tiresome that this subject is popping up repeatedly on this forum, despite the repeated standoffs it creates. It really is time to let it go and stop bringing up the subject over and over again by posting 'innocuous' videos - we all know why that's happening by now.

Christian


I didn't quote the entirety of that message in order to keep this short, but I wanted to say, Christian - well said, right on the money, and much more politely than I ever would have - which is why I refrained from getting into this argument. You're a true gentleman. Thank you for expressing my thoughts!

Les Maîtres d'Armes
Member of the
Chivalric Fighting Arts Association

... above all, you should feel in your conscience that your quarrel is good and just. - Le Jeu de la Hache
View user's profile Send private message
Craig Peters




PostPosted: Sat 09 Jun, 2007 1:43 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It seems to me that nearly everyone here is not arguing about the martial efficacy of the techniques demonstrated in the videos. It's fairly obvious that what was demonstrated there worked at speed, with force and intensity. This is why I don't understand how people can automatically rule out techniques with obvious martial efficacy because "Well that's not MY interpretation of what the manuals say, so therefore it can't be right". Such an attitude is not a very good way to evaluate techniques, nor is it particularly conducive to one's own growth in historic European martial arts. Remember, what we're talking about here is an interpretation. There's lots of different interpretations out there, so our only real way to evaluate them and compare them against each other is based on their martial efficacy, and if the text can be interpreted to support a particular execution of the technique.

So the least that you can do, therefore, is at least try out the techniques. Give them a whirl, and see how they work for you. If you're having trouble getting them to work, have another look at the video to see how the ARMA guys are doing it; there's no shame in checking to see how they're performing it. You might find that they work well and that its worth reconsidering your interpretation of the source text. The same goes for the video interpretation of the Zornhaw as well.

If you're not even willing to try the techniques, it makes me wonder if this is really about which interpretation is the closest to what the text says, or whether it's about the fact that you don't want to admit that someone else might have a better interpretation than your own.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Edge to Flat Cuts Video
Page 3 of 9 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
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 2003-2019 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum