| Author |
Message |
Michael Edelson
|
 Posted: Mon 23 Nov, 2009 4:57 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: |
As for cutting through or stopping in long point, I think both must be practiced since both are obviously described., |
Vincent, sometimes you say the cleverest things. 
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
   |
 |
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Nov, 2009 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | I find it odd that you would use Meyer but not Talhoffer. However, intetersting thing about Meyer--he clearly describes two types of cuts. The half cut, ending in langenort, and the full cut, ending in wechselhau. He describes them as being cuts to the center and through the center. |
Hi Michael,
I don't use Meyer--I only quote him to see what he's doing *differently* from what earlier masters--the ones I study--do. And I do use Talhoffer: He's one of my favorite sources. I also take everything he does with a grain of salt because while he's obviously connected with the Liechtenauer school, he's also a bit of an outlier in some things. Moreover, his books are all drawings, and as everyone knows the pictorial sources can be problematic when compared with the written ones. What's the rule? If the pictures disagree with the text, you should tend to go with the text.
As for Meyer's cuts, Bill Carew and I are debating this on another list. These full cuts are exactly what Döbringer warns against when he talks about masters of play fighting which cut wide and long, and which belong only in Schulfechten (Hs 3227a ff. 14r-v).
| Quote: | | Also, Liechteanauer divides the body into four openings, two upper openings and two lower openings. These are not, last I checked, the bottom of the head and the top of the head on both sides. |
No, they aren't. You didn't follow what I was talking about: Meyer shows the division of the body into four quarters, then he says that that breakdown was useful in the old days when the ancients could do thrusting, but since he couldn't do thrusting, and since cuts mostly go to the head, he focused more on the head for cutting, so the old breakdown wasn't as useful to him. That was my point of quoting Meyer--to show that, in his opinion, the lower quarters were, apparently, best for thrusting. Clearly this goes along with your notion about cutting through clothing, since the lower quarters of the body are covered in clothing. Then I supported that by showing that Ringeck only recommends thrusts to these lowere quarters, not cuts.
| Quote: | | Dismissing Talhoffer is a hefty price to pay for being true to your interpretation of 3227a, but even so, the lower hangers are not langenort. And if not, why don't you cut into Pflug from the oberhau? |
I. Did. Not. Dismiss. Talhoffer. I said the one picture you showed is contrary to Döbringer's instructions and the other picture isn't clear. And the one that's contrary to Döbringer (the Unterhau) could be nothing but bad art--that's why we tend to take pictorial sources that contradict written text with a grain of salt. Even so, I didn't dismiss either--re-read my post, I said his picture was confusing, which is different from dismissing it out of hand.
As for cutting into the Hengen, Pflug is not a Hengen (else we wouldn't have to have both the guards and the Hengen, right??), and moreover, I think Döbringer expresses a principle here, not a strictly-defined technique. He's saying to cut in such a way that you can bring your point online easily after a cut. Langenort does that the same way cutting into any of the Hengen does. The point is that whoever you cut, you end the cut so your point is threatening your opponent, not hanging out to the side from a wide cut. Cutting to Langenort is something I take from Kal and other sources who show it clearly.
| Hugh Knight wrote: |
Oh, and as for test cutting? What makes you think I haven't done it? |
Well...
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | As you know, I don't do test cutting, |
"Don't do it" is different from "never did it", Michael. I did it, realized it was flawed and that it created misconceptions and very bad habits, then stopped.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
 |
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Nov, 2009 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: |
As for cutting through or stopping in long point, I think both must be practiced since both are obviously described., |
Vincent, sometimes you say the cleverest things. |
Michael,
Can either you or Vincent show any place the cutting through is described in any German Ernstfechten source, not counting the very confusing Talhoffer picture you showed earlier? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I can't remember ever seeing it. All the sources I have seem to be silent on the subject or to agree with Döbringer that these wide cuts belong only in Schulfechten (hence why Meyer specifically describes it).
The only specific exception I can think of is the Wechselhau (plays of the Nebenhut in Ringeck) in which case you cut too far only to lure your opponent in. No other source seems to specifically describe this.
As for Vincent's comments about cutting with an arming sword, remember that I.33 says that all cuts end in Langenort:
"Note that the entire heart of the art of combat lies in this final guard, which is called Longpoint; and all actions of the sword finish or have their conclusion in this one, and not in the others." (Forgeng 2003 p. 23)
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Nov, 2009 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Hugh,
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | Can either you or Vincent show any place the cutting through is described in any German Ernstfechten source, not counting the very confusing Talhoffer picture you showed earlier? |
Actually I was speaking more in general, as I said I don't do German longsword. I think your dismissal of the whole of Meyer is a bit quick though, for a start we'd have to check if Meyer uses half and full cuts with his rappir as well... I remember seeing positions that looked suspiciously like the end of a full cut but I'm sure someone far more versed in Meyer could tell one way or another quickly.
