| Author |
Message |
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
|
    |
 |
|
Dustin R. Reagan
|
 Posted: Mon 16 May, 2011 4:08 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | Hi Dustin,
For my part, I certainly took no offense from any part of your post(s).
The discussion is a helpful one.
Yours,
Christian |
Just so there is no confusion, there are two Dustins posting here; Myself and the OP (you mentioned posts - plural, yet I have only posted once in this thread, so far -- well, twice now!).
|
|
|
|
|
Elling Polden
|
| Posted: Mon 16 May, 2011 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
it is my experience that all the defensive actions from the manuals work best as offensive actions in free play.
If you see your opponents sword in a certain position, you know that by moving foward, you will trigger a strike of a certain type, which you can then preempt, for instance by exectuing a grapple, cover or bind.
When it comes to rules, I agree with Michael that less is often more.
We opperate with two distinct rule sets; the reenactment group combat system, which is for all practical purposes a sport system, and the Huskarl rules, which are made for simulating a realistic figth.
The huskarl approach spesifically states that the bout is a cooperative effort between the fighterts to do a good fight. The whole body is a target, excluding the side of the head or face if using a helmet instead of a fencing mask. A fighter is expected to tell his opponent to disregard unintentional or inneficial hits, and indirect or half blocked hits do not count.
By sharing the responsibility for good hits, you can have high speed, relatively light contact fights that maintain a good level of realsim.
It is however vital to always be aware of the weaknesses of your rules system or the customary way of fighting within your group or comunity. If posible, try other rule systems that fill in the gaps, and try to build a broad comprehension of how things work.
"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
|
|
 |
|
|
Dustin Faulkner
|
| Posted: Mon 16 May, 2011 7:29 pm Post subject: Wow .... lots of responses! |
|
|
Hello Everyone:
I am surprised by the number of responses - even from my "Hero" Mr. Tobler. I have a habit of submitting something humerous to a conversation to attenuate the seriousness. So please bear with me for a moment because I am guilty of doing what I discussed in my first posting for this topic.
I have a 10 year old nephew. This last Christmas I got him two Nerf swords. Wow! I was instantly a god! I think he needs the Nerf battle axe too. One moment during Christmas vacation, I was going to be the cool uncle and play swords with him. I thought I'd share some of the moves I've seen on youtube to further the god-like image he has of me.
Well ... before I could say anything he starts wacking me, I start laughing, and I found myself just trying to parry his strikes while up against a wall!. So much for fancy fechtbuch moves! I'm sure Liechetenauer, Ringeck, and Talhoffer were rolling in their graves!
I just had to share that. I think I managed to grab his arm and eventually had him being spun around on my shoulders ... and he was still wacking me with that Nerf sword! Man ... those things are tough! :-)
DUSTIN FAULKNER
|
|
 |
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Mon 16 May, 2011 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Michael Edelson wrote: | [
All rules can be gamed, and the more rules you have, the more they can be gamed.
This is where character comes in. If you have someone deliberately gaming the rules by launching simultaneous attacks to avoid being struck, then that person dishonours himself, his teacher and his art. |
To me it means that both participants have to agree to the same objective: Either they are trying to advance the art and trying to simulate as closely as possible a real fight, by being as careful as if they could be really injured, and not rush in and bounce around to get a hit as if they where using nerf swords !
When playing a sword game, gaming it allowed, but then one is doing something very different than trying to both fight and observe the results of trying to apply techniques honestly.
In a way part of the simulation of a real fight is like being a " Method Actor " and like a child playing at imagining that things done are for real and to do one's actions and evaluate one's actions as if they where real as honestly as possible within the limitations that all simulated fights have artificial artifacts that can't be avoided, for safeties sake, and also accepting that who won or lost may be very ambiguous and impossible to determine with certainty ! Naturally with a competitive sport not being able to know who won is very frustrating.  
