| Author |
Message |
|
P. Cha
|
 Posted: Tue 26 Jan, 2010 1:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Mike...a note about tatami mats. If they are not soaked long enough or soaked too long, then they do become difficult to cut through. A lot of new cutters donīt know how to soak mats properly so they have to over compensate by using a lot of power. But I do agree that cutting through a mat isnīt a big deal. A lot of that comes from watching the JSA and gumdo competition video where they yell very loud and make large powerful moves...but they are trying to do more then just cut the mat, they are trying to cut the mat fast enough to make it not move. In sparring, you would not see them use those techniques as it would end up killing you. People seem quite surprised when I cut a mat using just my arms...and pretty lazily at that. Come to think of it, there is such a thing as TOO much power. Looking at tsafaīs first mat cutting video, that was using sooo much power that the technique went to hell...and the mat cutting went poorly because of it.
As for the orginal question...I try to cut like how I fight, but I do admit that there are some cuts I do for s* and giggles.
|
|
  |
 |
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Tue 26 Jan, 2010 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Phillip,
Yes, I'm familiar with the soak times, and there are plenty of places online where new cutters can get that information. I started cutting tatami when I was doing JSA, and I experimented extensively with soak times, and even tried cutting unsoaked mats. It worked, but I didn't enjoy it.
I find you can actually get away with under-soaking them without much difference.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
 |
|
Patrick Jones
|
| Posted: Tue 26 Jan, 2010 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
David & Michael:
You both make an excellent point, and explain it very well. I've nominated this thread to be a Spotlight topic.
Thanks for the insights.
|
|
 |
|
Michael Edelson
|
|
|
|
|
|
William Carew
|
| Posted: Tue 26 Jan, 2010 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven Reich wrote: | | William Carew wrote: | | Michael Edelson wrote: | | The Bolognese arts have many actions that explicitly violate "true times", quite on purpose. |
If there are many of them, can you please provide a few of them in detail for us? |
If anyone wants to discuss Silver's True Times I'm sure there is room for another thread. |
Hi Steve/Mike,
In fairness, when someone makes a strong declarative statement like "the Bolognese have many actions that violate "xyz" on purpose" I think it is fair to ask for specific examples. Otherwise, the statement is nothing but hearsay without evidence, and we don't even know if our definitions of "xyz" are even consistent.
In truth however, I feel the need for another debate on true times like a hole in the head. So let's leave what Silver may have meant by "true times" out of it completely. My greater question still stands and is easily answered without reference to Silver: Do the Bolognese (or any other European fencing arts) ever advocate entering into measure with the sword anywhere but infront of the body somehow... be it a strike, thrust or guard? Examples?
Cheers,
Bill
Bill Carew
Jogo do Pau Brisbane
COLLEGIUM IN ARMIS
|
|
|
|
|
David Teague
Location: Anchorage, Alaska Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Tue 26 Jan, 2010 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hello Bill (you're stealing my thread!),
| Quote: | | Do the Bolognese (or any other European fencing arts) ever advocate entering into measure with the sword anywhere but infront of the body somehow... be it a strike, thrust or guard? Examples? |
Depends what you mean by " in front of the body somehow".
Isn't swell,  there are a hand full of us in this thread that can split hairs ad nauseam because we can question each other about key points of our interpretations, but the internet can make a 5- 30 sec demo in person stretch in to a multi-page thread with both parties going away unsatisfied. 
What I think Michael was parroting ( Squack. Mikey want a cracker) was entering with a movement that provokes a planned response while your weapon is held in a point facing backwards type guard that has the timing to respond with the planned counter.
One such move I can think of is in Paulus Kal's Messer section where the active provokes a strike to the left side of his head while the messer is in a low left side guard (nebennut) and his planned response is to shed the incoming blade with the bogen followed by a number of throws, disarms, cuts, or thrusts that can follow the parry.
Does this count? Is it what you are looking for?
Cheers,
David
This you shall know, that all things have length and measure.
Free Scholar/ Instructor Selohaar Fechtschule
The Historic Recrudescence Guild
"Yea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou's sword art is with me; Thy poleaxe and Thy quarterstaff they comfort me."