I think the wide arching cuts are something else, something that wouldn't even work in a sport setting. Cuts that take the long way around to reach their targets, not cuts that travel through. Things that are still seen today in fight choregraphy, and that are wrong on a more fundamental level.
Aside from that, there are plenty of sources that describe the full cut in earnest combat (not medieval German ernstfechten, but life and death still). The cuts in Fabris are full cuts, and yet he surely knew about the value of having the point towards the enemy. The cuts in the Montante drills are full as well. Thibault shows cuts from a two-handed sword, and these are full cuts too (by the way, those interested in cutting mechanics should check these plates, they are freeze-framed actions, meaning you can analyze what moves when pretty well).
So maybe these cuts are trivial to counter when thrusting is allowed, with longswords, when you're a medieval German. I don't know and I don't care as long as this is not a principle put forward as universal to everything everywhere
| Quote: | As for Vincent's comments about cutting with an arming sword, remember that I.33 says that all cuts end in Langenort:
"Note that the entire heart of the art of combat lies in this final guard, which is called Longpoint; and all actions of the sword finish or have their conclusion in this one, and not in the others." (Forgeng 2003 p. 23) |
And remember too that the illustration right beside this passage shows a very low point, not really threatening at all, 45 degrees down. It seems to me that the longpoint in i.33 has a more general meaning than pointed right at the enemy.
Regards,
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Maxwell
Location: New Zealand Joined: 03 May 2009
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Nov, 2009 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | | Hugh Knight wrote: |
As for Vincent's comments about cutting with an arming sword, remember that I.33 says that all cuts end in Langenort:
"Note that the entire heart of the art of combat lies in this final guard, which is called Longpoint; and all actions of the sword finish or have their conclusion in this one, and not in the others." (Forgeng 2003 p. 23) |
And remember too that the illustration right beside this passage shows a very low point, not really threatening at all, 45 degrees down. It seems to me that the longpoint in i.33 has a more general meaning than pointed right at the enemy. |
I have to say, I have always thought of it as longpoints rather than longpoint in MS I:33, as there seem to be several. And the priest's special longpoint actually points back- interestingly, it seems more similar to nebenhut than anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Nov, 2009 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew Maxwell wrote: | | I have to say, I have always thought of it as longpoints rather than longpoint in MS I:33, as there seem to be several. And the priest's special longpoint actually points back- interestingly, it seems more similar to nebenhut than anything else. |
Indeed Andrew, there are at least four variants of longpoint in the work that I remember: the standard straight forward longpoint, the low longpoint, the high longpoint, and the priest's special longpoint. All could be the end of cuts, only one threatens with the point...
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Nov, 2009 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | | Actually I was speaking more in general, as I said I don't do German longsword. I think your dismissal of the whole of Meyer is a bit quick though, for a start we'd have to check if Meyer uses half and full cuts with his rappir as well... I remember seeing positions that looked suspiciously like the end of a full cut but I'm sure someone far more versed in Meyer could tell one way or another quickly. |
I would never dismiss Meyer: I think his sytem is fascinating, although I don't practice it. As to the rapier, what does that have to do with it?
| Quote: | | I think the wide arching cuts are something else, something that wouldn't even work in a sport setting. Cuts that take the long way around to reach their targets, not cuts that travel through. Things that are still seen today in fight choregraphy, and that are wrong on a more fundamental level. |
Well, Meyer must have thought they worked, because he taught them. He *shows* them!!! He starts with his sword way, way behind his back (the guard of wrath) and then shows cutting all the way to the ground with his sword actually pointing backward. Almost what? 315 degrees of motion, or maybe even more? It's tough to imagine how "wide and long" (as Döbringer put it) doesn't apply to that! Look at the Wrath Guard in Meyer: The large figure on the left on plate E (p. 113 in Forgeng) and the end position of the cut of wrath on plate D as demonstrated by the large figure on the right (Forgeng p. 112).
| Quote: | | Aside from that, there are plenty of sources that describe the full cut in earnest combat (not medieval German ernstfechten, but life and death still). The cuts in Fabris are full cuts, and yet he surely knew about the value of having the point towards the enemy. The cuts in the Montante drills are full as well. Thibault shows cuts from a two-handed sword, and these are full cuts too (by the way, those interested in cutting mechanics should check these plates, they are freeze-framed actions, meaning you can analyze what moves when pretty well). |
No question. There are plenty of schools of swordsmanship that use wide cuts, just not, apparently, German Ernstfechten. My comments weren't intended to say no one ever used them or that they couldn't be made to work, only that one specific school didn't apparently use them. German schools of Ringen didn't use the vertical wrist lock found in many Japanese schools of jujutsu: This isn't a condemnation of the vertical wrist lock, merely a statement that it wasn't used by a specific group.