So, my point being that if one participant is going for " the best possible simulation mind set " and the other is " Gaming/Sports fighting " then the results are totally useless and if they both agreed on doing the simulation version and one still reverts to gaming then this is when there is some real dishonour and dishonesty or at the very least mismatched objectives.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Mon 16 May, 2011 8:32 pm Post subject: Re: Wow .... lots of responses! |
|
|
| Dustin Faulkner wrote: |
I have a 10 year old nephew. This last Christmas I got him two Nerf swords. Wow! I was instantly a god! I think he needs the Nerf battle axe too. One moment during Christmas vacation, I was going to be the cool uncle and play swords with him. I thought I'd share some of the moves I've seen on youtube to further the god-like image he has of me.
|
Just a note that we where cross-posting and I wrote my comment about " Nerf Swords " before reading your comment: So my comment shouldn't be read as a criticism of your comment about nerf swords which certainly can be great fun. 
One thing written earlier is that with sword simulators that can't bind plus acting as if the swords can't hurt " fights " tend to devolve to random flailing away and multiple simultaneous hits on both sides.
It's actually very difficult to almost impossible to not get hit by one's opponent's nerf sword or even an overflexible sword since hits that would stop the fight or kill are not even noticed or acknowledged and the flailing goes on and on ........ 
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Mon 16 May, 2011 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | To me it means that both participants have to agree to the same objective: Either they are trying to advance the art and trying to simulate as closely as possible a real fight, by being as careful as if they could be really injured, and not rush in and bounce around to get a hit as if they where using nerf swords ! |
The notion that in a "real" fight (meaning I suppose a fight with real weapons here) the fighters would automatically become more careful seems a bit overstated to me. If you're willing to fight with swords, it means that somehow you also value hurting the other guy and are willing to risk some of your own safety to do so. In some people that could go up to all-out aggression, and I like to think that the arts we study also work in these situation. In other words, I don't want to assume that the other guy has to be careful. If I "die" in a bout because the other guy never thought about his safety, it's my own fault...
What is more rare in a real fight is the suicidal defender, who is not attacking you but waiting to counter without saving himself into the opening you have to expose in order to attack.
It's quite possible that some of the techniques in the source texts do not often work in bouts because with the obsession about being careful and avoiding double hits at all costs, we don't see the kind of committed attacks that would make them work...
Regards,
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike O'Hara
|
| Posted: Mon 16 May, 2011 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi all
Great thread - very much enjoying the discussion.
| Quote: |
Dustin R said
I disagree (as some have said previously) that wrestling at the sword only occurs when your opponent rushes you. Closing to wrestle is cited as a valid offensive technique. For example, here is a passage from Ringeck (translation by Keith Farrell, from the wiktenauer) : |
Indeed sir and Fiore has similar moves from close binds. Even from middle binds there are sword plays where the sword is taken. Still, we have found that mostly the grapple occurs because we bind (even middle/long) and someone isn't sure what to do next and pushes through an attack that isn't really on. But they feel they have to do something. As a result, the rushing person tends to end up in trouble. You can indeed set up a grapple, but that takes patience.
We found far too many 'mutuals' were occurring in tournaments and freeplay and are now looking at doing something different. Both start with 5 lives and each clean score removes one. A mutual removes one from both - its is therefore possible for both fighters to 'lose'.
I agree this can be gamed - any set of rules can.
It does tend to promote an approach which is about controlling the fight and only attacking when you cannot be counter-struck. As I noted previously - we are drilling this a LOT. When it works, it really works and you are pretty much unhittable in the 1 - 2 seconds we allow for reply hits.
I felt the comment about doing the basics excellently was spot on - the master systems we are studying have some set and standard wards and moves for a reason - they work.
cheers
mike
MIke O'Hara
Location: Plimmerton, New Zealand
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Tue 17 May, 2011 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | | Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | To me it means that both participants have to agree to the same objective: Either they are trying to advance the art and trying to simulate as closely as possible a real fight, by being as careful as if they could be really injured, and not rush in and bounce around to get a hit as if they where using nerf swords ! |
The notion that in a "real" fight (meaning I suppose a fight with real weapons here) the fighters would automatically become more careful seems a bit overstated to me. If you're willing to fight with swords, it means that somehow you also value hurting the other guy and are willing to risk some of your own safety to do so. In some people that could go up to all-out aggression, and I like to think that the arts we study also work in these situation. In other words, I don't want to assume that the other guy has to be careful. If I "die" in a bout because the other guy never thought about his safety, it's my own fault...
