| Author |
Message |
|
Patrick Kelly
|
 Posted: Sat 18 Dec, 2004 3:56 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Jack McGregor Lynn wrote: | | I agree that Clements' work is old and that we have learned alot since then, but I think that most of the basic concepts outlined in his books still apply. On another note; does anyone know of a book that tackles shield use comprehensively (apart from Clements')? I think I should really start using my bastard sword with a shield, if only to understand the full range of its techniques. |
Overall I agree with you. In fact, just a few days ago a friend was over and asked about longsword use. He's completely uneducated on the subject and the first thing I showed him was JC's book, since the shadow illustrations and such are very easy to understand in a short period of time.
One of the reasons Bob Charron's upcoming book has been delayed is because Bob realized that there were a lot of things he didn't understand when he first started writing. research in any field is an ongoing and everchanging process. (At least it should be, but often isn't when researchers become entrenched in their own theories.) I'm sure that a few years from now we'll be saying that some of the books we've recommended today are limited and inaccurate.
"In valor there is hope.".................. Tacitus
|
|
   |
 |
|
Gary Grzybek
Location: Stillwater N.J. Joined: 25 Aug 2003
Posts: 559
|
| Posted: Sat 18 Dec, 2004 7:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Kelly wrote: | | Gary Grzybek wrote: | | Bill Grandy wrote: | | I agree with Patrick. The books by John Clements were good for their time, but that was a few years ago, and since then the research into WMA has really developed. Because of that, those particular books say a lot of things that I'm sure even the author would now disagree with. |
One thing to remember is that JC was one of the first to offer any worth while information on the subject. He himself has admitted that much of the information is dated and we now know much more than previously. Honestly, I think we do not give John enough credit for his continuous efforts. His books continue to offer new students a good starting point I beleive. |
Another thing to remember is that this isn't a thread criticizing John Clements, or his past or continuing efforts in the Western Martial Arts field. The original poster asked for guidance in the selection of proper manuals for solo training. In that respect John's books are no longer the foremost material in the field. That's not a criticism. That's a simple fact. A new practitioner can get just as much and more from the recent works of Christian Tobler and Guy Windsor.
One more thing to remember is that this discussion of the merits of JC's work started with this statement.
| Quote: | | I'd really suggest John Clements' texts on the WMAs. I think that they are probably the best modern texts you can get on swordmanship. |
That I disaggree with that statement isn't an indication that I have a personal issue with the poster or with JC. It simply indicates that I disagree with the comment. We should be very careful when stating that anything is "the best" of it's kind. These matters are usually far too subjective to define within that narrow context. |
Sorry, I didn't mean to spin this thread from it's intended topic. It's just that all too often the specific request leads to a discredit which in my opinion is inapropriate. JC's books can be good starting points for the beginner as well as some others mentioned. As a matter of fact, I intend to purchase Christians second book very soon :-)
Gary
Gary Grzybek
ARMA Northern N.J.
www.armastudy.org
|
|
 |
|
|
Jack McGregor Lynn
|
| Posted: Sat 18 Dec, 2004 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rabbe Jan-Olof Laine wrote: | While I'm sure that karate would help as well, I'd also like to recommend something like wrestling. Chances are what you will learn there will be considerably more applicable to the study of historical European fighting systems, and it should do wonders to one's physical condition and strength too.
Of course, if karate is what you want to do, then go ahead, but it propably won't give as good a base for HEMA research as wrestling will. IMHO. 
Rabbe |
Also, what I've found good for just basic combat effectiveness is to study the more modern fighting styles. For example, the styles that the UFC showcases include alot of elements from wrestling while also incorporating striking skills. Also, when choosing a style, you might want to evaluate your body type before you decide. I found that, where I prefer grappling, I will usually have a greater advantage when I keep my opponent at a distance with my jab and drill in kicks at every oppertunity. ARMA has a forum about this that you might find helpful.
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 18 Dec, 2004 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rabbe Jan-Olof Laine wrote: |
Meh. Could it be that he just happened to have this odd preference for systems that actually worked? |
Ha!  Funny thing is (and I'm not the most versed in Silver, mind you), I've talked with quite a few people who've shown me Italian passages that say the same concepts and tactics that Silver said, though Silver definately states it in a much more concise and clear way.
Whether you agree or disagree with Silver's comments on the Italian rapier, he definately was a bitter man with an agenda!
Last edited by Bill Grandy on Sat 18 Dec, 2004 2:44 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Bill Grandy
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 18 Dec, 2004 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Grzybek wrote: |
Sorry, I didn't mean to spin this thread from it's intended topic. It's just that all too often the specific request leads to a discredit which in my opinion is inapropriate. JC's books can be good starting points for the beginner as well as some others mentioned. As a matter of fact, I intend to purchase Christians second book very soon :-)
Gary |
I can definately understand that. I know people have been a bit too quick to condemn in similar topics in the past, though I do think that this thread (and this particular community in general, as well!) has been really good at simply stating opinions without getting emotional or political.
I went back and looked through the Medieval Swordsmanship book after this thread. It does have a lot of useful stuff in it, and mentioned before, sword and shield is one of those things where we don't have a lot of period sources to draw from. But I still think there has been better stuff since it first came out (much of it in thanks to John Clements's book in the first place).
I still really dislike Renaissance Swordsmanship, though. While it helped dispell a lot of fencers' myths when it came out, in today's book market I feel that it is far too outdated to recommend as a basis for anything. Yes, it has some decent things in it, but there are too many innaccuracies to make it worthwhile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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