| Quote: | | So maybe these cuts are trivial to counter when thrusting is allowed, with longswords, when you're a medieval German. I don't know and I don't care as long as this is not a principle put forward as universal to everything everywhere |
Not at all. Lots of schools used wide swings. Who ever said it was a universal principle?
| Quote: | | And remember too that the illustration right beside this passage shows a very low point, not really threatening at all, 45 degrees down. It seems to me that the longpoint in i.33 has a more general meaning than pointed right at the enemy. |
Actually, the point is still pretty much on line, even in the lowest version (and you're ignoring the higher long points in I.33). All you have to do is raise your point very, very slightly to thrust. Thus, this is still a controlled cut with the point still on the enemy's center line, not a wild swing all the way to the ground where your momentum makes it hard to react to another action.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Nov, 2009 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Hugh,
It appears that you're picking and choosing what to take from what sources, so arguing with you about any of it would be counter productive. I could show you something, and you could then say "well I take that with a grain of salt" because it doesn't agree with you. I'm not saying that's a bad thing necessarily, but it makes it very difficult to have this exchange with you.
btw... 3227a, VD and Ringeck all say strike to the head OR body with the vorschlaag.
| Hugh Knight wrote: |
Can either you or Vincent show any place the cutting through is described in any German Ernstfechten source, not counting the very confusing Talhoffer picture you showed earlier? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I can't remember ever seeing it. All the sources I have seem to be silent on the subject or to agree with Döbringer that these wide cuts belong only in Schulfechten (hence why Meyer specifically describes it). |
Yes.
Here you go:
| Von Danzig wrote: |
Gloss – Note, this is the first skill of the longsword, that, before all things, you should learn how to strike correctly if you should wish to fight strongly. And understand this thus: when you stand with your left leg forward and strike from your right side, if you do not follow the stroke with a step forward of your right foot, then the strike is false and incorrect. When your right side stays behind, thus is the strike too short and cannot have its correct path to the other side before and above the left foot. Or if you stand with your right foot forward and strike from the left <10v> side, again if you do not follow the stroke with the left foot, then the strike is also false. Therefore, remember when you strike from the right side that you should always follow the blow with the right foot. The same do likewise when you strike from the left side; thus your body will put itself correctly in balance. Thus the strokes will be delivered long and straight.
|
Take from that what you wish, and I'm sure you'll have your own way of looking at it.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Nov, 2009 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Also, Hugh, let's keep the discussion in perspective. I am not advocating always using full cuts and never half cuts to long point. In fact if closing from wide measure I will most often strike half cuts--not always, but most often. I can do both, and I use both.
I'm also not 100% decided on the point first vs hilt first half cut. I can do both, and use both. Currently, I prefer a hilt first arcing half cut to a point first cut, but again, I do both.
What you are saying is that you dismissed full cuts completely. You cannot sustain your position. We are told many times to always do things in the sources when it is clear that always does not mean "always". Example, only hold these four guards! Only! Except when you hold this one, such as the long point, the most noble of all the guards. What, I told you to only hold four? Well, that was yesterday's lesson. Today you hold these two.
The always leave the point menanicing the face or chest could be the result of a bind. I don't agree with that, but some people I greatly respect believe it. The point is, the texts are not absolute when it comes to advice to always do things. Germans wrote in very absolute terms and those terms, not the techniques they describe, should be taken with a grain of salt.
At the end of the day, I can cut with a longsword, and I am teaching my students to do so as well. I am also teaching them cuts to longpoint, both arc and pushpull. I am not missing out on anything, and I don't think anyone else should be either.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Nov, 2009 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | It appears that you're picking and choosing what to take from what sources, so arguing with you about any of it would be counter productive. I could show you something, and you could then say "well I take that with a grain of salt" because it doesn't agree with you. I'm not saying that's a bad thing necessarily, but it makes it very difficult to have this exchange with you. |
Where am I picking and choosing more than I should? The only picking and choosing I did was to say I preferred the text in Döbringer over the confusing and not very clear picture in Talhoffer (why is his right foot back, for example? just to show that he's following the blow?). Your own teacher, Christian, says himself that the text sources are more useful than the pictures (Fighting with the German Longsword p. 2). I prefer to think I'm looking at this with a critical eye and judging sources, not "picking and choosing" the one that best fits my pre-decided opinion, as you imply.