What is more rare in a real fight is the suicidal defender, who is not attacking you but waiting to counter without saving himself into the opening you have to expose in order to attack.
It's quite possible that some of the techniques in the source texts do not often work in bouts because with the obsession about being careful and avoiding double hits at all costs, we don't see the kind of committed attacks that would make them work...
Regards, |
Very good points but maybe we are looking at it from different angles: There is a great difference between being bold and taking risks when one sees an opening or opportunity versus being foolish in attacking when there is not really a good opening. Many times people do a series of bouts in quick succession with a " reset button " mentality: Some fights might be quickly engaged into but some could take many long minutes of sizing the opponent up, waiting for an opening or trying to trick the other into an opening but what often happens is that after a minute or so someone " cracks " and attacks just to get the bout started.
The point isn't that one wouldn't take great risks in a fight because the timid don't win fights or shouldn't engage in fights.
The problem I see is that the lack of real fear or even impatience drive people to attack without care or a plan because to us it turns into a game with no consequences for mistakes. So what I am suggesting is to try to act as if a bad decision or an error in judgement could be one's last but at the same time not become so fearful as to do a good imitation of a deer caught in the headlights of a car at night.
By the way not arguing with you so much as trying to see the issue from different angles.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Edelson
|
| Posted: Tue 17 May, 2011 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
From what few period accounts I've seen, double hits happened often. Double kills were rare. Train hard, hit hard, your cut will kill, his may not.
New York Historical Fencing Association
www.newyorklongsword.com
Byakkokan Dojo
http://newyorkbattodo.com/
|
|
|
|
|
Christian Henry Tobler
Location: Oxford, CT Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 704
|
| Posted: Tue 17 May, 2011 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Dustin,
| Quote: | | When you rush in towards another, release your sword with the left hand and hold it with the right. And go with the pommel outside and over his right arm, and thus twitch it downwards. And grip his right elbow with your left hand and spring with the left foot in front of his right foot, and pull him over the foot out to your right side |
The text says that you've run into him. The previous techniques all say that 'one has run into another', or 'when he rushes you'. It either doesn't declare who the initiator is or says the opponent is in most cases.
This is from the Durchlaufen part of Ringeck; I quoted from the equivalent passages in von Danzig. And please note that I didn't say that you never initiate a grapple - it's just the less common case.
Cheers,
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dustin R. Reagan
|
| Posted: Tue 17 May, 2011 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: | Hi Dustin,
| Quote: | | When you rush in towards another, release your sword with the left hand and hold it with the right. And go with the pommel outside and over his right arm, and thus twitch it downwards. And grip his right elbow with your left hand and spring with the left foot in front of his right foot, and pull him over the foot out to your right side |
The text says that you've run into him. The previous techniques all say that 'one has run into another', or 'when he rushes you'. It either doesn't declare who the initiator is or says the opponent is in most cases.
This is from the Durchlaufen part of Ringeck; I quoted from the equivalent passages in von Danzig. And please note that I didn't say that you never initiate a grapple - it's just the less common case.
Cheers,
Christian |
Great, I think we agree then. I re-read your initial post on this, and saw your caveat that offensive grappling does occur, but as far as explicitly mentioned plays are concerned, it is in the minority. I agree with this, and I apologize for not recalling your caveat when i made my post. That being said, I interpreted (i guess wrongly, based on your follow-up post) your post to be saying that wrestling at the sword is nearly always defensive or reactionary in nature, and if you opponent never rushes you, it won't happen. I don't agree that this is the case. I believe that wrestling-at-the-sword can be executed offensively (vor - take the initiative and rush in), defensively (nach - in response to being rushed), and as an instant reaction (indes). I believe this is borne out from my reading of Ringeck & von Danzig, and in practice.