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Jan, 2010 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| William Carew wrote: | | Do the Bolognese (or any other European fencing arts) ever advocate entering into measure with the sword anywhere but infront of the body somehow... be it a strike, thrust or guard? Examples? |
Yes. I'm not going to dig through for examples because I don't want to participate in another Silver True times thread as: 1.someone has to be able to give me a clear definition on Silver's True Times which won't start an argument, and 2. I'm not really interested in Silver's True Times because Silver is not relevant to Bolognese.
Steve
Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Jan, 2010 6:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| William Carew wrote: | | My greater question still stands and is easily answered without reference to Silver: Do the Bolognese (or any other European fencing arts) ever advocate entering into measure with the sword anywhere but infront of the body somehow... be it a strike, thrust or guard? Examples? |
Entering with a thrust and converting to a cut has you withdrawing your weapon to arm the cut while stepping closer to the adversary (I think Steve mentioned that in the Bolognese, and Lovino has such combos too), but you might argue that the actual entry into measure was made with the sword in front.
Of course in this case withdrawing the sword as you advance is not bad because the opponent is not an immediate threat, given that he is moving to the parry. You could take a lot of reputedly bad cutting videos and add a feigned thrust at the beginning of each cut, and suddenly they're all good...
Similarly you can do a so-called non-telegraphic cut into a target, but strike over less than a full step. Is that martially sound? It depends... Because if the opponent is ready and static and you are attacking him, by the time you've reached that striking distance he'll be striking at you. The cut might seem more quick and more clean but will you ever reach the point where you can do it? Well yes you would, if the cut is in fact a counter, striking the opponent as he closes in...
It's very difficult to judge test-cutting, because most of the time this tactical aspect is not explicit. There are plenty of ways to cut that are possible and valuable in a given situation but not wise in others. I guess that's why we don't get to see much advice about cutting mechanics in period texts. It's far harder to make general useful statements about that than it seems.
The one universal thing is always strive to make the maximum damage possible in the time you have. What time you have is highly dependent on the tactical situation. It's not just the shortest time and of course it's rarely as much time as you'd like 
Regards,
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
|
William Carew
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Jan, 2010 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven Reich wrote: | | William Carew wrote: | | Do the Bolognese (or any other European fencing arts) ever advocate entering into measure with the sword anywhere but infront of the body somehow... be it a strike, thrust or guard? Examples? |
Yes. I'm not going to dig through for examples because I don't want to participate in another Silver True times thread as: 1.someone has to be able to give me a clear definition on Silver's True Times which won't start an argument, and 2. I'm not really interested in Silver's True Times because Silver is not relevant to Bolognese.
Steve |
I explicitly said, let's leave aside the entire definition of true times - leave Silver out altogether. I have actually posed an exceedingly simple, universal question about the physical location of the sword when entering measure: this is very relevant to the topic of this thread, which is (afterall) about the mechanics of cutting (including how to enter measure). I'm simply not interested in hearsay or arguments from authority: I'm after clear examples from the primary sources and, if they are not going to be quoted, I'm out of this thread.
Bill
Bill Carew
Jogo do Pau Brisbane
COLLEGIUM IN ARMIS
Last edited by William Carew on Wed 27 Jan, 2010 1:36 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
William Carew
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Jan, 2010 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | | William Carew wrote: | | My greater question still stands and is easily answered without reference to Silver: Do the Bolognese (or any other European fencing arts) ever advocate entering into measure with the sword anywhere but infront of the body somehow... be it a strike, thrust or guard? Examples? |
Entering with a thrust and converting to a cut has you withdrawing your weapon to arm the cut while stepping closer to the adversary (I think Steve mentioned that in the Bolognese, and Lovino has such combos too), but you might argue that the actual entry into measure was made with the sword in front. |
Hi Vincent,
Thank you for introducing an actual example of something rather than resorting to argument from authority. However, the kind of action you describe seems fully in agreement with the idea the sword leads the body into danger initially (i.e.the thrust in your example): redirecting the attack to take advantage of the opponent's reaction or an open fencing line is perfectly fine and in accord with 'sword leads the body.' As is advancing under the cover of a guard (e.g. True Guardant, Ochs, Hangetort etc). What I am looking for is clear examples of where a European fencing text explicitly tells us to step within measure (bringing our body into distance where the opponent can hit us without taking his own step) without presenting any credible threat or defence and with our sword still behind the front of our body: this is an invitation to be stop hit. I've asked repeatedly for specific examples, yet so far I have only seen hearsay that there are 'many' such examples without any actual examples being forthcoming.
