[Luke Zechman]

Perhaps my statements above where out of context, and for that I apologize. I agree that it would be wrong to make a statement saying that what you knew was ultimate, and that everyone else was wrong. I guess what i really wanted to get across was that nobody is doing things exactly the way they had been X number of years ago. These are interpretations of the masters. What people should be doing is working on the things that work for them, enjoy themselves, and forget what anyone else has to say.

[Randall Pleasant]

[Dustin R. Reagan]

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Hello Randall,

Please don't attempt to tell me what I'm reacting to; the post was addressed to my friend and colleague Mr. Grandy. "Only this, and nothing more". My post was, in fact, an attempt to glean some useful discourse from an otherwise acrimonious thread.

I'm not commenting on the ARMA article at all; in fact, I haven't read it. Instead, I'm commenting on what Bill wrote, which relates to a subject he, Cory, and I have talked much about - which stance is appropriate.

There's been a lot of discussion trying to divine 'how they stood' in these fighting systems. And that may not be possible to determine given that a) it may not be consistent and b) using the art to answer the question can be precarious.

John may have, for all I know, a different take on this, so I can't disagree or agree, given I don't know what he thinks yet.

Best,

Christian

[Steven H]

[Randall Pleasant]

Christian

I am true sorry. Please understand given the nature of so many of the posts on this thread how easy it was for me to mis-understand your post. Again, I'm sorry.

Ran Pleasant
ARMA DFW

[Christian Henry Tobler]

Apology accepted Randall.

Best regards,

Christian

[Randall Pleasant]

[Ruel A. Macaraeg]

Randall,

Have you had a chance to speak with John and/or ARMA-Austin re: my offer to present your work at the Texas Medieval Assn. conference this month? As we discussed before, it'd at least give you an opportunity to present this "Rosetta Stone" material in a truly academic and neutral venue.

[Tom Leoni]

The issue of stance in the German tradition has been addressed by people much more knowledgeable than I.

Here's the perspective of stance in the Italian tradition: it varied greatly among masters and styles.

Our earliest record, Fiore, shows stances that by the canons of what we see 100 years later are undoubtedly moderate-to-wide. See, for instance, right posta di donna (24r), porta di ferro mezzana (26r) posta breve serpentina and posta di vera croce (37v), coda lunga and finestra (38r)--these are just a few examples.

The biggest difference between Fiore's wide stances and Meyer's is the fact that with the former, the body tends to be kept more erect.

Fast-forward a hundred years to the Bolognese, and stances become narrower (with some exceptions going either way--some with the feet all but together, others "in gran passo," in a wide stance).

Fast-forward another hundred years to the age of the rapier, and things vary even more. Some Masters like Giganti and to a lesser extent Fabris advocate a moderate stance (I know, the pictures in Giganti show otherwise, but trust me--the text is very clear); others, most prominently Marcelli, advocate a wide stance quite specifically.

Although the issue of weight-distribution is seldom discussed, the notions of tempo and the Masters themselves (when they address the issue) are clear: place your weight on the foot that is not the next to move. This is the only way to keep the other sufficiently nimble to satisfactorily take tempi as small as a change of guards from the opponent. The one exception is Fiore, whose illustrations point to a more even distribution of the weight.

Here's the conclusion to this:

1 - Historically, there is no "one" way to view stances. Narrow, moderate and wide stances have their place, since Masters give us their valid reasons to use all three. At this point, your choice of stance depends on the choice of master you study. Using a single stance for all historical martial arts may be martial but it becomes a different beast from a historical perspective.

2 - Those who have been practicing historical martial arts correctly know quite well where to keep their weight. Without waxing poetic or cavillating on semantics, weight is either centered or it is distributed unevenly between the feet. In historical Italian martial arts, the benefits of one and the other are quite clear, and they work for the art and the context in which it was practiced.

Tom

[Randall Pleasant]

[Jean-Carle Hudon]

I have re-read the thread a couple of times, wondering if my musings on the Rosetta Stone's innapropriate use was maybe a bit harsh. I come to the conclusion that they weren't. Worse, I have to question why the thread was started in the first place as the basic text does not offer the substance of what is being discussed, but is rather an announcement of sorts, while the person who will deal with the substantive issues remains in the background. This ressembles a marketing device, as old as John the Baptist, where the disciple goes forth to announce the act to come to arouse the interest of the community. In such a setting, the use of exageration to present the product is not unusual. It is like the drumroll at the beginning of an act, or the publicity campaign for a ''new'' product.
It respects the publicity world's adage : '' Parlez-en en bien, parlez-en en mal, mais parlez-en'', which roughly translates to '' Critique it or complement it, but keep talking about it'', in other words, create a buzz so that the community will want to check out the end product when it finally arrives. Good marketing. It sure has worked its magic in this thread.

[James Head]

[Steven H]

[Randall Pleasant]

[Patrick De Block]

When is the (deleted four letter word) John Clements going to publish that article. It's all his fault. I can't sleep anymore, I already need to take sedatives.

[Steven H]

[Randall Pleasant]

[Jean-Carle Hudon]

Mr Pleasant,
I am reminded of an old Monty Python routine about '' I didn't come here to be insulted, I came for an argument...'' '' No you didn't'' and so on...Now you refer to the posts to which you cannot respond as being silly, and we should all await until you are sufficiently ''bored'' to read what you have to say. We are a long way from the enlightenment promised in the first posting with the Rosetta Stone and all that. I will wait for your futur posts with great anticipation, as I await the Monty Python reunification.
I really laughed hard at the scene with the french guard on the wall shouting down to the knights below, with their coconut horses, that he '' poofed on you, you silly king'', and can't help but think that this is the image you wish to leave us with, we silly people who question your motivation and are insufficiently appreciative of your Master's musings.

[James Head]