For instance, here is my practice partner successfully executing two offensive wrestlings-at-the-sword on me (in my defense, we were fighting in 105 F weather and I was exhausted --excuses,excuses =] ):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90RgQ5INHyY
0:48 - sword taking
1:58 - unorthodox take-down
Please note that these are not completely "textbook" (though the sword-taking at 0:48 is close), since I am left-handed, it changes some of the mechanics a bit.
Dustin
Last edited by Dustin R. Reagan on Tue 17 May, 2011 1:58 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Vincent Le Chevalier
|
| Posted: Tue 17 May, 2011 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | The problem I see is that the lack of real fear or even impatience drive people to attack without care or a plan because to us it turns into a game with no consequences for mistakes. So what I am suggesting is to try to act as if a bad decision or an error in judgement could be one's last but at the same time not become so fearful as to do a good imitation of a deer caught in the headlights of a car at night. |
Striking that balance is difficult, because no matter what there will always be that part of you that knows that it's not for real. As Michael says, even in actual fights with sharps, there were double hits. This indicates that at least a portion of what we deem wrong in our bouts is not just a distortion of the modern setting, but something that is bound to appear in any fight.
Of course that's not the part that get written down in source texts because it's not the ideal  This might account for the fact that perfect techniques do not pop up in bouts as often as they do in sources (which is almost 100% of the time )...
Regards,
--
Vincent
Ensis Sub Caelo
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Tue 17 May, 2011 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vincent Le Chevalier wrote: | | Jean Thibodeau wrote: | | The problem I see is that the lack of real fear or even impatience drive people to attack without care or a plan because to us it turns into a game with no consequences for mistakes. So what I am suggesting is to try to act as if a bad decision or an error in judgement could be one's last but at the same time not become so fearful as to do a good imitation of a deer caught in the headlights of a car at night. |
Striking that balance is difficult, because no matter what there will always be that part of you that knows that it's not for real. As Michael says, even in actual fights with sharps, there were double hits. This indicates that at least a portion of what we deem wrong in our bouts is not just a distortion of the modern setting, but something that is bound to appear in any fight.
Of course that's not the part that get written down in source texts because it's not the ideal This might account for the fact that perfect techniques do not pop up in bouts as often as they do in sources (which is almost 100% of the time )...
Regards, |
We obviously can't match the mindset of someone in period who in addition to having the technical skills might also have been in many deadly duels or in battles and thus mentally tough and valiant/brave so not prone to be hesitant or too fearful to act when the opportunity presents itself.
We are also trying to emulate the actions of someone competent and brave and not of a coward.
So in a way we can say that since we don't have any real fear we can technically perform like someone who has some real fear but brave enough to not let the fear stop him from fighting effectively.
Where we may go wrong is in rushing and not being focused enough to actively imagine the danger we would be in if it was real.
The bottom line is that in training or in bouts we should avoid rushing in as a fool would versus being aggressive in an intelligent way. ( This is for serious training, but at times lets admit we can also be more relaxed and have fun or play games, but it's important to decide before a bout which we are attempting to do. ).
As to double hits I think we can all agree that if it is done to just " game " a bout it's illegitimate but that double hits could happen in a real fight and that part of the art it to try to hit and not be hit but that this isn't always possible: One should be aware of the possibility of a double hit that can happen by accident, due to mutual misjudgement or as the final act of the loser deciding to get revenge or make his loss as costly as possible.
Oh, with my old group ( unfortunately disbanded ) we would have a 3 count after the end of a bout where the " loser " could still get in a hit if they could, meaning the " winner had to remain focused and defensive and not drop his guard.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
Last edited by Jean Thibodeau on Wed 18 May, 2011 2:18 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mike O'Hara
|
| Posted: Wed 18 May, 2011 2:06 am Post subject: Balancing the aggression |
|
|
Hi folks
I think Jean and Dustin both make a good points, it's not one or the other its both/all of the above
I'm more familiar (read 'know a tiny bit') about Fiore rather than the German system and the treatise talks about the various animals. Lion for courage, Elephant for balance, Lynx for prudence and Tiger for speed and strength. The treatise talk about the balance between these attributes.