| Quote: | | btw... 3227a, VD and Ringeck all say strike to the head OR body with the vorschlaag. |
Oh, yes, you're quite right, I had forgotten that. Damn, that blows that theory. I was stupid for just looking at the techniques that specifically mentioned the lower targets. Ah, well, another lovely theory blown apart by cold facts. Hmmm... unless they mean the top of the shoulder, which is easier to cut into when covered by fabric. After all, Meyer's quote meant *something*. Oh well, this clearly needs more work. Thanks, Michael.
| Quote: | Here you go:
| Von Danzig wrote: |
Gloss – Note, this is the first skill of the longsword, that, before all things, you should learn how to strike correctly if you should wish to fight strongly. And understand this thus: when you stand with your left leg forward and strike from your right side, if you do not follow the stroke with a step forward of your right foot, then the strike is false and incorrect. When your right side stays behind, thus is the strike too short and cannot have its correct path to the other side before and above the left foot. Or if you stand with your right foot forward and strike from the left <10v> side, again if you do not follow the stroke with the left foot, then the strike is also false. Therefore, remember when you strike from the right side that you should always follow the blow with the right foot. The same do likewise when you strike from the left side; thus your body will put itself correctly in balance. Thus the strokes will be delivered long and straight.
|
Take from that what you wish, and I'm sure you'll have your own way of looking at it. |
Sorry, but all he says is that you cut over your left foot. Well, of course you do, you have to cut through the target, after all. But you're implying he means to cut all the way to the ground over the left foot, and that's not what it says; he doesn't mention how far you cut at all, merely that your strike is *over* your left foot. That's like when Le Je de La Hache tells you to strike through your target, but not so far that your axe goes beyond him if you miss "because that would be dangerous" (Le Jeu paragraph 22). When I cut with a Zornhau my hands are little off to my left, just as Kal shows in his Zornhau play. That's *not* the same as cutting down so your point is near the ground. Von Danzig says to cut "long and staight": when you cut straight, your point goes forward, not down.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Nov, 2009 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | Also, Hugh, let's keep the discussion in perspective. I am not advocating always using full cuts and never half cuts to long point. In fact if closing from wide measure I will most often strike half cuts--not always, but most often. I can do both, and I use both.
I'm also not 100% decided on the point first vs hilt first half cut. I can do both, and use both. Currently, I prefer a hilt first arcing half cut to a point first cut, but again, I do both.
What you are saying is that you dismissed full cuts completely. You cannot sustain your position. We are told many times to always do things in the sources when it is clear that always does not mean "always". Example, only hold these four guards! Only! Except when you hold this one, such as the long point, the most noble of all the guards. What, I told you to only hold four? Well, that was yesterday's lesson. Today you hold these two.
The always leave the point menanicing the face or chest could be the result of a bind. I don't agree with that, but some people I greatly respect believe it. The point is, the texts are not absolute when it comes to advice to always do things. Germans wrote in very absolute terms and those terms, not the techniques they describe, should be taken with a grain of salt.
At the end of the day, I can cut with a longsword, and I am teaching my students to do so as well. I am also teaching them cuts to longpoint, both arc and pushpull. I am not missing out on anything, and I don't think anyone else should be either. |
Michael,
You are quite right, we have to always take the texts with a grain of salt, and not accept anything until it's been carefully researched. My pet one is the instruction in almost every manual to always strike first when you can, then the later instructions for how to wait to act in the Nach on purpose.
At the same time, I still have yet to see any Ernstfechten source that suggests the wide cuts you advocate. If there were, I would then regard Döbringer's words with suspicion and start trying to work out the *real* rules for choosing. It's like the instruction to always fight in the Vor: If no one ever showed any techniques that *require* you to wait in the Nach, I'd be forced to admit that you're always supposed to attack first, but since we have instructions on waiting, I have to assume they were too absolute (as they often are). But absent evidence to the contrary, I take what they say as fact.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Nov, 2009 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hugh,
This discussion is dvided into two distinct categories, and to make this easier, I will organize it in that manner.
Arc cuts to longpoint vs. push pull cuts to longpoint:
You asked me to provide you with textual evidence, I am now going to ask the same of you. Can you show me any textual evidence of a point first push pull cut?
I don't believe you can.
If you reference 3227a's description of a cut as having a string tied to the point, I will remind you that the actual text says "point OR edge" for a "strike OR thrust", infering quite clearly that it should be tied to the point for a thrust and the edge for a strike.
| Quote: | | For example, if someone intends to strike or thrust, it goes just like if a string would be attached to the sword and the tip or edge <14r> would be pulled to an opening of the adversary - who should be the target for the strike or thrust |
Needless to say, if you tie the string to the edge, it will have a very different trajectory than should you tie it to the point.
But what is the author's point? I believe it is made clear in the completion of that passage:
| Quote: | | resulting in taking the shortest way to the nearest target as possible. |
This to me means that the author is suggesting that once you reach wide measure and ready to strike your vorschlaag, you should not wind up or charge or cock back the strike, but go straight in, in the most direct manner.