Bill
Bill Carew
Jogo do Pau Brisbane
COLLEGIUM IN ARMIS
|
|
|
|
|
|
William Carew
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Jan, 2010 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| David Teague wrote: |
One such move I can think of is in Paulus Kal's Messer section where the active provokes a strike to the left side of his head while the messer is in a low left side guard (nebennut) and his planned response is to shed the incoming blade with the bogen followed by a number of throws, disarms, cuts, or thrusts that can follow the parry.
Does this count? Is it what you are looking for?
|
Hi David,
I'd probably have to see you perform this to tell for sure. I don't have my Kal with me atm, what does the text in Kal actually say?
Two things to bear in mind: 1) if we are provoking a response, we're obviously relying on a) stepping in ourselves, b) pretending we are stepping in, or c) provoking the opponent into stepping in.
If we are b) only pretending to step in, or c) we are provoking him to step in, then there is no problem with sword not leading the body into measure because in the first instance, we aren't coming into measure anyhow and, in the second, we can strike at the opponent as he comes in in the (I dreaded using this) "Time of the Hand" (i.e. a movement with our hand as fast as it can go) since he is closing the distance for us.
If, however, we are stepping straight into measure without moving the sword before the body in distance (and this without presenting a threat or cover), then surely we are opened up to a stop hit from any competent opponent? Because even if we are trying to provoke a predictable and exploitable response, the opponent can strike at us as quickly as he can move his hand since we have done the hardwork for him by coming in. Or not?
Video would probably help. 
Bill
Bill Carew
Jogo do Pau Brisbane
COLLEGIUM IN ARMIS
|
|
|
|
|
Steven Reich
Location: Arlington, VA Joined: 28 Oct 2003
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Jan, 2010 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| William Carew wrote: | | I explicitly said, let's leave aside the entire definition of true times - leave Silver out altogether. I have actually posed an exceedingly simple, universal question about the physical location of the sword when entering measure: this is very relevant to the topic of this thread, which is (afterall) about the mechanics of cutting (including how to enter measure). I'm simply not interested in hearsay or arguments from authority: I'm after clear examples from the primary sources and, if they are not going to be quoted, I'm out of this thread. |
Well I don't see the point since if you can't read Italian you wouldn't have a quote, just a translation. Look at The Anonimo Bolognese in the sections on left handed vs. right handed fencing (for sword-alone). The most explicit examples have you enter measure with your sword in a Larga guard with the explicit purpose of wanting your opponent to attack (the rest of the action makes it clear that you are in measure)--there are multiple examples of this particular "violation" in various Bolognese sources.Your point isn't in presence because it is pointed at the ground. If you want a quote, you'll have to look it up yourself; otherwise, you'll have to trust that I can read Italian and understand the actions described.
There are others, but this is the easiest to point out.
Steve
Founder of NoVA-Assalto, an affiliate of the HEMA Alliance
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adam S.
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Jan, 2010 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not trying to be rude, and please forgive my ignorance, but isn't this a bit off topic?
The reason I ask is because you can practice all of these variables in a cutting test and still have a "Martially Sound" attitude toward your cutting.
No, it's not the same as having an opponent that actually works through the bind and times with you, but you can still "shadow box" your way to the target.
Maybe I'm missing the point of your post in regards to the OP. It's an interesting discourse, I just don't understand how it relates to the OP and would like to.
Again, pardon my ignorance.