Too much tiger leads to the 'rushing in', not enough elephant leads to you being thrown or otherwise off-balanced when you do. Too little lynx leads to picking the wrong moment to do this.
I personally love the close plays and will take every opportunity to close, because I have so much more experience at grappling/unarmed. This is itself a weakness and one I am trying to remedy by not doing this.
Nevertheless, what my instructor is drilling into me is the best fight is the one where I am unscathed and my opponent is scathed (to butcher the language a shade).
Still working on that.
regards
mike
MIke O'Hara
Location: Plimmerton, New Zealand
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Wed 18 May, 2011 2:50 am Post subject: Re: Balancing the aggression |
|
|
| Mike O'Hara wrote: | Hi folks
I personally love the close plays and will take every opportunity to close, because I have so much more experience at grappling/unarmed. This is itself a weakness and one I am trying to remedy by not doing this.
Nevertheless, what my instructor is drilling into me is the best fight is the one where I am unscathed and my opponent is scathed (to butcher the language a shade).
Still working on that.
regards
mike |
I personally am most comfortable when the play is at the sword and maybe I like the feel of it too much that instead of taking the first opportunity to take advantage of a bind I will tend to play with it a bit: This at times works great with someone will less fühlen than me but I always had the most trouble with an advanced fellow student who would almost always close to wrestling or grab my blade. I often didn't know how to react to this !
One solution was to always control distance and keep my point menacing, but this was easier said than done with this very skilled opponent.
One counter I never tried, and couldn't really try for safety reasons, was to use my off hand for a powerful palm stroke to vulnerable areas like the solar plexus or the throat ....... just saying that the " wresting " can also include strikes and that in a " civilized and safe training situation the thought didn't even occur to me to use a palm strike. ( Or fake one .... would probably not be noticed or ackownledged in the heat of the moment, and too dangerous if one got carried away and didn't pull it enough ! ).
I did a little dagger and wrestling training and as an exercise my trainer held a floor mat in front of himself and let me strike as hard as I could ..... lets just say that after the first strike he decided it was better to hold the mat to his side.
In any case he did say to me that this could easily have been a killing blow ! ( As I've mentioned before in other treads, excuse the bragging  , but I have been weight training for 30 years and weight about 250/260, so control of what I do and my emotions is something I don't take " lightly ". ).
Also, in the dagger and wrestling courses I took any lack of attention or care could have produced serious dislocations or broken bones to my instructor or to me ! So, there are many things in our training that can only be done with a willing and cooperative partner and can't be used in competition that would be used in a real fight.
Hopefully not going too much off topic here above with personal anecdotes. 
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Wed 18 May, 2011 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joel Minturn wrote: | | Andrew M. wrote: | First Post
I'm not an expert, though I have done a fair amount of reading about sword combat. An article that I read on the ARMA's website observed that HEMA training focuses on technique, since that is what the books we have are about. But, when modern soliders are trained, they learn a few techniques, and a lot of training in tactics. The simplicity could be that in a fight, the combatants naturally lean toward simpler blows, while manuvering to attack on the sides. I've gotten the impression that footwork is possibly the most important thing in melee combat.
My $.02 |
2. Comparing HEMA and the Fechtbuch with training soldiers isn't quite an apples to apples comparison. I believe that the fechtbuchs and instructors who wrote them were typically training the guys who wanted to be really good in a wide range of situations -War, self-defense, dueling, etc - and were willing to put in the time to train. Were as training soldiers is a bit different. Basically, train the soldier a few basics so he can survive long enough for his friend to show up and kill the enemy. |
There's also the factor that--at least at first--the techniques shown in a Fechtbuch wasn't meant for the average infantryman, but rather for the elite man-at-arms who would have been the equivalent of a Ranger or a scout sniper or some other "higher specialisation" groups who tend to get a great deal more technical training than the basic grunt. Not everyone automatically get instructions in things like fast-roping from helicopters, advanced parachute thingies (such as HALO/HAHO), or sniper-style breath control. Not that many know, either, about tricks like putting their ammo out in the sun to make their bullets fly faster and straighter--mostly because for most soldiers the benefits wouldn't have been significant enough. I wager similar considerations apply to many of the more advanced stuff in medieval and Renaissance fighting manuals.