Now then, since you acknowledge that strikes should go to the head OR to the body, and that while body can mean upper oppenings (shoulders, upper arms, upper chest, etc.), 3227a specifically says you should hit lower openings if they are close, should you not use a cutting mechanic that can actually penetrate medieval clothing, which covers most of those openings completely?
Half cuts vs. full cuts:
I knew you would add your own flavor to the passage I posted, and that's fine, we all do that. I suppose you also see nebenhut as a static ward that you hold when approaching the fight, not a position you end up in after a voided cut. I suppose you also do not recognize the description of the fencer who cuts with large sweeping motions and knows nothing of the art and is therefore open to nachrisen as being different from the fencer who strikes into a ward (eg nebenhut) and is therefore prepared for nachrisen plays as laid out in the texts.
I do not believe you are doing anything wrong by holding these opinions, you base your interpretations on your experience, and so do I. I too come from a JSA background, in which we cut extensively within the system.
A passage in the texts is a lot like the bible in that you can take anything you want out of it. This is very true of just about everything in the texts, but become less so when taken as a whole than when one is focused on individual passages. To me, looking at the art as a whole, the fact that full cuts exist is clear as day. To you, it is clearly otherwise.
There is really little point in continuig this segment of our discussion, as we are not going to agree, and we have both stated our positions clearly.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Nov, 2009 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | I would never dismiss Meyer: I think his sytem is fascinating, although I don't practice it. As to the rapier, what does that have to do with it? |
My point was that since Meyer's rapier is ernstfechten as you said elsewhere, if there are half and full strikes also with the rapier, there are full strikes in a variant of German ernstfechten. But you'll say that the rapier is not a genuinely liechtenauer weapon even if there are 
| Quote: | | Well, Meyer must have thought they worked, because he taught them. He *shows* them!!! He starts with his sword way, way behind his back (the guard of wrath) and then shows cutting all the way to the ground with his sword actually pointing backward. Almost what? 315 degrees of motion, or maybe even more? It's tough to imagine how "wide and long" (as Döbringer put it) doesn't apply to that! |
In my opinion it depends on how the hands are moving. Thibault shows very similar strikes with the two-handed sword, starting from the wrath guard (though he does not name it) and ending with the point low, opened to a counterthrust (which I think is your main objection to the full cuts). But it is fairly clear that the hands are traveling in a very tight arc (they raise a little, then shoot almost straight to long point and then arc down). You could do the same strike, with the same start, passing through the same longpoint, with a very much larger arc of the hands when it is not useful, passing way above your head for example, and this would be a cut much too wide.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | So maybe these cuts are trivial to counter when thrusting is allowed, with longswords, when you're a medieval German. I don't know and I don't care as long as this is not a principle put forward as universal to everything everywhere |
Not at all. Lots of schools used wide swings. Who ever said it was a universal principle? |
Just putting a preemptive barrier against that It's a tendency I've often witnessed to make it look like the particular way of doing things in one school was the only viable one, and that therefore doing anything else is wrong, not just different. It's more or less exactly what occurred in the SCA discussion that has spawned this thread.
| Quote: | | Actually, the point is still pretty much on line, even in the lowest version (and you're ignoring the higher long points in I.33). All you have to do is raise your point very, very slightly to thrust. Thus, this is still a controlled cut with the point still on the enemy's center line, not a wild swing all the way to the ground where your momentum makes it hard to react to another action. |
I'm sorry but no, the first illustration of longpoint is 45 degrees to the ground, and the priest's special longpoint points back as Andrew pointed out. Of course you can thrust from 45 degrees down, but the cut does not end with the point aimed at an opening. Same thing for the high long point, the tip is pointing above the head, not at the head. Of course there are others straight longpoints, but they are not anymore true than the off-target longpoints in my opinion.
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew Maxwell
Location: New Zealand Joined: 03 May 2009
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Nov, 2009 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | | It's a tendency I've often witnessed to make it look like the particular way of doing things in one school was the only viable one, and that therefore doing anything else is wrong, not just different. It's more or less exactly what occurred in the SCA discussion that has spawned this thread. |
Yeah... I'm still feeling rather guilty about that  Not usually my style
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Nov, 2009 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Michael,
| Michael Edelson wrote: | Arc cuts to longpoint vs. push pull cuts to longpoint:
You asked me to provide you with textual evidence, I am now going to ask the same of you. Can you show me any textual evidence of a point first push pull cut?
I don't believe you can.