~A
| William Carew wrote: | | David Teague wrote: |
One such move I can think of is in Paulus Kal's Messer section where the active provokes a strike to the left side of his head while the messer is in a low left side guard (nebennut) and his planned response is to shed the incoming blade with the bogen followed by a number of throws, disarms, cuts, or thrusts that can follow the parry.
Does this count? Is it what you are looking for?
|
Hi David,
I'd probably have to see you perform this to tell for sure. I don't have my Kal with me atm, what does the text in Kal actually say?
Two things to bear in mind: 1) if we are provoking a response, we're obviously relying on a) stepping in ourselves, b) pretending we are stepping in, or c) provoking the opponent into stepping in.
If we are b) only pretending to step in, or c) we are provoking him to step in, then there is no problem with sword not leading the body into measure because in the first instance, we aren't coming into measure anyhow and, in the second, we can strike at the opponent as he comes in in the (I dreaded using this) "Time of the Hand" (i.e. a movement with our hand as fast as it can go) since he is closing the distance for us.
If, however, we are stepping straight into measure without moving the sword before the body in distance (and this without presenting a threat or cover), then surely we are opened up to a stop hit from any competent opponent? Because even if we are trying to provoke a predictable and exploitable response, the opponent can strike at us as quickly as he can move his hand since we have done the hardwork for him by coming in. Or not?
Video would probably help.
Bill |
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Jan, 2010 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| William Carew wrote: | | What I am looking for is clear examples of where a European fencing text explicitly tells us to step within measure (bringing our body into distance where the opponent can hit us without taking his own step) without presenting any credible threat or defence and with our sword still behind the front of our body: this is an invitation to be stop hit. |
Ah, now with that definition of within distance, no, I don't really know of any personally. Apparently invitations could work that way but even then it probably relies on the opponent reacting before you reach that point...
But surely you do realize that this definition allows for actions and in particular cuts that are commonly (well, I think) deemed 'false'? For example, stepping in to strike, launching the actual cut at midstep, and landing the strike with the foot in sync... I don't think the opponent could reach you over that first part of the step without stepping himself even though your sword didn't move yet (relative to your body, of course).
Regards,
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Jan, 2010 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | For example, stepping in to strike, launching the actual cut at midstep, and landing the strike with the foot in sync... I don't think the opponent could reach you over that first part of the step without stepping himself even though your sword didn't move yet (relative to your body, of course).
|
I would called this entering behind a threat and I believe it to be martially sound. Perhaps not optimal in some circumstances, but sound.
However, consider this type of strike in the context of an approach. Then exactly where the strike is launched in relation to your steps becomes very hard to distinguish. When someone is approaching, you are not counting his steps, only watching for the distance between him and you.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
William Carew
|
| Posted: Wed 27 Jan, 2010 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steven Reich wrote: | | Well I don't see the point since if you can't read Italian you wouldn't have a quote, just a translation. |
Steve,
True, I should have said, the translation of a quoted passage for those of us who don't read Italian.
| Quote: | | If you want a quote, you'll have to look it up yourself; otherwise, you'll have to trust that I can read Italian and understand the actions described. |
I'm not doubting your ability with Italian or the sources in question and I apologise if my replies have been a bit short. I've just been after specific examples, like the ones that have started to emerge.
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | For example, stepping in to strike, launching the actual cut at midstep, and landing the strike with the foot in sync... I don't think the opponent could reach you over that first part of the step without stepping himself even though your sword didn't move yet (relative to your body, of course).
|
I would called this entering behind a threat and I believe it to be martially sound. Perhaps not optimal in some circumstances, but sound. |
Vincent, Mike,
I also think this can be martially sound: you can actually do this with the smooth, constant motion entry that I have been harping on about and which I believe Mike is also a fan of (and demonstrates in his 2nd video). We are only technically entering measure when (assuming a passing step) our rear foot has moved past our front foot and is actually bringing our body forward. Until that point, we can still abort the step or redirect it (e.g. to triangle straight out to the side) which obviously means we have not, in reality, come into distance yet (and therefore, whether our sword is leading is moot).
| Quote: | | However, consider this type of strike in the context of an approach. Then exactly where the strike is launched in relation to your steps becomes very hard to distinguish. When someone is approaching, you are not counting his steps, only watching for the distance between him and you. |
I agree completely: for me, what matters is that the sword is forward (ready to threaten or defend) by the time the body is coming within distance (within the opponent's reach without needing a step). Hope that clarifies my thoughts.