|
|
|
|
|
Simon G.
|
| Posted: Wed 18 May, 2011 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I actually find sparring not very interesting in general, because it is often done in a manner close to sport fencing, with hits adequated to points (one way or another).
What I would like to see is tournaments encouraging skill, not hits... In the last Dijon HEMAG there was this idea during the rapier tournament (but probably not developed enough yet) that each fighter would announce a style/master he would try to adhere to and showcase (i.e. Meyer's rapier, Gérard Thibaut's rapier, etc.) and the judges then awarded a special, separate prize (independant of the prize for the actual winner of the tournament based on the usual "points") to the fighter they thought had best shown the style he had announced. This I think is a very good idea and tournaments should go towards emphasizing that, not points.
Another possibility in the same spirit would be to secretly announce a "technical dare" to a judge before a fight, i.e. I will try to get to grappling with him, I will try a disarm, I will try this or that technique etc. Then, you could win the fight with standard hits, but would be awarded a bonus to your total points (or something like that) if you meet your dare.
This would actually encourage fancy moves and give more meaning to sparring (note : I have never participed in sparring but as a spectator, apart from a few really good moves, I find it most of the time boring and not very fruitful).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dustin R. Reagan
|
| Posted: Wed 18 May, 2011 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Simon G. wrote: | I actually find sparring not very interesting in general, because it is often done in a manner close to sport fencing, with hits adequated to points (one way or another).
What I would like to see is tournaments encouraging skill, not hits... In the last Dijon HEMAG there was this idea during the rapier tournament (but probably not developed enough yet) that each fighter would announce a style/master he would try to adhere to and showcase (i.e. Meyer's rapier, Gérard Thibaut's rapier, etc.) and the judges then awarded a special, separate prize (independant of the prize for the actual winner of the tournament based on the usual "points") to the fighter they thought had best shown the style he had announced. This I think is a very good idea and tournaments should go towards emphasizing that, not points.
Another possibility in the same spirit would be to secretly announce a "technical dare" to a judge before a fight, i.e. I will try to get to grappling with him, I will try a disarm, I will try this or that technique etc. Then, you could win the fight with standard hits, but would be awarded a bonus to your total points (or something like that) if you meet your dare.
This would actually encourage fancy moves and give more meaning to sparring (note : I have never participed in sparring but as a spectator, apart from a few really good moves, I find it most of the time boring and not very fruitful). |
I like this idea, though I'm not sure what a tournament like this would be trying to promote, exactly. It is quite an assumption to equate being able to execute some of the more "exciting" techniques from the manuals with skill. Personally, I believe the more "boring" subtleties of footwork, balance, distance, and control are what true skill-at-arms consists of. These skills cross style boundaries. The fancy and exciting techniques from the manuals are just icing on the cake.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Thibodeau
|
| Posted: Wed 18 May, 2011 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with Simon that it would be much more productive to concentrate on using technique rather than winning.
Winning might be great for a competition ( sport ) but bouting to test one's ability to use a technique is much more interesting.
As an example my instructor used to have us pick from a hat a technique, and approach or specific core principle before a bout and use it no matter what and the goal was to see if we could make it work and not care too much about winning or losing.
For example one could be assigned to use a specific master stroke or concentrate on controlling measure/timing before all else in the specific bout or : Will only defend ", " Will attack first ", " Will close to wrestling " ..... etc .
My instructor always reminded us that we where bouting firstly to learn and only very lastly to win.
For a real fight in period " winning " is everything but only thinking about winning in every training bout may lead to " cheap " gaming wins but very little in acquired skills.
You can easily give up your freedom. You have to fight hard to get it back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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