If you reference 3227a's description of a cut as having a string tied to the point, I will remind you that the actual text says "point OR edge" for a "strike OR thrust", infering quite clearly that it should be tied to the point for a thrust and the edge for a strike.
| Quote: | | For example, if someone intends to strike or thrust, it goes just like if a string would be attached to the sword and the tip or edge <14r> would be pulled to an opening of the adversary - who should be the target for the strike or thrust |
Needless to say, if you tie the string to the edge, it will have a very different trajectory than should you tie it to the point.
But what is the author's point? I believe it is made clear in the completion of that passage:
| Quote: | | resulting in taking the shortest way to the nearest target as possible. |
This to me means that the author is suggesting that once you reach wide measure and ready to strike your vorschlaag, you should not wind up or charge or cock back the strike, but go straight in, in the most direct manner.
Now then, since you acknowledge that strikes should go to the head OR to the body, and that while body can mean upper oppenings (shoulders, upper arms, upper chest, etc.), 3227a specifically says you should hit lower openings if they are close, should you not use a cutting mechanic that can actually penetrate medieval clothing, which covers most of those openings completely? |
No, I cannot show a source that says to use the push-pull motion to cut. My use of it is based on the straight-line instructions in Döbringer and the fact that the arcing cut you recommend tends to go way past the target in a cut remisicent of Schulfechten and contrary to Döbringer's specific instructions to end cuts with your point towards your opponent.
It is also based on a general principle of the KdF, which is to threaten your opponent as soon as possible when you close. I have some SCAdians in my classes (not a criticism, so was I), and they tend to hit with their hilts leading since that's the best way to generate force the force they need. So we do a drill where they cut at me their way, and I hit them on the arm before their cut can land, then they cut my way, and this time I can't hit their arms so I'm forced to displace before I can strike (using a single-time blow would be cheating for this exercise). To me, this is part and parcel of the idea of following the blow: Do everything you can to threaten your opponent so he is forced to defend himself before he can hit you. When your hilt leads your hands are very vulnerable to a hit on the way.
And yes, I cut as if a string were tied from my edge to my opponent. This is how I came to understand the need for the push-pull cut. In fact, I now teach *all* cuts in all situations--Zornhau, Zwerchhau, Krump, Schiller, etc., etc. *all* to be done as push-pull cuts. That way, you move your sword around less and it allows you to better use your sword (and especially your cross) as your shield, as Ringeck directs. You should see how terrifyingly powerful the Zwerchau-to-Zwerchhau cut is done that way, all in the safety of standing behind your cross and not having to move it out from in front of you.
As for cutting through medieval clothing, I don't see any proof either way. I admit it would be more difficult to cut into someone's ribs on the side, but I don't know that it can't be done. Moreover, I don't know that it *should* be done. In the passage to which you refer from Döbringer (fol. 16r) he's talking about thrusts or cuts. Now, if you're closer to your opponent, it's likely you're in the Krieg, and in the Krieg, you're as likely to thrust as you are to cut, or probably more so. Therefore, when he speaks of attacking these lower targets he could well mean to do so with a thrust and not a cut. That's not proof, but it's a perfectly valid reading of the text. I think, however, that in all books the Duplieren is done as a cut, but the Mutieren is done as a thrust since the former attacks the head and the latter the lower targets.
| Quote: | Half cuts vs. full cuts:
I knew you would add your own flavor to the passage I posted, and that's fine, we all do that. I suppose you also see nebenhut as a static ward that you hold when approaching the fight, not a position you end up in after a voided cut. I suppose you also do not recognize the description of the fencer who cuts with large sweeping motions and knows nothing of the art and is therefore open to nachrisen as being different from the fencer who strikes into a ward (eg nebenhut) and is therefore prepared for nachrisen plays as laid out in the texts. |
I do not see Nebenhut as a static position. I see it as a position you cut down to in order to lure your opponent in so you can use the Hinderbinden displacement with your short edge. This is the same as the Wechselhau in Talhoffer and in Lignitzer's sword and buckler. Therefore, you're doing a bad cut--one to the ground--on purpose to lure your opponent into attacking.
I see a major difference between the Buffel who cuts all the way to the ground because he doesn't know any better and the trained fighter who cuts to Nebenhut to lure an attack: The former acts in ignorance, the latter does a bad thing on purpose to lure his opponent in: "Oh look, I'm just a poor Buffel who doesn't know any better than to cut to the ground! I hope no mean swordsman takes advantage of my foolish action!" They are very different.
| Quote: | | There is really little point in continuig this segment of our discussion, as we are not going to agree, and we have both stated our positions clearly. |
Just so.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Nov, 2009 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | | Hugh Knight wrote: | | I would never dismiss Meyer: I think his sytem is fascinating, although I don't practice it. As to the rapier, what does that have to do with it? |
My point was that since Meyer's rapier is ernstfechten as you said elsewhere, if there are half and full strikes also with the rapier, there are full strikes in a variant of German ernstfechten. But you'll say that the rapier is not a genuinely liechtenauer weapon even if there are |
Hello Vincent,
You can't take techniques with a weapon not even used in the 15th century and say that since it was used for lethal combat then all the techniques it used must have come from weapons used in 15th century combat with a completely different weapon. If there are wide cuts with the rapier (and I have no idea--I've never even read any of the rapier plays in Meyer), then they could as easily have come from some other 16th-century source. Ernstfechten isn't a discrete set of techniques, it simply refers to "fighting in earnest." There are pollaxe techniques designed for Ernstfechten combat that have nothing to do with the halfsword techniques used in Ernstfechten, and many of the root concepts of both weapons are different because the very different nature of the weapons require that they be different.