Bill
Bill Carew
Jogo do Pau Brisbane
COLLEGIUM IN ARMIS
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Thu 28 Jan, 2010 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| William Carew wrote: | | I also think this can be martially sound: you can actually do this with the smooth, constant motion entry that I have been harping on about and which I believe Mike is also a fan of (and demonstrates in his 2nd video). We are only technically entering measure when (assuming a passing step) our rear foot has moved past our front foot and is actually bringing our body forward. Until that point, we can still abort the step or redirect it (e.g. to triangle straight out to the side) which obviously means we have not, in reality, come into distance yet (and therefore, whether our sword is leading is moot). |
Right so we all agree in fact
I too have thought about what the timings mean when you consider an approach of several steps instead of a static start from just one step away, and I ended up at the same conclusions as Michael here:
| Quote: | | Then exactly where the strike is launched in relation to your steps becomes very hard to distinguish. When someone is approaching, you are not counting his steps, only watching for the distance between him and you. |
Regards,
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Thu 28 Jan, 2010 2:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| William Carew wrote: |
I also think this can be martially sound: you can actually do this with the smooth, constant motion entry that I have been harping on about and which I believe Mike is also a fan of (and demonstrates in his 2nd video). We are only technically entering measure when (assuming a passing step) our rear foot has moved past our front foot and is actually bringing our body forward. Until that point, we can still abort the step or redirect it (e.g. to triangle straight out to the side) which obviously means we have not, in reality, come into distance yet (and therefore, whether our sword is leading is moot).
|
Yes, Bill, you were the one who turned me on to that style of approach, and I have to say, it changed a lot of things for us. Being able to judge measure accurately enough to have the correct foot forward at the right time was not the easiest thing to learn, but it was totally worth it.
I think that a good deal of the true times/slow hand/sword must move first/non-telegraphic motion mechanics are actually artifacts of a gathering approach or a static starting position. Much of that loses its meaning in motion. I know I abandomed my work on some of these completely when we switched to this style of approach. All that wasted time...
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Jan, 2010 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | | Yes, Bill, you were the one who turned me on to that style of approach, and I have to say, it changed a lot of things for us. Being able to judge measure accurately enough to have the correct foot forward at the right time was not the easiest thing to learn, but it was totally worth it. |
Heh, when Cory and I were showing you last fall, you were making jokes about it, including one about how if you knew I was going to do it, you position a ninja in a bush behind me. (for those who don't know, I say this far more teasingly than truthfully, as Mike was not really skeptical... he's just very analytical, and likes to break something down and pick away at it until it can be either proven or disproven, and he likes to add a lot of humor to it.)
HistoricalHandcrafts.com
-Inspired by History, Crafted by Hand
"For practice is better than artfulness. Your exercise can do well without artfulness, but artfulness is not much good without the exercise. -anonymous 15th century fencing master, MS 3227a
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Fri 29 Jan, 2010 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bill Grandy wrote: | | Michael Edelson wrote: | | Yes, Bill, you were the one who turned me on to that style of approach, and I have to say, it changed a lot of things for us. Being able to judge measure accurately enough to have the correct foot forward at the right time was not the easiest thing to learn, but it was totally worth it. |
Heh, when Cory and I were showing you last fall, you were making jokes about it, including one about how if you knew I was going to do it, you position a ninja in a bush behind me. (for those who don't know, I say this far more teasingly than truthfully, as Mike was not really skeptical... he's just very analytical, and likes to break something down and pick away at it until it can be either proven or disproven, and he likes to add a lot of humor to it.) |
That is only because I never trust anything told to me by people with either too much hair (Winslow and Bax) or not enough (you). There is a happy medium (me) to all things. Bill Carew, on the other hand, has just the right amount of hair, so I listened to him and it has paid off.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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