And yes, the rapier is *not* a "genuinely Liechtenauer" weapon; it can't be, because it didn't exist in the 14th century.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Nov, 2009 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | No, I cannot show a source that says to use the push-pull motion to cut. |
Then your theories on this cut are guesswork based on frog DNA. Nothing wrong with that, we all use frog DNA, but it's helpful be clear on this.
Also, you keep saying that an arcing cut blows through langen ort. While an arcing cut can do this, it does not have to. Can you visualize this or do you need video?
Let's keep this discussion in perspective. I agree with everything(okay, almost everything) you're saying about why we should cut to langenort. I advocate cutting to langenort most of the time. However, unlike you, I also believe we should have full cuts in our arsenal. Therefore it is not necessary for you to argue for cutting to langenort, instead you should provide arguments against full cuts. You have been doing both, and it's hard to keep up.
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | I have some SCAdians in my classes (not a criticism, so was I), and they tend to hit with their hilts leading since that's the best way to generate force the force they need. So we do a drill where they cut at me their way, and I hit them on the arm before their cut can land, then they cut my way, and this time I can't hit their arms so I'm forced to displace before I can strike (using a single-time blow would be cheating for this exercise). To me, this is part and parcel of the idea of following the blow: Do everything you can to threaten your opponent so he is forced to defend himself before he can hit you. When your hilt leads your hands are very vulnerable to a hit on the way. |
And I find it much easier to void and krump someone using a push pull cut than one using an arc cut.
Unless you are describing a krumphau in the passage above, the big difference here, to me, is that what I'm doing is described in the texts (the krump), whereas cutting into the arms with anything else is not described in the texts. I have a good theory on why that is, but it's not really important. What's important is that this attack (unless you are indeed describing the krump) does not exist in the system for a reason.
| Quote: |
I do not see Nebenhut as a static position. I see it as a position you cut down to in order to lure your opponent in so you can use the Hinderbinden displacement with your short edge. |
That's fine, but it is not described as such, whereas wechselhau is.
| Quote: | | I see a major difference between the Buffel who cuts all the way to the ground because he doesn't know any better and the trained fighter who cuts to Nebenhut to lure an attack: |
Gee thanks, Hugh. And here I thought we were getting along.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Nov, 2009 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | Then your theories on this cut are guesswork based on frog DNA. Nothing wrong with that, we all use frog DNA, but it's helpful be clear on this. |
I don't agree, Michael. I have more than frog DNA, I have Döbringer's clear instructions to end my cuts with my point on line.
| Quote: | | Also, you keep saying that an arcing cut blows through langen ort. While an arcing cut can do this, it does not have to. Can you visualize this or do you need video? |
No, I used to do it that way, so I can picture it, I think. But I was wrong. On the other hand, that's not what your test-cutting video showed: It showed someone clearly ignoring Döbringer's injunction against wide cuts and his instructions about ending cuts with the point on line.
| Quote: | | Gee thanks, Hugh. And here I thought we were getting along. |
I sincerely hope it's clear that was not a slap at you. I believe you are mistaken, but you're not a Buffel who doesn't know any better. There's a big difference between someone who tries to make sense of all of this and just honestly reaches the wrong conclusion (as I have done many times) and someone who's just a big meathead who tries to muscle his way through a fight because he doesn't know any better. I tried to make the line as far apart as possible so it wouldn't seem as though I was referring to you. If it came across that way I sincerely apologize and promise that wasn't how it was meant.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Nov, 2009 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hugh Knight wrote: | | Michael Edelson wrote: | | Then your theories on this cut are guesswork based on frog DNA. Nothing wrong with that, we all use frog DNA, but it's helpful be clear on this. |
I don't agree, Michael. I have more than frog DNA, I have Döbringer's clear instructions to end my cuts with my point on line. |
See this is what I mean about hard to keep up.
When you bring up Dobringer you are talking about striking to langeort, yet my reference above was about the push pull mechanic, which you have said you don't have evidence for, making it frog DNA.
| Quote: | | No, I used to do it that way, so I can picture it, I think. But I was wrong. On the other hand, that's not what your test-cutting video showed: It showed someone clearly ignoring Döbringer's injunction against wide cuts and his instructions about ending cuts with the point on line. |
But Hugh, it's a cutting video. So clearly, unless I want to show the public a bunch of failed cuts, I'm demonstrating one specific type of cutting in my arsenal.
I've said this before but it bears repeating. If I wanted to show a precussive entry cut to the head, I would need neither tatami, nor a sharp sword. A watermellon and a fechterspiel would do just as nicely. There would be little point in making a video of this, however, as only a handful of people would appreciate my ultra cool tip first strike (which I have on video but only share privately), and most people would just see some dude whacking a mellon.
| Quote: | | I sincerely hope it's clear that was not a slap at you. I believe you are mistaken, but you're not a Buffel who doesn't know any better. There's a big difference between someone who tries to make sense of all of this and just honestly reaches the wrong conclusion (as I have done many times) and someone who's just a big meathead who tries to muscle his way through a fight because he doesn't know any better. I tried to make the line as far apart as possible so it wouldn't seem as though I was referring to you. If it came across that way I sincerely apologize and promise that wasn't how it was meant. |
My "affront" was a joke, Hugh, hence the smiley face.
However, I do appreciate the very subtle and well played digs in the above paragraph. I say this without saracasm. I have always liked you, Hugh, and I enjoy your writing style.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hugh Knight
|
| Posted: Mon 23 Nov, 2009 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Michael,
| Michael Edelson wrote: | See this is what I mean about hard to keep up.
When you bring up Dobringer you are talking about striking to langeort, yet my reference above was about the push pull mechanic, which you have said you don't have evidence for, making it frog DNA. |
I'm sorry, I answered that thinking cutting into Langenort was what you were asking about. Part of the problem in debates of this kind is that we don't have a consistent terminology that can make the actual issues completely and precisely clear. One person is violently arguing for a specific kind of footwork and the other for the placement of his hands, and each thinks he's answering the other's objections.
As for the actual push-pull mechanism, that's a mere extension of the idea of following the blow. My point leads so it threatens (with the edge, mind you) and forces my opponent to displace rather than attacking me, while leading with the hilt brough some part of me (my hands) into my opponent's range before he is forced to displace. When someone introduced me to that idea many years ago it was so patently and plainly true that I've never had reason to doubt it, especially as experiments have supported it over and over again. Add to that the idea from Döbringer of cutting so that my point goes on line, and the form of my Zornhau was set.
Do I consider any of that "frog DNA" in Steve's immortal words? I don't know. I think of that phrase as being used to describe things that we have *no* hint on how to do, and have to make up, like some footwork problems. If you want to use it for something like this, in which we're just experimenting to find the way that most closely matches the instructions we're given but which isn't specifically stated in so many words, then so be it. I shan't argue the term with you.
None the less, I believe there's a great deal of evidence for using push-pull cuts and for always cutting so that your point is aimed at your opponent, and it's absolutely clear that Döbringer considers cuts that go out to the side or down to the ground to be incorrect (in Ernstfechten, at least).
| Quote: | | But Hugh, it's a cutting video. So clearly, unless I want to show the public a bunch of failed cuts, I'm demonstrating one specific type of cutting in my arsenal. |
And I'm showing you that this type of cutting has no place in your arsenal, and that test cutting in general will lead to very bad habits, such as overcutting in order to make you cuts look nicer and to impress hoi polloi.
Actually, I plan to do one sort of test cutting: So many people mistakenly believe in the value of test cutting as being necessary for learning perfect edge alignment, etc., etc. ad nauseum, that I've been planning a little demonstration: I'm going to find a small, weak person who's never used a sword in her life, nor done any form of martial arts. I'm going to give her no more than ten minutes of cutting instruction (timed!) and then have her split some head analogue (I haven't decided exactly what yet) using a proper cut (or as proper as ten minutes study will allow) with a sharp. Then, the next person who waxes rhapsodic about how important it is to make perfect cuts with absolutely clean edges (because he misunderstands why modern iai-do-ka do it), I'll simply whip out the video and prove that ten minutes practice--with *no* test cutting practice--is more than enough to learn how to cut well enough to kill easily.
| Quote: | | My "affront" was a joke, Hugh, hence the smiley face. |
Good. No matter how nice I am to them, people are always going out of their way to take offense at what I write, so I wasn't sure.
| Quote: | | However, I do appreciate the very subtle and well played digs in the above paragraph. I say this without saracasm. I have always liked you, Hugh, and I enjoy your writing style. |
And I you, Michael. And if you're perceptive enough to notice the digs, I hope you're perceptive enough to notice that the one I made at myself was sincere, too.
Regards,
Hugh
www.schlachtschule.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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